Tag: Impunity

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

Priest says OTSUS is accelerating Papuan extermination

(WestPapuaMedia note: we are aware of the allegations of mysterious killings in 2010, however the reports given are not containing enough information to make any detailed report).
JUBI, 6 April 2011 

OTSUS IS ACCELERATING  PAPUAN EXTERMINATION

A priest in Nabire has described the special autonomy law, known as OTSUS, as being a move by the Indonesian government that was intended to accelerate the extermination of the indigenous Papuan people.

The Rev. Daud Auwe said that ‘the intention  is clear from the systematic and violent killings which have taken place up to now.’  He mentioned in particular the case of the Rev. Kindeman Gire in Puncak Jaya, and the shooting of Melkias Agapa and Abetnego Keiya in Nabire. He was speaking at a demonstration of several hundred people outside the office of the Nabire  provincial legislative assembly.

There was also the case of the mysterious killing of ten people in Nabire [no time mentioned] and the killings of 1,435 people  that occurred during the four years from 2006 to 2010.

Another speaker, Yones Douw spoke about the culture of dependency and the destruction of the people’s economy, the appalling condition of education and healthcare facilities for Papuan people, all of which were the result of OTSUS. ‘294 people in Dogiyai died of diarrhoea in 2008, 42 people died of malaria and 41 people died of starvation in the district of Nduga.’

Other factors were the destruction of Papuan culture, the uncontrolled increase in the number of inhabitants that has been occurring annually, all of which has led to a lack of protection for indigenous Papuan people.

Yones also condemned the government’s UP4B programme which is now being promoted by the central government, which he described as a public cover-up for the failures of OTSUS. ‘While there is no legal basis for the UP4B programme, the OTSUS law which is within the legal framework has not been properly implemented by the government.’

Related Articles
6

West Papuans in KRPBK determined to reject OTSUS

Bintang Papua, 4 April 2011 

West Papuans determined to reject OTSUS
Call for dissolution of MRP

Jayapura: All elements within the United Papuan Peoples’ Coalition for Justice (KRPBK) are firm in their rejection of Special Autonomy – OTSUS, and call for the dissolution of the MRP as well as rejecting UP4B (Unit for Accelerated Development of Papua and West Papua) which was recently created by the central government.

The reasons: The DPRP (Papuan provincial legislative assembly) adopted the OTSUS law for Papua in 2001, but ten years on, OTSUS has been a total failure, according to KRPBK spokesman Selpius Bobii, following a meeting between the coalition and the DPRP on Monday 4 April.

He said they had urged the DPRP to publicly announce its decision, based on the aspirations that were adopted in 2001. This led to the creation of a special OTSUS committee, Pansus OTSUS to accommodate the aspirations of the Papuan people. ‘We will continue to voice our rejection of the failed OTSUS.’ He also called on Pansus OTSUS to hold a plenary session with one item only on the agenda, the rejection of OTSUS.

Asked whether they had set a deadline for this plenary session, he said they could not speak about this for the moment but they were working to consolidate the views of all elements of Papuan society, and were planning to organise a nationwide strike as well as actions to occupy all government offices in the Land of Papua.

Asked to explain this further, Yunus Wonda (who also attended the meeting with the DPRP) said that calling a plenary session was not an easy thing to . There were a number of political parties in the DPRP each with their own mechanisms  and statutes which must be accommodated. ‘Rejecting OTSUS is not just an emotional issue but must take into account a number or ways in which OTSUS had failed, before the issue could be discussed at a plenary session of the DPRP.

Pansus OTSUS will still have to make an evaluation of OTSUS which will involve a number of NGOs, academics, traditional leaders, leaders of the women’s and students’ movements, in order to be able to act in unison

——

Related Articles
10

Manipulation: Komnas HAM report on 2003 arms dump assault

JUBI, 5 April 2011 

Assault on arms dump in Wamena was a manipulation, says Komnas HAM member

The deputy chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Papua branch  Matius Murib, has told the press that the solution to the assault on the arms dump of the Wamena district military command on 4 April 2003 now depends on the state and the attorney-general’s office.

‘The Komnas HAM, as a state institution, has completed its task of conducting a pro justicia investigation and has delivered its evidence and associated data to the attorney-general. But the attorney-general has responded, saying that the evidence is not strong enough,’ he said. ‘Our job is finished and we cant do anything more on the matter,’ he told JUBI.

The pro justicia report recorded that nine people were murdered, 38 people from 25 kampungs were forcibly evicted, 42 people died from starvation and fifteen others were treated unjustly.

With the Konmas HAM having done its work, it now depends on the goodwill of the state and the attorney-general’s office  to solve the case. In his opinion, this would mean bringing the case before the judiciary, and in this case, this would mean submitting it to the human rights court because, he said, ‘ this was a case of gross violation of human rights which must be heard before the human rights court.’

He went on to explain that this was not a case involving any bloodshed. It should be regarded as something that was deliberately manipulated. ‘I was at the location at the time,’ he said. ‘Just imagine, the arms dump is in the centre of town, yet even so an assault took place. This can only have been a deliberate manipulation,’ he said.

He also referred to the Wamena Tragedy of 6 October 2000 which resulted in many casualties and much spilling of blood. ‘Many ordinary (people) were tortured. This was also a case of serious human rights violations,’ he said.

Related Articles
4

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

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑