Tag Archives: NKRI

Hana Hikoyabi advised to withdraw from MRP and struggle from outside

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.

Interior Minister accused of exceeding his powers in excluding Hikoyabi

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.

MRP member Hanna Hikoyabi given 14 days to clarify her political position

Bintang Papua, 14 April 2011Abridged in translation by TAPOL

Hanna Hikoyabi is given 14 days  to clarify her political position of rejecting OTSUS

There were two persons whose swearing in as members of the new MRP did not take place, when the Indonesian interior minister Gamawan Fauzi swore in the members of the new MRP on 12 April. Of the 75 members, only 73 were sworn in.

One was Agus Alue Alua whose death was announced some days ago. The other was Hanna Salomina Hikoyabi. With regard to Ms Hikoyabi, she has been told by the interior minister that she must provide a ‘clarification’ within fourteen days before her membership of the MRP can be accepted. If she fails to provide this, another woman will take her seat in the MRP.

Didi Agus who is the acting head of the Unified Nation of the People of the Province of Papua refused to explain what conditions she would have to comply with nor why her swearing in was being delayed. But in an indirect fashion, he implied that it was connected with widespread actions rejecting special autonomy which took place during the run up to  the appointment of members of the new MRP in the early months of 2011.

Besides calling for the ‘return’ of OTSUS, they  also called for a dialogue between the Papuan people and Indonesia, mediated by a third party. These demands were drawn up at a mass assembly of Papuans that took place from 7 – 10 June 2010, which was held at the offices of the MRP. According to Didi, this could not be seen s a decision of the MRP and not all members were being held responsible for the decisions.

In a previous meeting that took place recently  between the minister of the interior and the governor of Papua in Jakarta,  it was stated that some candidates for the new MRP had constantly been talking about the ‘disintegration’  of the nation, whereas according to presidential regulation (PP) 54, 2004,  members of the MRP  must be loyal to the  Pancasila and to the Indonesian Constitution as a Unitary State.

If these problems were being raised, it would not only be Hanna Hikoyabi whose membership should be considered but others too who  also took part in the June 2010 meeting.

Open Letter to President of Indonesia on Papuan Political Prisoners

*c/o PO Box 21873
Brooklyn, NY 11202 USA
*etan@etan.org

August 16, 2010

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
President
Republic of Indonesia
Istana Merdeka
Jakarta Pusat 10110 Indonesia
Via Fax, E-mail

Dear President Yudhoyono:

As Indonesia’s National Day on 17 August approaches, we the undersigned non-governmental organizations engaged in the defense of human rights in Indonesia are deeply concerned that dozens of Papuans are incarcerated in prisons in Papua and West Papua simply for having been involved in non-violent demonstrations or expressions of opinion.

In most cases, these prisoners have been sentenced under Criminal Code Articles 106 and 110 regarding “rebellion.” These articles are a legacy from the Dutch colonial era and are in violation of the Indonesian Constitution, Articles 28(e) and 28(f) which respectively afford “the right to the freedom of association and expression of opinion,” and “the right to communicate and obtain information for the development of his/her personal life and his/her social environment, and shall have the right to seek, acquire, possess, keep, process and convey information by using all available channels.”

Moreover, Articles 106 and 110 are inconsistent with your country’s
international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) which Indonesia ratified in 2006. While the
ICCPR (article 19) notes that these rights are subject to certain
restrictions “for the protection of national security and of public
order or public health or morals,” the 1995 Johannesburg Principles on
National Security, Freedom of Expression, and Access to Information
identify clear standards for application of national security
restrictions. These Principles provide that persons should not be
restrained for expressing their opinions. Governments should only take
action against such expression of views on the grounds of national
security if they can demonstrate that they would incite acts of imminent violence. The prosecution of the aforementioned Papuan political prisoners has offered no evidence of any such threat of imminent violence in association with their physical or verbal actions.

While we strongly believe that none of these prisoners should have been prosecuted in the first place, we are also deeply concerned about the disproportionately harsh sentences imposed on these political prisoners given their non-violent acts. One prisoner arrested in 2004 and charged under these articles is serving a 15-year sentence while others have been given sentences of three or four years. Moreover, there have been alarming reports of maltreatment of the prisoners by prison warders and the lack of essential medical facilities. In one case, a prisoner with a serious prostate disorder had to wait eight months before being allowed to travel to Jakarta for essential treatment recommended by the local doctor. Severe Beatings of prisoners and detainees are frequently and credibly reported.

We the undersigned have on a number of occasions welcomed the democratic progress in Indonesian since the fall of the Suharto dictatorship, inspired by the Indonesian people. We recognize that this progress had been achieved despite frequent threats by the as yet unreformed Indonesian security forces.

In view of the tradition to mark Indonesia’s National Day on 17 August
by announcing the release of prisoners and bearing in mind the
restriction on essential freedoms such as those contained in Articles
106 and 110 of the Criminal Code we respectfully call on you to mark
this year’s celebrations by:

* releasing all Papuan political prisoners, including those already
convicted and those waiting trial;

* securing the deletion of Articles 106 and 110 of the Criminal Code;

* ordering an immediate investigation into conditions in the prisons
where the prisoners are being held and ensure the punishment of all
prison personnel held responsible for maltreatment.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Aliansi Nasional Timor Leste Ba Tribunal Internasional (ANTI)/
Timor-Leste National Alliance for an International Tribunal
Australia West Papua Association Adelaide
Australia West Papua Association Brisbane
Australia West Papua Association Melbourne
Australia West Papua Association Newcastle
Australia West Papua Association Sydney
East Timor and Indonesia /Action/ Network (ETAN) (U.S.)
Foundation Akar (The Netherlands)
Foundation Manusia Papua (The Netherlands)
Foundation of Papuan Women (The Netherlands)
Foundation Pro Papua (The Netherlands)
Free West Papua Campaign UK
Freunde der Naturvölker e.V./FdN (fPcN) (Germany)
Human Rights Watch
KontraS (Indonesia)
Land is Life (U.S.)
La?o Hamutuk (Timor-Leste)
Perkumpulan HAK (HAK Association) (Timor Leste)
Tapol (Britain)
West Papua Advocacy Team (U.S.)
West Papua Network Germany