TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - recent bombing in Samarinda sent us a frighteningly clear message: radicalism has not died. After the bomber was arrested came a second message: deradicalization is no more than a word. It turned out that Juhanda, the man who threw the 'soap bomb' which killed a little girl, was not new to terrorism.

Five years ago, Juhanda was responsible for the bombing at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences Research Center at Serpong, South Tangerang. A month later, he was arrested by police after the bombing incident at Peukan Bada, Aceh Besar. He was jailed for three and a half years, but was released on parole as part of the 2014 Idul Fitri pardons. After that, it seems he was not subjected to any kind of surveillance by the security forces.

It is not clear exactly how many 'Juhandas' remain at large in this country. They are 'walking bombs' ready to explode at any time. The National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) is gathering data on some 400 former terror convicts. This figure shows the size of the potential threat, which we must never undermine.

Matters are made more complicated by the fact that the BNPT is not authorized to monitor former terrorists following their release from jail. The agency's hands are tied by the Terrorism Eradication Law, which does not mention 'surveillance' as one of its functions. Therefore, a serious effort is called for to revise this law and make it more effective.

Before this revision becomes a reality, a serious endeavor is needed to restructure what is known as the 'deradicalization program'. Clearly, the government has not found it easy to run this program. There have been problems in dealing with conditions in the jails, in particular because the prison staff lack the knowledge on religion and ideology. Several prison guards themselves have been 'converted' and become radicalized after caring for inmates of terrorism.

The deradicalization program has often been hampered by poor coordination between the related ministries. The BNPT's task involves more than 10 ministries, from that of justice to religious affairs. This cooperation needs to be improved and better coordinated, because every ministry tends to establish its own programs, hence the lack of synergy.

So far, the 'deradicalization program' has not been transparent. There have been occasional conflicts of interest when dealing with intelligence operations. Take the case of convicted terrorist Umar Patek, who asked to raise the national flag at Porong Jail, East Jawa. If this is seen as a measure of the success of deradicalization, it paints a very misleading picture.

Deradicalization in jails is one thing, but no less important is deradicalization outside the prison system. It is also important to keep a close watch on the tendency to force opinions on others, or using the 'pressure' of the masses and fostering sectarian sentiment, as has been seen recently. Any tolerance of such tendency by the government is tantamount to suicide.

Therefore President Joko Widodo's statement that the bombing in Samarinda went beyond the limits of tolerance should be questioned. Is there a level of tolerance for radicalism and fanaticism? Is there a level of tolerance for acts that threaten Indonesia's democracy and diversity? The president should remember that once there is an 'acceptable level of tolerance', the future of the nation is at stake. (*)