Why Indonesia's new military law has sparked outrage: ‘We're going backwards'
Contentious legal revisions giving the military an expanded role in government has sparked outrage in Indonesia and raised fears of a slide back towards the country's authoritarian past.
The Indonesian parliament on Thursday voted unanimously to amend the 2004 Armed Forces Law to allow serving military officers to hold crucial civilian positions.
The amendments were pushed by the coalition government of Prabowo Subianto, a former army general and son-in-law of former dictator Suharto.
The revisions raise the retirement age for four-star generals from 60 to 63 years and allow non-commissioned officers to serve until they are 55.
They also give the president the authority to appoint military personnel to various ministries as needed, according to the draft.
The legal revisions, pro-democracy activists and analysts say, could mark a return to Indonesia 's authoritarian past when Suharto ruled for 32 years.
It was a period when the military played a role in both defence and governance, ensuring its dominance.
In protest against the revised law, violent demonstrations erupted in the capital Jakarta as enraged citizens broke through the fence of the House of Representatives building.
Police used water cannons to break up the crowds of protesters attempting to storm the building, causing injuries to many.
Some of the protesters carried banners saying, 'Return the military to the barracks!" and "Against militarism and oligarchy'.
Activists fear that allowing the military into civilian positions will restore the "dual function" of the armed services they saw during Suharto's rule.
Al Araf, director of the rights group Imparsial, said the new law was inconsistent with the spirit of the reforms that followed the end of Suharto's dictatorship in 1998 and returned the military to the barracks.
"The move has the potential to restore the authoritarian system," Mr Araf said.
That the amendments were discussed behind closed doors, in secrecy and with little public input, has also triggered anger.
The latest draft was introduced less than a month ago, following a letter to the House from Mr Subianto endorsing the bill.
Pro-democracy activists discovered that lawmakers and government officials met in secret to discuss draft revisions at a five-star hotel in South Jakarta on 15 March.
Human rights groups warn that expanding the military's role beyond defence will compromise its impartiality. Andreas Harsono, senior Indonesia researcher at Human Rights Watch, said the government's rush to adopt these amendments undercuts its expressed commitment to human rights and accountability.
'President Prabowo appears intent on restoring the Indonesian military's role in civilian affairs, which were long characterised by widespread abuses and impunity,' he said in a statement.
The Indonesian Association of Families of the Disappeared, or KontraS, which advocates for justice for victims of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and state violence during the Suharto era, said it will open 'the door to power abuse', and weaken democracy.
'Worse, this revision is being discussed behind closed doors without public participation. Activists opposing it are facing intimidation,' the group said in a statement.
Dominique Nicky Fahrizal, a researcher at Indonesia's Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said on Thursday that the way the law was drafted could prompt backlash.
"Autocratic legalism will damage the foundations of constitutional democracy because it exploits loopholes in the construction of legal thought," he said.
Defence minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin defended the amendment, saying it was necessary because 'geopolitical changes and global military technology require the military to transform … to face conventional and nonconventional conflicts'.
"We will never disappoint the Indonesian people in maintaining the sovereignty of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia," he said.
However, Laksmana, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the revisions did not address the problems faced by the Indonesian military such as adding resources for training and standardisation of hardware.
In 1965, following a failed coup attempt, General Suharto led a violent purge, killing an estimated 500,000 to a million people, mostly accused communists and leftists. This event paved the way for his authoritarian rule, known as the New Order. During his rule, a military-backed autocracy suppressed opposition, rigged elections, and controlled the media.
The military held 'dual function' roles in defence and governance and dissent against it was met with harsh measures.
Usman Hamid, head of Amnesty International in Indonesia who protested against Suharto during the New Order era, warned of the past returning.
"Activists were kidnapped and some have not returned home. And today it feels like we're going backwards," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Who benefits from Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill depends largely on income. Children are no exception
House reconciliation legislation, also known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, includes changes aimed at helping to boost family's finances. Those proposals — including $1,000 investment 'Trump Accounts' for newborns and an enhanced maximum $2,500 child tax credit — would help support eligible parents. Proposed tax cuts in the bill may also provide up to $13,300 more in take-home pay for the average family with two children, House Republicans estimate. 'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a June 8 interview with ABC News' 'This Week.' Yet the proposed changes, which emphasize work requirements, may reduce aid for children in low-income families when it comes to certain tax credits, health coverage and food assistance. Households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would lose about $1,600 per year, or about 3.9% of their income, from 2026 through 2034, according to a June 12 letter from the Congressional Budget Office. That loss is mainly due to 'reductions in in-kind transfers,' it notes — particularly Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. 20 million children won't get full $2,500 child tax credit House Republicans have proposed increasing the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, a change that would go into effect starting with tax year 2025 and expire after 2028. The change would increase the number of low-income children who are locked out of the child tax credit because their parents' income is too low, according to Adam Ruben, director of advocacy organization Economic Security Project Action. The tax credit is not refundable, meaning filers can't claim it if they don't have a tax obligation. Today, there are 17 million children who either receive no credit or a partial credit because their family's income is too low, Ruben said. Under the House Republicans' plan, that would increase by 3 million children. Consequently, 20 million children would be left out of the full child tax credit because their families earn too little, he said. 'It is raising the credit for wealthier families while excluding those vulnerable families from the credit,' Ruben said. 'And that's not a pro-family policy.' A single parent with two children would have to earn at least $40,000 per year to access the full child tax credit under the Republicans' plan, he said. For families earning the minimum wage, it may be difficult to meet that threshold, according to Ruben. In contrast, an enhanced child tax credit put in place under President Joe Biden made it fully refundable, which means very low-income families were eligible for the maximum benefit, according to Elaine Maag, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. In 2021, the maximum child tax credit was $3,600 for children under six and $3,000 for children ages 6 to 17. That enhanced credit cut child poverty in half, Maag said. However, immediately following the expiration, child poverty increased, she said. The current House proposal would also make about 4.5 million children who are citizens ineligible for the child tax credit because they have at least one undocumented parent who files taxes with an individual tax identification number, Ruben said. Those children are currently eligible for the child tax credit based on 2017 tax legislation but would be excluded based on the new proposal, he said. New red tape for a low-income tax credit House Republicans also want to change the earned income tax credit, or EITC, which targets low- to middle-income individuals and families, to require precertification to qualify. When a similar requirement was tried about 20 years ago, it resulted in some eligible families not getting the benefit, Maag said. The new prospective administrative barrier may have the same result, she said. More than 2 million children's food assistance at risk House Republican lawmakers' plan includes almost $300 billion in proposed cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, through 2034. SNAP currently helps more than 42 million people in low-income families afford groceries, according to Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Children represent roughly 40% of SNAP participants, she said. More than 7 million people may see their food assistance either substantially reduced or ended entirely due to the proposed cuts in the House reconciliation bill, estimates CBPP. Notably, that total includes more than 2 million children. 'We're talking about the deepest cut to food assistance ever, potentially, if this bill becomes law,' Bergh said. Under the House proposal, work requirements would apply to households with children for the first time, Bergh said. Parents with children over the age of 6 would be subject to those rules, which limit people to receiving food assistance for just three months in a three-year period unless they work a minimum 20 hours per week. Additionally, the House plan calls for states to fund 5% to 25% of SNAP food benefits — a departure from the 100% federal funding for those benefits for the first time in the program's history, Bergh said. States, which already pay to help administer SNAP, may face tough choices in the face of those higher costs. That may include cutting food assistance or other state benefits or even doing away with SNAP altogether, Bergh said. While the bill does not directly propose cuts to school meal programs, it does put children's eligibility for them at risk, according to Bergh. Children who are eligible for SNAP typically automatically qualify for free or reduced school meals. If a family loses SNAP benefits, their children may also miss out on those benefits, Bergh said. Health coverage losses would adversely impact families Families with children may face higher health care costs and reduced access to health care depending on how states react to federal spending cuts proposed by House Republicans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The House Republican bill seeks to slash approximately $1 trillion in spending from Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program and Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Medicaid work requirements may make low-income individuals vulnerable to losing health coverage if they are part of the expansion group and are unable to document they meet the requirements or qualify for an exemption, according to CBPP. Parents and pregnant women, who are on the list of exemptions, could be susceptible to losing coverage without proper documentation, according to the non-partisan research and policy institute. Eligible children may face barriers to access Medicaid and CHIP coverage if the legislation blocks a rule that simplifies enrollment in those programs, according to CBPP. In addition, an estimated 4.2 million individuals may be uninsured in 2034 if enhanced premium tax credits that help individuals and families afford health insurance are not extended, according to CBO estimates. Meanwhile, those who are covered by marketplace plans would have to pay higher premiums, according to CBPP. Without the premium tax credits, a family of four with $65,000 in income would pay $2,400 more per year for marketplace coverage.
NBC News
16 hours ago
- NBC News
Democrats make a mark in their rowdy pushback to Trump
All week, officials in the Trump administration hailed the images of protests against their deportation campaign in Los Angeles, saying their opponents were playing right into their hands. But on Thursday, the administration was put on the defensive. A video of Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., forced to the ground and handcuffed after he interrupted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a news conference in Los Angeles on Thursday, immediately ricocheted across social media platforms and cable news, shifting the narrative to warnings about overreach by the White House. It capped a week when the Democratic Party seemed to finally find its voice, in ways big and small, to push back against the administration. From California Gov. Gavin Newsom's questioning President Donald Trump's acuity to Padilla's move to interrupt Noem to mini-rebellions playing out at the nation's capital, Democrats began to break the hold Trump usually has on the news cycle. It comes after months of Democratic intraparty squabbling over how to move forward after a bitter loss in the presidential election. In that time, Democrats have been unable to come up with coherent, unified messaging to rebut Trump and instead have been mired in fighting about issues like whether activist David Hogg should remain part of the Democratic National Committee and who was to blame for Joe Biden's refusal to walk away from the Democratic presidential nomination earlier amid concerns of his mental decline. Last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told NBC News he was employing a flood-the-zone strategy with messaging and urging other members to do the same. And this week, the DNC voted overwhelmingly to hold a new election for Hogg's vice chair post, prompting him to quickly announce he would walk away from the position. A strategist said the resistance to Trump was a necessity after the events in Los Angeles, which Democrats say are overreach by the administration. 'Voters have been looking for this, and the circumstances have arrived,' said Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist. 'And while many people will say it should have happened sooner, given the series of events — this week alone — everyone had to step up. There was no choice.' Nationwide protests planned for Saturday also threaten to overshadow Trump's upcoming military parade in Washington. On Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., demanded a bipartisan investigation into the Padilla incident as Democratic senators took turns sounding off about what they called overbearing tactics by the Trump administration that undermined democracy. When House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., stood before cameras in the Capitol to call Padilla's actions 'wildly inappropriate,' shouting could be heard interrupting him: 'That's a lie!' At a hearing Thursday of the House Oversight Committee, where three Democratic governors of so-called sanctuary states were hauled before the panel, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul got salty at one point with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. 'You stated that you're a proud registered Democrat?' Greene asked. 'Yes, I did," Hochul shot back. "Is that illegal now, too, in your country?' At another point in the hearing, Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., interrupted and repeatedly asked whether Republicans would subpoena Noem. He irritated committee chair James Comer, R-Ky. to the point that Comer snapped: 'Just shut up!' That all followed relentless pushback from Newsom since last week. Newsom went on his own messaging campaign to rebut a barrage of insults that Trump and his deputy chief of staff and key immigration official Stephen Miller have fired at him and his California. Trump federalized the National Guard and deployed Marines to California after protests broke out in response to arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The White House repeatedly pointed to burning cars and protesters' throwing rocks as the impetus for sending troops to the state, with Trump proclaiming that if he had he not, Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground." Most of the protests, however, have taken place only in a few blocks downtown. The Los Angeles police chief said this week that the force was equipped and experienced enough to handle the events in the city on its own and did not ask for assistance from the National Guard. Democrats have pointed to Trump's deployments as a vast overreach of presidential powers and an attempt to militarize blue cities. Amid the upheaval, Newsom delivered remarks this week saying Trump was trying to install an authoritarian regime. He has taken to podcasts and sat for countless news interviews while he and his office regularly rebut Trump administration statements on X. On Thursday, he went further, raising concerns about Trump's mental acuity. In an interview on The New York Times' podcast 'The Daily,' Newsom charged that Trump 'starts making up all these things he claimed he told me about, which honestly starts to disturb me on a different level." He was referring to Trump's comments that he had a phone call Monday with Newsom that Newsom said did not happen. 'Maybe he actually believed he said those things and he's not all there. I mean that," Newsom added. White House spokesman Steven Cheung shot back in a statement: 'The attacks on President Trump are rich, coming from Gavin Newsom, who in this past election tried to gaslight and lied to the American public about Joe Biden's decline. Gavin Newsom will never be president, even as he tries to peddle these lies.' Noem and others in the administration said they did not know who Padilla was during the news conference and thought a stranger was lunging at her as she spoke. Noem contended that Padilla did not identify himself, but video showed otherwise. ' I am Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla called out, interrupting Noem. Padilla was forcibly removed from the room, and video showed him being forced onto his stomach and cuffed. 'If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country,' Padilla told reporters. 'We will hold this administration accountable.' From the Senate floor, Warren tried to make a larger point about the incident. 'Every day, DHS agents are throwing people to the ground while they are not resisting," Warren said. "Every day Donald Trump is making this nation look more and more like a fascist state. ... We all have to ask: How far will they go? How violent will they get?'
The Herald Scotland
20 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump says Elon Musk 'doesn't like me' at EV mandate repeal event
"Which he does actually, he does," Trump added before he moved on. Trump and the wealthy businessman have been sparring over a separate piece of legislation: the GOP's tax cut bill, which passed the House at the end of May and is pending before the Senate. At the height of their dispute, on June 5, Musk said that Trump appeared "in the Epstein files." The allegation referred to documents the federal government compiled on disgraced financier and child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on sex trafficking charges. Musk took down this post less than 48 hours later. Musk said in a June 11 post that he regretted some of his posts about Trump during the spat without specifying which ones. "They went too far," he said. The two men reportedly spoke by phone before the written apology. Trump at a June 12 event at the White House called Musk a "friend of mine" while conveying a different exchange about electric vehicles that he said they'd had prior to their falling out. Apology accepted? Elon Musk called Donald Trump before expressing 'regret' for harsh attacks The president said Musk did not push him off his bid to abolish California's electric vehicle sales mandate. He said that when he raised the issue with Musk, who campaigned for him in 2024, the businessman told him, "As long as it's happening to everybody, I'll be able to compete." Trump said he told Musk that his response was "very cool." "After that, he got a little bit strange. I'm not sure why, over much smaller things than that," Trump said of their dispute. Trump previously claimed that Musk went "CRAZY" over his plans to undo California's law, which required a shift to EVs in California by 2035. "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump said in a Truth Social post. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy
