Critical Discourse Analysis Van Djik Model on Program Breaking

News in Berita1.tv about Terrorism Incident in Surabaya

Made Gede Dwi Susantha S.

1. Introduction

Breaking News program on Berita1.tv edition on Sunday, May 13, 2018 chose terrorism
as its theme that day, in this broadcasting channel, the program invited the chief of the BIN’s
Information and Communication Division; Mr. Wawan Purwanto as the guest. This broadcasting
was triggered by misfortunate terrorism incident in Surabaya. This program is to give an
explanation about what just happened to the people in Indonesia.
Just simply broadcasting the report in form of news about act of terrorism that happened in
the field though mass media is not a new thing. But inviting a guest who is considered as a figure
who plays a role in the handling of acts of terrorism and provide relevant explanations about it
deserves to be considered. This is kind of act indicates that there is a discourse that is being
developed and it considered to be a worth matter to be analyzed. Due to the critical situation like
this where many people get panic because of the act of terrorism it is very important that someone
with authority and responsibility should talk on behalf of the government side and police officers
side to muffle the fear and give explanation or instruction about what was currently going on.
Seeing this, the researcher get interested in conducting study entitled about discourse which is built
on that program which is entitled “Critical Discourse Analysis Van Djik Model on Program
Breaking News in Berita1.tv about Terrorism Incident in Surabaya”
In relevance with discourse analysis, Fitriani (2011) has ever done similar study which is
entitled "Discourse Analysis Critical Imaging Susilo Bambang Yudhoyonoas Politician in Mr.
Beye's Book and Politics ". In this study discussed certain things which became the symbol of
SBY's imagery analyzed from various aspects, such as syntax, diction, rhetoric, and scheme. Such
research is made as guidelines in analyzing critical discourse against the specified object. Although
different object of study, and different theoretical basis this study still can be used as reference,
guidance, and comparison materials for carry out this study.
This study would use Critical discourse Analysis Van Djik Model as theoretical basis
which sees the structure of the discourse consist of three parts, namely: microstructure, super
structural, and macro structures The focus of this study is on the structure of the discourse built on
Breaking News program on Berita1.tv edition on Sunday, May 13, 2018.
Based on the background that has been described, there are three problems. How
microstructure analysis, super structural analysis, and analysis of macro structures in Breaking
News program on News1.tv edition on Sunday, May 13, 2018?
Based on the description of the above problem formulation there are three purpose of the
study, namely: Describing analysis of micro structure, super structure, and structure macro in the
Breaking News program on News1.tv edition on Sunday, May 13, 2018

2. Research Method

The focus of this study is about Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by using Van Djik
Model that covers 3 structures of discourse namely macro structures, super structure and micro
structures on text which was taken from the on the Breaking News on the television channel
Berita1.tv which was published on May 13th, 2018. The aim of this study is describing analysis of
micro structure, super structure, and structure macro in the Breaking News program on News1.tv
edition on Sunday, May 13, 2018.The method used in this study is descriptive qualitative method.
Descriptive qualitative method is a method that tries to explain object of the study in form of data
quotation as a report description. Qualitative research is a research that is aimed to understand the
phenomenon which is experienced by the subject of the study for example behavior, perception,
motivation, holistic action through description in form of words and language expression in certain
context using scientific method (Moleong, 1994). The subject of this study is the news of
bombardment of Surabaya which can be found on Breaking News on Berita1.tv channel published
on May 13th, 2018 meanwhile the object of the study was the discourse that appeared during the
Breaking News on Berita1.tv.
In collecting the data the researcher used observation method. The type of observation
method used was nonparticipation observation method which means that the researchers only be
an observer and not directly involved in the process of the event program being observed. Method
observation is used to observe critically the course of program Breaking News on the television
channel Berita1.tv which was published on May 13th, 2018 to get data in the form of discourse
which appears during the show.
 In this study, researchers act as the main instrument based on the criteria understood in this
study the criteria is used based on Van Djik’s theory about the structure of the discourse. Van Djik
Divided three levels of discourse structure, namely: macro structure, superstructure and micro
structure (Van Djik, 2001). Researchers are required to have the ability and knowledge about
matters relating to research problems. This means that researchers must be sensitive, capable, and
critical, because researchers act as planners, implementers, data makers, analyzers, as well as
reporting research results. To produce sufficient data, in this study, researchers used all knowledge
researchers based on critical discourse analysis theory. Instruments in the study this can be seen
on table below
Text Structure Things which are observed Elements
Macro Structure Thematic Topic
Super Structure Schematic Scheme
Micro Structure Semantic Style Background, detail, meaning,
Meaning which want to be preposition, nominalization
insisted from the text
Syntaxes Style Sentence form, coherence.
How sentence is formed and pronoun
word organization of the text
Stylistics Style Lexicon
How the diction is used in
news discourse
Rhetoric Style Graphic, metaphor, expression
How and in what way the
tendency is done

After the data were obtained by using the instruments. The data were analyzed by using
Qualitative data analysis procedure based on the model interactive Milles (1992: 16) that has been
known common in the field of research. In general, analysis data using the model includes three
stages, namely (1) data reduction, (2) data presentation, and (3) verification or withdrawal of
conclusions. Third these stages interact, starting from data collection and ends on completion
writing of research report. All these stages have a process interrelationship between one with which
others.

3. Finding and Result

3.1 Macro Structure

Van Djik (2001) defines topic as macrostructure of discourse. From the topic we can know
the problem and what can of decision that was taken by the communicators. Attitude, decision,
and opinion can be observed to the macrostructures of discourse. Macrostructure can give insight
what must be done to overcome the problem. Topic is supported by subtopic. Every subtopic can
support, strengthen and shape the main topic. Explicit cognition of the communicators can be
observed through the topic of news. That’s why all the elements in the news refers to the topic of
the news. In the breaking news on Berita1.tv which was being analyzed, the researcher found that
the topic of the news was about the “Terrorism Incident in Surabaya”. This topic was chosen due
to the terrorism incident which shockingly made atmosphere of fear to all people in Indonesia. In
general in all segments that were shown during the broadcast all of them refers to find out reason
why such as incident could happen and what can be done to prevent such a thing to happen in the
future. In this breaking news the show was in form of interview with the chief of BIN’s information
and communication division, Mr. Wawan Purwanto and this interview was led by Ellyza Hasan as
the presenter of the Breaking News in Berita1.tv channel. The topic from this discourse can be
seen from the beginning of the interview which can be seen on the data below:

A :“Right now we are with Mr, Wawan Purwanto the chief of Information and
Communication Division of BIN. Sir Wawan, in response with what you have discussed
with our partner Carlos Michael there, if this is a sequence of what happened in Mako
Brimob, if you said so then where is the problem sir? Do they see this as a weakness or
a gap then it can be said that they have stolen from us when we were sleeping so then
incident in Surabaya happened?”

From the data above it can be seen that the presenter started the interview by introducing the
interviewee that day and just went straight to the leading question to the topic of the discourse
which is about asking why bombardment in Surabaya could happen. In this leading question can
be said that the presenter lead the interview by putting the emphasis on the reason or background
why this incident could happen. As the interview went by the presenter also kept on giving the
question by following the answer given by the interviewee without losing track from the main
topic of the news which can be seen on the data below:

A : “hmm if it is like you said that we should cooperate to each other from all society elements
that exist nowadays then where does the mistake lies on? Thus the incident like this could
happen? If we see these critical moments after the incident in Mako Brimob did we make
mistake there in preventing it from happening”

From the data above it can be described that the presenter follow the discussion based on the topic
and the answer given by the interviewee. She tried to get more information about why this incident
could happened and what have been done in preventing it from happening.
The topic of the discourse also can be obtained through all the interviewee response to the
presenter’s question which can be seen below:

B : “Frankly, it is like if someone wants to blow something up and they see a tight guard they
may abort what they want to do. Wherever it is or whoever they are if they see a tight guard
they may feel afraid of executing what they want to do because they may think it is too risky
for them. The preventing action that has been done so far is like cat chasing after mouse.
In this position we should consider that we shouldn’t arrest without enough evidence or
doing certain operation. The only thing that the officers could do is only doing a patrol
because it is actually the difference of authority that we have between before and after the
reformation era that constitution nowadays puts it emphasis on the application of human
rights. That’s it that becomes the crucial point to revise the anti-terror constitution. In DPR
presently is focusing its matter to revise the authority matter in preventing the terrorism
and how to deal with it.”

From the answer of the interviewee above it can be seen that the interviewee answer the question
of the presenter in a clear way without going out from the topic which was being discussed. He
gave a clear statement above why it was hard to prevent the terror and what the police officers
have done in preventing it.
As a complete discourse from the beginning until the end, the presenter and the interviewee
discussed about the topic “Terrorism Incident in Surabaya” which covers all the content from the
discourse which is being analyzed. If it is seen more detail about the topic “Terrorism Incident in
Surabaya” the subtopic would be about “The reason of this accident to happen” and “the preventive
action taken against terrorism”.

3.2 Super Structure

The second structure is Super Structure which consist of Scheme. According to Van Djik
(2001), states that the main point of schematic is the strategy of the speaker to support certain
theories that are about to be delivered by organizing certain parts with a certain sequence.
Schematic gives emphasis on which part to be highlighted and which part to be hidden. Text or
discourse in general has a plot or scheme to be followed. The plot itself shows how parts from the
text are organized to form a whole meaning. Based on the text analyzed the scheme of the news in
general can be seen on the table below:

No. Segments Details

1 Opening Ellyza Halan introduces the interviewee that
day and just go through to the topic by using
leading question directly to the interviewee
2 Context  Mr. Wawan answered the questions
addressed to him and answered it
properly in a clear way.
 The presenter responded the
interviewee answer by followed it up
by using futher questions that were
closely related to the topic.
 Based on the flow of the discussion
there were six main questions that were
used. The topics of the question closely
related to the topic “Terrorism Incident
in Surabaya”. Those questions are
about the background of this incident,
the difficulty in preventing the terror,
 the action taken against terror
(preventive)
3 Closing The presenter closed the discussion without
summing up

The detail of the schemes of the discussion started with the opening. In the opening the presenter
started it with some introduction and jumped into the leading question which can be seen below:

A : “Right now we are with Mr, Wawan Purwanto the chief of Information and
Communication Division of BIN. Sir Wawan, in response with what you have discussed
with our partner Carlos Michael there, if this is a sequence of what happened in Mako
Brimob, if you said so then where is the problem sir? Do they see this as a weakness or a
gap then it can be said that they have stolen from us when we were sleeping so then incident
in Surabaya happened?”

In the opening sections it can be seen that the leading question was “if this is a sequence of
what happened in Mako Brimob, if you said so then where is the problem sir? Do they see this as
a weakness or a gap then it can be said that they have stolen from us when we were sleeping so
then incident in Surabaya happened?” From the question showed that the presenter emphasized
on question the Chief Wawan as the representative of BIN (stands for Badan Intelegen Negara
which is a division which deals with terror and any other intelligent action) which seen as the side
who is responsible to deal with this matter. The questions also represents a kind of disappointment
proven by the expression” it can be said that they have stolen from us when we were sleeping”
which could be interpreted that the failure in keeping the people safe from terror. This strong
expression also shows that this incident is unexpectedly shocking and the followed words “so
then incident in Surabaya happened?” this question besides asking the background of this incident
also shows the feeling of the presenter which represent people of Indonesia about the feeling of
being shocked and still can’t believe why this accident could happen.
Super structural analysis also criticizes the content in the discourse. The contents of the
discourse in this program is in the form of questions, answers delivered in calm and but serious
way concerning the matter being discussed is a very crucial matter that is terrorism. The quotation
of the context discourse can be seen below:
 In response with the presenter questions that lead the discussion it can be said that the
interviewee gave their rationale in this matter which is about the background of this incident to
happen. In giving his response the interviewee told that this matter is an issue that can’t be
addressed alone by the police officer. In here it can be seen that he spoke on behalf of government
perspective. It can be said that if this incident was about to happen the government itself is not one
to blame implicitly in their words

“because we have to realize that we can’t do it alone we have to do it together because this
terrorist matter is a matter that all the society elements have to deal with and to participate”

This argument was also supported by its following supporting details in their words

“This thing that we have been worked on to be kept on rolling after the incident in Mako
Brimob and this chain of commands have been spread out to every region in Indonesia to
remind them that there will be an attack. In fact the alternative target is hard to predict
because it comes back to the doer itself for example the suspect wants to execute the
bombardment in Jakarta but suddenly they change their mind randomly. Especially with the
specialized bomb that they developed where it can explode if it is skewed or given a certain
pressure or using remote or with other specialized feature such as using burner. These such
a thing is only known by the doer itself meanwhile we as the police officer could only do a
blockade, predict and prioritize which one is the main target and alternative target regarding
to that only the doer who knows about where they want to attack..

In this argument the interviewee put a stress on the things that his men had done regarding to the
issue proven by it is restated twice in a period of his turn to talk. This emphasis on also strengthen
by the use of dictions used here such as “This thing that we have been worked on to be kept on
rolling after the incident…” this diction shows that he emphasized on making the presenter and as
well as the people of Indonesia who were watching to be sure that he and his men already had
given their all in making the necessary action to make condition safe and even though they had
done their best this incident still happened stated implicitly.
 On his argument the interviewee also added details of what he and his men difficulty in
facing the terrorist. Which about the benefit that the terrorist had.

In his word ” These such a thing is only known by the doer itself meanwhile we as the police
officer could only do a blockade, predict and prioritize which one is the main target and
alternative target regarding to that only the doer who knows about where they want to
attack.”

It can be seen that in expressing his answer in response with the presenter question, he told the
only things they could do as police officers in this the interviewee shows kind of desperation in
facing the terrorist about how could they know what terrorist thinks where the want to explode a
bomb. he also used analogy “…is like cat chasing after mouse” which can be described as chasing
something small, fast, clever to hide in a very big house”
In the following argument the interviewer is no longer saw thing from the perspective of
government but more specific to his own role as police officer in which the difficulty doesn’t only come
from the terrorist but also from the regulation that government made.

“The only thing that the officers could do is only doing a patrol because it is actually the difference
of authority that we have between before and after the reformation era that constitution nowadays
puts it emphasis on the application of human rights. That’s it that becomes the crucial point to
revise the anti-terror constitution.”

In his word he spoke as police officer he shows the difference between the authority he once had
in the past and what he got in the present. In his words he also showed his disappointment in the
present constitution of anti-terrorism, he didn’t say it is bad to look after Human rights but he just
wanted to get more authority to do anything necessary to prevent any misfortune brought by
terrorist. Moreover he added more emphasis on the why the terror is more difficult to prevent in
his words he even used metaphor in expressing them:

“Yes, this gap is being toyed because there is no perfect constitution. The constitution that we find
it difficult to make is reviewed every day in Mahkamah Konstitusi so then there are some critical
protocols that lost.”
“This what made our blade becomes dull in this democracy era that we have chosen to be…”
 “But in the field the police officers is just like a dog that has been taken away its fangs; it can
only bark without biting. Moreover, the terrorist is good at playing hide and seek, it becomes their
nature to hide a thing…”

Those expression also showed the interviewee intention of revising the constitution of anti-terror to give
them as a police officer more authority do any actions necessary to prevent the terror. In the closing segment
the presenter didn’t sum up the discussion and just end up the session.

3.3 Micro Structure

In this study of Critical Discourse Analysis of Breaking News on Berita1.tv would be also
analyzed from its Micro structure. According to Van Djik approaches (2001) the micro structure
consists of semantics style, Syntaxes Style, Stylistics and Rhetoric Style.

3.3.1 Semantics Style

Semantics is meanings that is wanted to be emphasized on the text which can be
seen from several things such as background, detail, intent, and prefix. Background,
details and intentions relate to which information is emphasized and gets more
portions. Meanwhile, the pre assumption element is a statement used to support the
meaning of a text. From the data there are some words that have local meaning
which can be seen below:

“Do they see this as a weakness or a gap then it can be said that they have
stolen from us when we were sleeping so then incident in Surabaya
happened?”

“Yes, this gap is being toyed…”

The meaning of gap here doesn’t refer to an empty space or opening in the middle
of something or between two things: it is not like gap on the window, or doors or
any other things, but the gap here refers to weakness in our constitution of anti-
terror which used as an advantage by the terrorist.
3.3.2 Syntaxes Style
Syntax relates to how the sentence is chosen. Syntax can be seen from coherence,
denial, sentence form, and pronoun. In this discourse the thing that highlighted is
about how the presenter asked the question. The detail can be seen below.
“The alternative target that you mention, shouldn’t we prevent it first? (eee) I
mean that we anticipated it of course by the related officers. That there is actually
if main target was hard to be executed then they would attack the alternative one,
is there preventive action that has been done so far?”
“hmm if it is like you said that we should cooperate to each other from all society
elements that exist nowadays then where does the mistake lies on? Thus the
incident like this could happen? If we see these critical moments after the incident
in Mako Brimob did we make mistake there in preventing it from happening?”

From the of data above the presenter in asking question always repeat the
idea that had been argued by the interviewee, in syntaxes it is seen as clarification,
the clarification used here by the presenter is aimed to make sure about the answer
given by the interviewee, furthermore the presenter wanted the interviewee to
elaborate the answer he gave, if it is related to context of situation where the just
a terror happened the presenter wanted the interviewee to make a clear statement
that everything is needed is already done to address the issue of terrorism here. Or
in the other words the presenter also wanted the interviewee to make a statement
that could make the people sure that they are safe and the police officer and any
other related staff is taking action in this issue.

The other things to be highlighted here also how the interviewee answer the
questions. In answering the question the interviewee always started by using words
“In fact, Frankly, In the field, Actually” if it is analyzed it can be interpreted that
the interviewee really wanted to give a clear description about how it really
happened in the field (to be concerned that he is police officer) he wanted to give
a clear clarification about the differences of perspective him as police officer and
public opinion that grew in the society about how polices works why could this
misfortune could happen and who to blame what action that had been taken.
3.3.3 Stylistics Style
Stylistic relates to how the word choice is used in the news text. The stylistic
element is known as the lexicon. Basically the lexicon signifies how one does the
selection of words from the many options available.
“….moments after the incident in Mako Brimob did slip (lalai) there in preventing
it from happening?”

Based on the data above it can be seen that in expressing the question the presenter used
word slip (lalai) which means something (bad) that happens without we want to do it on
purpose. if it is interpreted it is kind of sarcasm which is pointed by the presenter as behalf
of the people in society on the interviewee as he spoke on government and police officers’
behalf.

3.3.4 Rhetorical Style

Rhetoric deals with how and in what way emphasis is being made.
Rhetorical can be seen from the use of graphics, metaphors and expressions.
Graphics look at the use of graphics, images, or tables to support the importance of
a message. The graph element gives cognitive effect, in the sense that it controls
intensive attention and interest and indicates that the information is important and
should be considered.
From the data that have been analyzed there are some rhetorical that can be
found which can be seen below:

“Yes, this gap is being toyed because there is no perfect constitution. The
constitution that we find it difficult to make is reviewed every day in Mahkamah
Konstitusi so then there are some critical protocols that lost.”
“This what made our blade becomes dull in this democracy era that we have
chosen to be…”
“But in the field the police officers is just like a dog that has been taken away its
fangs; it can only bark without biting. Moreover, the terrorist is good at playing
hide and seek, it becomes their nature to hide a thing…”
Based on the data found the interviewee used rhetorical style here to strengthen his
argument about or even show his feeling regarding to this issue. For example “the gap is
 being toyed…” it can be seen that the interviewee is pissed off by the terrorist because they
used the gap in anti terror constitution to hide themselves and strike. the other example is
“…is just like a dog that has been taken away its fangs; it can only bark without biting…”
in this example it can be seen the interviewee’s depression and he felt powerless because
they can’t take any other means of action rather than patrolling because he didn’t have any
authority like he and his men once had in the past.

4. Conclusion

Based on the finding and result of the study, it can be concluded that critical discourse
analysis Van Dijk model on Breaking News in Berita1.tv, there are three things that can be drawn.
First relates to the analysis of macro structures. The macro structures which is the theme of this
discourse is about “Terrorism Incident in Surabaya” which covers all the content from the
discourse which is being analyzed. If it is seen more detail about the topic “Terrorism Incident in
Surabaya” the subtopics would be about “The reason of this accident to happen” and “the
preventive action taken against terrorism”.
Second is super structure analysis. The super structure in this study analyzes the related
preliminaries, contents, conclusions and conclusions in the discourse of the entire segment. In the
introduction, the show was opened by a series of words from Breaking News on Berita1.tv’s
presenter and followed by series of question that lead the interview on tracks. And the content is
about the background how the incident of terrorism in Surabaya could happened, what have been
done to do such a thing to happened and closed by the presenter without summing up about what
have been discussed.
The third is related to microstructure analysis. Analysis of microstructure includes
semantic, syntactic, stylistic, and rhetorical elements. In general, the results of the study of
semantic, syntactic, and stylistic elements, indicate there are some discourses that have implicit
meaning. The implicit message's charges are, of course, to inculcate their mental ideology, to
articulate intentions, and to influence the mind-set. The pressures given in the choice of words are
used also to convince the public of assuring them that the government and police officers have
done what are necessary but this terrorist matter is ours all of the elements of the society to deal
with.
References

Antarunsur.Bandung : PT Refika Aditama Matthew, Milles. 1992. Analisis Data Kualitatif.

Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya. Schhniffrin.2007. Ancangan Kajian Wacana.
Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar

Fitriyani, A. (2011). “Analisis Wacana Kritis Pencitraan Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono sebagai
Politikus dalam Buku Pak Beye dan Politiknya”. Skripsi (S-1). Yogyakarta: Fakultas
Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta.
http://repository.upnyk.ac.id/2099/1/AMALIA_FITRIYANI. PDF

Sobur, Alex. (2009). Analisis Teks Media: Suatu Pengantar untuk Analisis Wacana, Analisis
Semiotik, dan Analisis Framing. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya Offset.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis, Book 1.Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia.
Attachment 1

Data Transcription
Translated Version
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwKHDE4-F9o accessed on 24 June 2018
Please note that
A : Ellyza Hasan (The news presenter)
B : Mr. Wawan Purwanto (The chief of BIN’s Information and Communication Division)

A : “Right now we are with Mr, Wawan Purwanto the chief of Information and
Communication Division of BIN. Sir Wawan, in response with what you have discussed
with our partner Carlos Michael there, if this is a sequence of what happened in Mako
Brimob, if you said so then where is the problem sir? Do they see this as a weakness or a
gap then it can be said that they have stolen from us when we were sleeping so then incident
in Surabaya happened?

B : “So now, truthfully it was planned on May 11th as an all-out attack but (eee) the blocking
that officers done was strong in whole police department in every part in Indonesia, because
their aim was police department headquarter and the other police facilities. If the main
target was hard to pass through they would find alternative target, like what happened in
Thamrin bombardment that time they actually wanted to attack at (eeee) Christmas (eee)
but they delayed it almost two weeks after that.”

A : “Okay, isn’t it?”

B : “Yes, like that”

A : “The alternative target that you mention, shouldn’t we prevent it first? (eee) I mean that
we anticipated it of course by the related officers. That there is actually if main target was
hard to be executed then they would attack the alternative one, is there preventive action
that has been done so far?
B : “Actually we have spread the chain of commands to all elements whether it is local police
offices or society to strengthen their security in action to improve the capacity building
because we have to realize that we can’t do it alone we have to do it together because this
terrorist matter is a matter that all the society elements have to deal with and to participate
and to block by using existing systems such as SISKAMLING system in every local area
meanwhile the police officer just have to patrol and remind the people that the system such
as KAMTIBNAS or any other group should be operated to detect and prevent bad things
from happening. If they find some malicious things they should report it to the police
officers as soon as possible. This thing that we have been worked on to be keep on rolling
after the incident in Mako Brimob and this chain of commands have been spread out to
every region in Indonesia to remind them that there will be an attack. In fact the alternative
target is hard to predict because it comes back to the doer itself for example the suspect
wants to execute the bombardment in Jakarta but suddenly they change their mind
randomly. Especially with the specialized bomb that they developed where it can explode
if it is skewed or given a certain pressure or using remote or with other specialized feature
such as using burner. These such a thing is only known by the doer itself meanwhile we as
the police officer could only do a blockade, predict and prioritize which one is the main
target and alternative target regarding to that only the doer who knows about where they
want to attack.”

A : “hmm if it is like you said that we should cooperate to each other from all society elements
that exist nowadays then where does the mistake lies on? Thus the incident like this could
happen? If we see these critical moments after the incident in Mako Brimob did slip there
in preventing it from happening?

B : “Frankly, it is like if someone wants to blow something up and they see a tight guard they
may abort what they want to do. Wherever it is or whoever they are if they see a tight guard
they may feel afraid of executing what they want to do because they may think it is too
risky for them. The preventing action that has been done so far is like cat chasing after
mouse. In this position we should consider that we shouldn’t arrest without enough
evidence or doing certain operation. The only thing that the officers could do is only doing
a patrol because it is actually the difference of authority that we have between before and
 after the reformation era that constitution nowadays puts it emphasis on the application of
human rights. That’s it that becomes the crucial point to revise the anti-terror constitution.
In DPR presently is focusing its matter to revise the authority matter in preventing the
terrorism and how to deal with it.

A : “If you see this as the issue here that we are slowed down by our own constitution?”

B : “The problem here is we don’t have such an authority, don’t you think in the past we felt
relatively safer than nowadays? Because back then we could capture anyone suspicious
whether proven guilty or not, after certain interrogation if they aren’t guilty then we release
them. It was in the past, but after the constitution is revised which is emphasized on human
rights we couldn’t do kind of thing anymore without any strong evidence in short we can
do nothing but patrolling. This is what made our sudden inspection we couldn’t find a thing
in their warfare training but wooden weapon.”

A : “So then that is the gap that is taken by the terrorist as a weakness of our regulation as an
opportunity to strike us isn’t it?

B : “Exactly”

A : “So then it becomes their benefit, isn’t it?”

B : “Yes, this gap is being toyed because there is no perfect constitution. The constitution
that we find it difficult to make is reviewed every day in Mahkamah Konstitusi so then
there are some critical protocols that lost. This what made our blade becomes dull in this
democracy era that we have chosen to be (eeee) finally what is left just to blame each other
even in fact this matter is an up and downstream matter that we can just simply blame the
upstream or the downstream. But in the field the police officers is just like a dog that has
been taken away its fangs; it can only bark without biting. Moreover, the terrorist is good
at playing hide and seek, it becomes their nature to hide a thing, especially lone wolf, the
lone wolf moves by its own for example if they see this picture (pointing at the monitor
that shows a video recording of what happened in Mako Brimob attack) like this, if they
see this video they would suddenly find anything they can use to attack, it is on their mind,
it is unpredictable or maybe it is kind of split personality.”
A : “Alright, lets continue our discussion later on the next breaking news, stay tune on
Berita1.tv”

Attachment 2

Data Transcription
Original Version
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwKHDE4-F9o accessed on 24 June 2018
Please note that
A : The news presenter
B : Mr. Wawan Purwanto (The chief of BIN’s Information and Communication Division)

A : “Ya saat ini kita masih bersama dengan Bapak Wawan Purwato direktur komunikasi dan
informasi dari BIN, Pak Wawan tadi kalau kita menanggapi apa yang tadi anda sudah
bicarakan dengan rekan kami Carlos Michael bahwa memang adakah, kalau memang ini
kelanjutan dari yang kemarin di Mako Brimob, anda katakana demikian, lalu ini
masalahnya dimana Pak, apakah mereka melihat titik lemah disini atau celah atau bisa
dikatakan kecolongan hingga akhirnya di Surabaya mereka melakukan tindakan ini?”

B : “Jadi sekarang sebetulnya kan direncanakan di tanggal 11 Mei Secara besar besaran tapi
kan (eee) blocking aparat itu kuat dan seluruh kepolisian yang ada di Metro dan berbagai
wilayah di Indonesa, karena memang mereka sasarannya adalah markas polisi dan sarana
kepolisian, nah sasaran regular susah ditembus akhirnya cari sasaran alternative, sasaran
alternative ya, sama kayak dulu kemarin bom Thamrin itu kan dia mau menyerang di (eee)
Natal (eeee) tapi dia geser hampir 2 minggu setelah itu.”

A : “Oke, nah”

B : “Baik seperti itu”

A : “Sasaran alternative itu tidakkah harusnya dicegah terlebih dahulu (eee) maksudnya kita
kan mengantisipasi pastinya dari pihak pihak terkait bahwa memang sasaran utama tidak
bisa dilakukan oleh karena itu sasaran alternatif akan dilakukan, apakah ada pencegahan
dini sejauh ini?”
B : “Sebetulnya kita sudah menyampaikan pada seluruh elemen baik itu aparat keamanan
ataupun masyaakat termasuk pihak keamanan local terkait untuk memperketat capacity
building karena memang harus disadari bahwa kita harus bersama sama tidak bisa sendiri
sendiri partial karena tugas ini tidak hanya teroris tapi semua elemen harus dilibatkan
partisipasi masyarakat diperlukan untuk memblok dan melokalisir seperti sistim
SISKAMLING lah dan dilingkungan masing masing untuk dikerjakan. Sementara yang
aparat yang lain patroli istilahnya, mengingatkan ada kelompok KAMTIBNAS atau
kelompok ada rukun dan ini (eeee) bagaimana untuk sama sama mendeteksi dan mencegah
dan melapor cepet jika ada sesuatu yang mencurigakan harus melapor cepat yang inilah
yang dicoba terus menerus di gulirkan pasca adanya kerusuhan di Mako Brimob dan itu
sudah disebarkan di berbagai wilayah di Indonesia untuk untuk bahwa ini aka nada
serangan,, memang yang namanya alternatif dan emergency kan kembali ke orangnya
misalnya disini Jakarta ya sudah saya ke tempat lain atau emergency ngawur gitu bisa saja
terjadi apalagi apalagi kalau ada yang namanya sudah menggunakan bom dengan karakter
tertentu yang misalnya sedikit miring atau tertekan bisa meledak atau dengan
menggunakan remote, atau dengan kapasitas lain seperti dengan sumbu nah ini cuma
pelakunya saja yang tau atau paham sementara kita sebagai aparat sifatnya hanya memblok
mana yang utama dan alternatif, terkait masalah sasaran alternative ya tergantung dia
karena pelakunya nah itu (eee) apa mendadak bisa terjadi tidak di lokasi yang menjadi
sasaran utama.

A : “hmmm kalo memang, harus ada kerjasama diantara seluruh lini yang ada saat iini, berarti
ini ada kelalaian dimana kah sebernarnya hingga akhirnya kejadian ini terjadi karena kalau
kita lihat (eeee) masa masa momen ini setelah terjadinya di Mako Brimob apakah ada
masa lengah disitu sehingga terjadi atau seperti apa sebenarnya?”

B : “iya sebetulnya begini mba kalau yang namanya (eee) sesorang mau meledak jika dia
melihat penjagaan ketat dia pasti mengurungkan niatnya pasti itu. Mau bergerak
kemanapun begitu ada sesuatu yang menggentarkan dia, biasanya dia pasti mundur. Nah
ini yang terjadi, huh bagi yang memegang sesuatu (batuk) ini kan beresiko bagi dirinya
andaikata tidak tidak diledakkan ataupun karena ini adalah karakter bomb yang tadi
dikatakan upaya pemblokan yang sejauh ini udah dilakukan hanya seperti kucing sama
 tikus tadi uber uberan dalam posisi ini dan didasari bahwa (batuk) tanpa bukti yang
mendukung didak diperkenankan melakukan penangkapan atau melakukan operasi
tertentu. Yang bisa polisi lakukan adalah hanya patrol karena memang berbeda undang
undangnya sebelum dan setelah reformasi yaitu bahwa lebih mengedepankan HAM nah ini
menjadi ttik krusial keinginan untuk merevisi UU Anti Teror. Di DPR sekarang ini menjadi
proses penggodokan termasuk kewenangan preentif itu.”

A : “Jika anda melihat ini salah satu masalahnya juga bahwa terhambat dari UU tersebut?”

B : “Kendala disini kewenangan tidak boleh, kalau dulu terasa relatif aman karena apa?
terbukti ga terbukti ya ditangkap kalau tidak ya dilepas. Itu dulu stelah dihapus kemudian
diubah UU nya yang sangat berpihak pada HAM akhirnya ada sesuatu yang tidak boleh
tanpa ada bukti yang cukup ya ga boleh di apa apain makanya dalam latihan perang mereka
saat digrebek tidak ditemukan apa apa kecuali senjata kayu.”

A : “Bearti itulah yang dimanfaatkan oleh para pelaku teroris bahwa ini adalah kelemahan
atau kelalaian dari kita dalam regulasi begitu?”

B : “Betul”

A : “Sehingga ini menjadi kekuatan mereka begitu?”

B : “Iya, celah ini main ya, karena memang UU tidak ada yang sempurna karena memang
kita buat susah susah dikit dikit ada review di Mahkamah Konstitusi sehingga pasal pasal
krusial banyak yang hilang. Hal ini menjadikan penumpulan pada pedang kita itu terjadi
di era demokrasi yang sudah kita pilih seperti ini (eeee) pada kerjanya saling menyalahkan
padahal ini kan persoalan dari hulu ke hilir gabisa satu lini diam gabisa menyalahkan
hulunya atau hilirny saja tapi di sisi lain polisi kan tidak bisa bergerak tanpa kewenangan
ya seperti anjing yang tidak bisa menggigit sebelum ada sesuatu yang cukup tapi ya Cuma
bisa menyalak saja menggonggong. Terlebih lagi pelaku pelaku kan pinter
menyembunyikan, kan begitu kan, nah ini yang menjadi kendala apalagi kalau lone wolf
lone wolf kan bergerak sendiri ya missal kalau dia melihat gambar ini (menunjuk ke
monitor yang didalamnya terdapat cuplikan saat Bom Mako Brimob terjadi) seperti ini wah
saya langsung mencari apa apa yang bisa digunakan untuk menyerang. Ini pemikiran
seseorang yang tidak bisa diduga seperti menjadi split personality.”
A : “Baik kita lanjutkan perbincangannya nanti di breaking news satu jam mendatang tetap
di Berita1.tv.”