http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/07/15/militarism-%E2%80%98satpol-pp%E2%80%99.html
Militarism in 'Satpol PP' Al araf, Jakarta | Thu, 07/15/2010 10:14 AM | Opinion Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi in his recent decree allows the Public Order Agency (Satpol PP) to use blank rounds, tear gas and tasers by mid-level officers and above, including the agency head, division heads, section heads, platoon leaders and group heads (The Jakarta Post, July 8, 2010). But do we need such a stern policy? The main role and function of the agency is to nurture society and help the police and local government uphold and preserve public order. But according to human rights group Imparsial, from 2005-2010 the agency has committed 69 cases of violence. The worrying record indicates how civilian and state institutions are still prone to militaristic behavior. Even though it is not a military institution, Satpol PP very often uses violent, militaristic, uncompromising and often arrogant approaches. The fact is that the main problem of the Satpol PP issue is not only is it a deviation of its practices. Its duty often overlaps with the authority of the police. The Constitution stipulates the National Police is the only institution that is in charge of protecting security and order of society. To protect, guard, serve the society and the rule of law, is the Indonesian State Police's duty. The 2002 Police Law also mandates the same authority of police. Based on this, the authority given to the Satpol PP therefore overlaps with the authority of the police. A 2004 law states that the existence of Satpol PP is to maintain local regulations and execute public order and peace. This function clearly is one of the functions of the police. Furthermore, the law on police also states that the function of policing is given to the Polri. This authority is at a national level including all regions and areas of Indonesia. The 2002 law specifically rules in its executing its duties and res-ponsibilities, that the Polri is helped by the special police, civil servant and other spontaneous security assembly. The law determines what is meant by "special police" is institution and/or government bodies that are given authority by law to implement policing functions within a special limited technical segment. This authority is special and limited to a "questionable authority environment" (zaken gebied). Examples of "special police" are the Food and Drugs Monitoring Body and Forest Rangers. Based on the 2004 law, Satpol PP does function for policing in certain regions. But, the speciality task area is not a speciality as meant by the police law. From the perspective of authority, Satpol PP does not have any speciality in comparison to Polri. Furthermore, in the era of local autonomy, the militaristic culture of Satpol PP reflects the behavior of local governments. The local authorities push the function and role of Satpol PP to defend, preserve and justify their actions as local leaders, and not as state servants that protect society's peace and public order. Here, Satpol PP is used as the tool for local leaders to carry out its program including problematic and questionable projects that use state funds. A strong militaristic attitude by the agency can also happen because the lack of professionalism of its personnel. To over come the problems, several solutions are possible: First, integrating Satpol PP personnel to police. Second, creating a special division within the police with the special task to maintain public order. Third, disbanding the Satpol PP, which begins by the revision of the the 2004 law. The writer is the Imparsial Program director.
