Bintang Papua, 17 April 2011Jayapura: Now that the deadline of 14 days set for MRP member Hana Hikoyabi [to produce a clarification of her position] has passed since the swearing in of members of the new MRP, it would be better if she were to withdraw as a member of the MRP.

Political commentator Lamadi de Lamato told Bintang Papua that  she should withdraw her name as a member  rather than sit as a member of the MRP and keep having her critical remarks pounced on by the central government. According to the logic of the Indonesian state, the policies of the state must be accepted  even though they fail to take the side of the Papuan people, he said.

In his opinion, Hana should withdraw her name and wage her struggle from the outside without having to make compromises.

Many Papuans would have far greater respect for her outside the MRP than if she were a member  According to Lamadi, insisting that Hana should produce a clarification was virtually an act of terror  against an MRP member, warning her not to be critical  or consider the aspirations of the Papua people.

‘This is just like what happened under the New Order (of Suharto) and its demands for special investigations ((Litsus) towards people who were regarded as enemies of the state,’ he said.

There are many things that are going wrong in Papua; any protest  should not necessarily result in restrictions being imposed on people.

‘Hana  should not be treated like an enemy  and be forced to be loyal to whatever the state demands. Some people believe that the former chairman of the MRP Agus Alua  died because of his disagreements  with things coming from central government, but he should not be blamed for that.’

With regard to the recruitment of members of the new MRP, many people feel very disappointed. ‘The state can act as it likes, but these acts of terror should end,’ he said.

As already reported, the new MRP should have 75 members but only 73 were sworn in because two names had been struck off the list, Agus Alua and Hana Hikoyabi. It was said that if these two had delivered written statements of verification, they could both have been appointed as members of the MRP.

Bintang Papua, 14 Apil 2011
Abridged in translation by TAPOLJayapura: The statement by the interior minister, Gamawan Fauzi, that Hana S. Hikoyabi, member of the first-term MRP must deliver a clarification about her position within 14 days before being sworn in as a member of the new MRP was described  by Budi Setyanto SH as being beyond his authority and in breach of the law.

Since that person was chosen by the people, the interior minister should have sworn her in on 12 April.

If he declares that Hana does not agree with Special Autonomy (OTSUS) or with the way of recruiting of members of the MRP, this is simply a difference of opinion but the fact is that she was chosen by the Papuan people means that she clearly does not reject OTSUS because the MRP was set up because of OTSUS, and without OTSUS, there would be no MRP.

Budi said that the interior minister’s statement is against the law.

A member of the first MRP, Simon Simunapendi, said that the failure to swear in Hana Hikoyabi was because she had been told to produce a clarification with regard to the grand assembly held from 7-10 June 2010 and reveals a misunderstanding  about the role of that assembly because Law 21/2001  Article 20  makes it clear that members of the MRP must promote the aspirations of the Papuan people. Bearing in mind that these aspirations were expressed by representations of 254 ethnic groups  who had come together to express their aspirations, it meant that Agus Alue Alua and Hana Hikoyabi were duty-bound to present these aspirations to the DPRP.

They were only acting in accordance with the provisions of the MRP, expressing the wishes of 254 ethnic groups, and there was no other motive for what they did.
.
Since the news that Hana Hikoyabi had not been sworn in as a member of the MRP, no one has been able to make contact with her, including people from the media. The failure to swear her is seen as being directly connected to the many actions rejecting OTSUS that have taken place since the beginning of 2011.

The decisions taken at the grand assembly in June 2010 were not the product of the MRP and the individual members of the MRP cannot be held personally responsible for those decisions.