Tag: corruption

Papua Church Leader Warns Of ‘Unfair’ Gubernatorial Election

FYI
The Jakarta Post
Monday, April 11, 2011 

Ina Parlina, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The death of a prominent Papuan leader has sparked concerns over the
security of the upcoming gubernatorial election in the volatile
region.

GKI Papua synod deputy chairman Rev. Elimelekh D. Doirebo said that
the demise of former Papuan People’s Assembly speaker Agus Alue Alua
destroyed any expectations of a fair and safe election for the
province this September, as well as undermined the possibility of a
pro-Papuan Assembly.

“Agus was very vocal in fighting for the rights of the Papuan people,
including supporting the policy that Papua local administration heads
must be Papuan,” he told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

Agus reportedly died Thursday at Dian Harapan Hospital in Jayapura.
Agus, who was re-elected to the Assembly for a second term, died soon
after being admitted to hospital. The cause of death is unknown.

Agus was known for his policies, including a decree stipulating that
Papua local administration heads and their deputies must be from the
region.“We believe Agus died as a result of the persistent
intimidation he faced,” Elimelekh said.

He claimed Agus faced threats especially from Barisan Merah Putih,
which wanted to oust the original members of the Assembly whom they
perceived as too radical in their defense of Papuan rights and their
opposition to special autonomy.

In June last year, rallies initiated by the original Assembly members
drew thousands in Jayapura, who issued 11 recommendations for a better
solution to the strife in Papua.

The protestors urged the central government to annul special autonomy,
which they claimed was a tool for the central government to win the
hearts of Papuans while toning down demands for independence.

They also called for a dialog mediated by neutral international
parties to address Papuan grievances.

“Several Papuans in Jakarta once came to Papua to meet Agus and
basically forced him to stop criticizing the election of new Assembly
members and special autonomy. They also forced him to step down,”
Elimelekh claimed.

Later, he added, Agus was removed from the roster of new Assembly
members following accusations he supported separatism.

Hana Hikoyabi, who was also re-elected to the Assembly, was likewise
disqualified. As of today, the new elected Assembly members, who will
serve until 2016, have not been inaugurated.

The GKI, along with Papua’s KINGMI synod and Papua’s Baptist churches
synod, boast a following of more than 1.3 million members, most of
them native Papuans.

Related Articles
0

NGOs Say US Got it Wrong on Indonesian Human Rights

FYI

Dessy Sagita | April 11, 2011

Indonesian activists on Sunday criticized the US government for praising Indonesia’s progress on human rights, saying that the barometer used for the report could be misleading.

“I’m a bit concerned with the diplomatic statements made by some countries regarding Indonesia’s progress on human rights, because it could give people the wrong perception about what’s really happening,” Haris Azhar, coordinator of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), told the Jakarta Globe.

As in previous editions, the US State Department’s annual survey on human rights pointed to concerns in Indonesia, this year including accounts of unlawful killings in violence-torn Papua along with violations of freedom of religion.

But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while presenting on Friday the mammoth, 7,000-page global report, pointed to Indonesia as a success story.

“Indonesia boasts a vibrant free media and a flourishing civil society at the same time as it faces up to challenges in preventing abuses by its security forces and acting against religious intolerance,” she was quoted by foreign wire agencies as saying.

The survey covers the period before Islamic fanatics brutally killed three members of the Ahmadiyah sect in early February, raising questions over Indonesia’s commitment to safeguard minority rights.

The concern over Papua is primarily a reference to the torture of two civilians there last year by soldiers. They were subsequently court-martialed in January but given sentences of less than a year, a punishment slammed by the influential group Human Rights Watch as far too lenient to send a message that abuse was unacceptable.

Kontras’s Haris said both indicators presented by the US government — that Indonesia has been progressing in terms of media independence and better access for civil societies to voice their concern — were also incorrect.

“Freedom of journalism? I don’t think so. It’s still fresh in our minds that several journalists have been brutally attacked because of their reporting, some were even murdered,” he said.

“And in terms of flourishing civil societies, it’s true, non-government organizations are mushrooming, but what’s the point if human rights defenders and anticorruption activists are assaulted?” he added.

According to Kontras, in 2010 alone more than 100 human rights activists here were victimized and many of the perpetrators remain free.

And according to Reporters Without Borders, when it comes to press freedom, Indonesia ranks very low, much worse than it did several years ago when Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid was the president.

The US report in some ways echoes progress noted by New York-based Human Rights Watch in its own annual review of human rights practices around the globe, released in January. Then it noted that while serious human rights concerns remained, Indonesia had over the past 12 years made great strides in becoming a stable, democratic country with a strong civil society and independent media.

But Andreas Harsono, from Human Rights Watch, said it was perplexing that the US government would compliment Indonesia’s progress on rights.

“It’s a big joke,” he said. “Attacks against Ahmadiyah have been happening since 2008, after the joint ministerial decree was issued, and attacks against churches during SBY’s six-year tenure are even more prevalent than during the five decades in which Sukarno and Suharto ruled,” he said.

Additional reporting by AP, AFP 

Related Articles
0

Statement on Indonesia Intelligence Bill Drafting

Advocacy Coalition on Indonesia Intelligence Bill Joint Statement
http://idsps.org/english-news/pers-release/advocacy-coalition-on-indonesia-intelligence-bill-joint-statement-201104035746/ 

Indonesian parliament with the government plans to ratify the State Intelligence Bill draft to become the Law of Intelligence in 2011. Through a series of discussions that have been done by the parliament and government, Intelligence draft has undergone several changes.

From the beginning we give full support to the parliament and the government’s plan which will regulate intelligence institution through the establishment of the Intelligence Bill. However, discussion and ratification of the Intelligence Bill should become integral part of intelligence reform. In that context, the basic principles of democratic state should have been an inherent part of the Intelligence Bill.

We assessed that the draft of State Intelligence Bill that is being discussed parliament is not fully accommodate the principles of democratic countries and it raises serious issues against the values of democratic life of the country itself, including:

1. Intelligence definition
Article 1 point (2) states intelligence as a state government agency. Basically, the intelligence agencies are not government agencies but the instrument of the state. The definition has put intelligence position as tool of the ruler that works for the interests of rulers and not the instrument of the state which work for the benefit of its people. It’s very concerning since it is very likely intelligence can be used to spy on people in the interest of the ruler alone and not to the real enemy as Indonesia had experienced in the New Order era.

2. Intercept
The existence of refusal of court authorization requirement before conducting interception as mentioned in the explanation of Article 31 is not only potentially threaten citizens’ rights but also vulnerable to abuse (abuse of power) for the sake of economic and political power. Intelligence do need the authority to conduct tapping/interception, however, it must be done through a standardized and rigid mechanism and must have a clear prerequisite, such as the importance of getting court approval for conducting interception.

Referring to the decisions of the Constitutional Court No. 006/PPU-1/2003; No. 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006; No. 5/PUU-VIII/2010, the Court believes it is necessary to establish specific regulation about interception on the level of State Law/Bill to prevent the possibility of abuse of authority for wiretapping and recording. Thus it is only appropriate that the discussion of the Intelligence bill conducted in parallel with the discussion of the bill on Interception in the interest of coordinating arrangements for intelligence ability to intercepts.

3. Secret Intelligence Information
Setting intelligence secret referred in Article 24 jo Article 39 of the Intelligence Bill draft still raises multiple interpretations and are vague. The multiple interpretations are threatening the freedom of information, freedom of the press and democracy itself.

4. Arrest (List of Revision given by Government)
Granting authority for the intelligence to arrest threatens human rights and damage criminal justice system mechanism. To grant the authority is tantamount to legalizing kidnapping using Intelligence Bill considering intelligence work is closed/covert and secret. It is important to remember that the state intelligence agency is part of the non-judicial agencies that are not included as part of law enforcement officers, such as police and prosecutors, therefore granting authority to arrest is wrong and can not be justified. In a country that respect rule of law, authority to arrest and detain is only obtained by law enforcement officials.

5. State Intelligence Coordinating Institution (Lembaga Koordinasi Intelijen Negara – LKIN)
State Intelligence Coordinating Institution (LKIN) as the new institution provided by this bill will be the agency that replaces the position of the State Intelligence Agency (Badan Intelijen Negara – BIN) that has very broad authorityy. In that case, LKIN should not have the operational authority and functions, such as making communication interception, checking flow of funds, and such. Implementation of operational functions should be handed over to existing intelligence agencies which have operational authority.

6. Oversight
Oversight mechanism in the National Intelligence Bill draft is only made in the form of parliamentary oversight by the House of Representatives held by the completeness of the House of Representatives in charge of intelligence oversight. There are no regulations governing internal controls, executive oversight, and legal supervision. At this point, the oversight conducted by the parliament should be performed by a separate intelligence committees within the parliament, namely by forming a new special commission overseeing the intelligence.

7. Organization and Role
From an organizational standpoint, the Bill draft did not adopt the State Intelligence structural differentiation and specialization of functions. State Intelligence Bill draft does not strictly divide the working area of foreign intelligence, domestic intelligence, military intelligence, and law enforcement intelligence.

8. Structure and Position
State Intelligence Bill draft also has not been able to separate accountability between the structures that is responsible for policy making with the structure responsible for operational in implementation of the policy. Ideally all security actors who serve as executors of the policy are under or become part of ministries/ministerial-level the structure, intelligence agencies are no exception.

9. Personnel and Recruitment
Associated with members of the intelligence, the State Intelligence Bill regulates vaguely of intelligence personnel. It is not regulated whether recruitment mechanism is either open or closed.

10. Code of Conduct and Prohibition
In addition, the State Intelligence Bill draft does not contain regulation or codes of ethic for intelligence that includes obligations, rights and restrictions for all activities and aspects of intelligence.

11. Making Intelligence a Civil Institution
This Bill draft has not incorporated the agenda of making intelligence as civil institution. Ideally in the era of democracy, all intelligence agencies are civilian and not active military, except for military intelligence. Until now, the State Intelligence Agency (BIN) is still filled by active military personnel despite the head of intelligence is civilian.

12. Rights of victims
State Intelligence Bill draft has not included the rights of victims, particularly those related to complaints of victims if there are intelligence actions that are deviate and caused serious problems for the implementation of the rights of people.

We urge the parliament and the Indonesian government not to rush in passing the State Intelligence Bill and provide space for the community to provide input and views on the efforts to improve the State Intelligence Bill draft, as provided in Law No. 10 Year 2004 on Procedures for Making Laws and Regulations.

We fully appreciate members of Parliament who rejected the plan on granting intelligence the authority to arrest in the Intelligence Bill. Ideally the formulation of the Intelligence Bill is to maintain a balance between the need for countries to guarantee and protect the freedom of civil society and human rights on one hand; and to guard and protect national security on the other.

Jakarta, March 28, 2011
Advocacy Coalition on Indonesia Intelligence Bill

Institutions:
Imparsial, Kontras, IDSPS, Elsam, the Ridep Institute, Lesperssi, Setara Institute, LBH Masyarakat, ICW, YLBHI, LBH Jakarta, HRWG, Praxis, Infid, Yayasan SET, KRHN, Leip, Ikohi, Foker Papua, PSHK, MAPI, dan Media Link

Individual:
Bambang Widodo Umar

http://idsps.org/english-news/pers-release/advocacy-coalition-on-indonesia-intelligence-bill-joint-statement-201104035746/

We hope international network can help monitor and push Indonesian government to create Intelligence Bill that is accountable and respect the value of democracy.

We welcome every feedback and support from your organization around the world.

Have a nice day,

—
Regards,
—
Mufti Makaarim al-Ahlaq
Executive Director
Institute for Defense Security and Peace Studies

Related Articles
0

Jakarta never pays attention to Papuan people, says DPRP member

[Apologies for delay in posting this cri de coeur from Papua.] 

JUBI, 31 March 2011

JAKARTA NEVER PAYS ANY ATTENTION TO PAPUA

Ever since Papua was incorporated  into the Indonesian Republic, the central government has never shown any goodwill. Whenever the Papuan people  scream about something or other, they remain silent [diam seribu bahasa] but go ahead and do something that is quite at variance with what the Papuan people want.

Yance Kayame, a member of the DPRP, the Papuan provincial legislative council, said that a host of problems confronting the Papuan people need to be properly resolved  and government policies from the era of Special Autonomy – OTSUS – should be implemented to the full. ‘But now that OTSUS is regarded as having been a failure, Jakarta must listen carefully to
the many complaints and wishes of the Papuan people.’

Although he still persists in struggling for the aspirations of the Papuan people, Yance acknowledges that Jakarta has never listened to the voice of the Papuan people.’Since former times, I have been a DPRP member who has constantly challenged Jakarta. But even though we are regarded as nobodies, we must continue to fight for the aspirations of the people.’

Yance said he hoped that the Jakarta-Papua dialogue, now being promoted by the Papuan Peace Network  will elicit a response from the government so that we can discuss together  all the problems that have been faced by Papuans until now. ‘Dialogue is necessary and Jakarta need not be allergic to it.We need to discuss everything calmly so as to find a way out.’

If there is no dialogue, he fears that all the claims about whether or not OTSUS has been a failure will rumble on. There will be no end to the dispute which can result in endless wrangling. ‘This is not what we want because it can certainly have an impact on development activities, on governance and many other things, with ordinary people feeling the consequences.’

He said that the government approach until now has been quite wrong, with the result that basic problems have not be solved. Jakarta must listen to the voice of the Papuan  people  so as to safeguard the integrity of the state and the continued existence of the special autonomy law 21/2001.

‘Papua has now gone global. Several countries around the world are  watching, and taking stock of the dynamics. This means that Jakarta must act wisely with regard to Papua, if they want to avoid being watched all the time,’ said Yance.

[COMMENT: We can but wait and see whether anyone within the government is listening. TAPOL]

Related Articles
8

Coalition to discuss failed special autonomy with Indonesian parliament

JUBI, 2 April 2011 

A coalition of Papuan organisations is due to hold a meeting with members of the DPR, the Indonesian parliament, on 4 April to discuss the special autonomy law.

Spokesman for the KRPBK, the United Coalition  of Papuan People for Justice, Selpius Bobii, said that this meeting would be held as a follow-up of their demonstrations in February  when they set 4 April as the deadline for their actions, if their demands had not been met.

On 22 February, the coalition organised a demonstration which rejected Special Autonomy, rejected the government’s programme called UP4B, programme to accelerate the development of Papua and West  Papua and rejection of the appointment of new members of the MRP, the Majelis Rakyat Papua.

Bobii said: ‘The deputy governor of Papua, Alex Hesegem, said on that occasion that our demo declaring that Special Autonomy had failed was right in what it said. We are now acting on the basis of what the deputy governor said at the time.’

As JUBI has reported, the KRPBK has held a number of demonstrations rejecting Special Autonomy and the UP4B programme as well as the newly appointed MRP, but members of the MRP have been appointed and are now waiting to be sworn in to office.

Related Articles
2

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑