Tag: right of free expression

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

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

Charges against two Papuan defendants at variance with other court documents; also, statement by Warinussy

JUBI, 31 March 2011 

The formal indictment presented in court against Mecky Bleskadit and Dance Yenu who are facing the charge of unfurling the 14-star flag  in Manokwari last December is at variance with the verbatim report submitted to the court by the police.

A member of the legal team of the defendants, Simon Richard Banundi, said that the charge sheet  does not reflect the contents of the interrogation report which provides a chronological account of the police arrest and they intend to make a formal complaint about this when they submit their demurer (eksepsi) at the next hearing of the case on 5 April.

Banundi said that the two defendants were facing charges under Article 106  of the criminal code for makar and they are also accused of being separatists. The charge sheet also makes reference to Articles 107 and 110 for alleged provocation of a large number of people. After the indictment was read out, the hearing was adjourned and will continue on 5 April.

Yan Christian  Warinussy, co-ordinator of the defence team, later told the press that  when submitting their demurer, he would deal at length with the continuance in force of the makar article and the other articles used in the charge sheet. These articles are being used to silence Papuan activists whenever they give expression to their aspirations and can even result in their ending up behind bars.

The two defendants along with five others were involved in an incident when they unfurled the 14-star flag to commemorate the anniversary of the declaration of West Melanesian independence on 14 December 2010 in Manokwari, West Papua.

————–

In a statement issued on the following day, the co-ordinator the defence team, Yan Christian Warinussy said that even though articles 102, 106, 108 and 110 can be described as being ‘karet’ (highly flexible), they have been used since the days of President Sukarno and up to the present era of reformasi. to silence people holding  views contradictory to those in power and are still being used by elements within the judiciary and including the police, against people calling for democracy in the Land of Papua as well as in Maluku and Aceh.

He said that the activities that had been undertaken by the two defendants last December had led to charges of makar whereas what they had done should not be seen as makar or separatism. Makar should be seen as an act involving armed violence  or violence. Can the expression of people’s aspirations  such as unfurling the 14-star flag or the Morning Star flag (kejora), or singing the song, Hai Tanahku Papua be branded as makar or separatist?

The government should stop using these articles and there should be a judicial review and an end should be put to using these articles to silence democratic actions in the Land of Papua.

A movement must be launched to call for a judicial review of the makar article must secure the support of all components of society as well as the local governments of Papua and West Papua.

Related Articles
0

Call for judicial review of makar article

JUBI, 31March 2011 

‘Makar’ should be tested before Constitutional Court

Yan Christian Warinussy, the executive director of LP3BH, the Instituteof Research, Analysis and Development for Legal Aid, has called on the Dewan Adat Papua, the Papuan Customary Council, to submit the ‘makar‘ -subversion – article in the Indonesian Criminal Code/KUHP to the Constitutional Court for a judicial review.

‘I call on DAP together with the Papuan people to seek a judicial review of the makar article before the Constitutional Court because it  is no longer appropriate for such a law to remain in force in a democratic country like Indonesia. ‘Other democratic states around the world don’t have such a law,’ he said, ‘because it is so out-of-date.’

He said that this should be recognised by all components of Papuan society, including DAP and should be tested by a judicial review.’

If this article continues to remain in force, the police will be able to make use of it to arrest Papuan activists when they give expression to their political aspirations to the government. This includes rejecting the special autonomy law and calling for dialogue as the way to resolve the Papuan issue and various other problems in Papua.’

This article can also be used by prosecutors and judges to convict Papuan civilians and activists when raising problems that they confront. ‘In my opinion, this article will continue to be used  to round up and imprison indigenous Papuans whenever they give voice to their aspirations.

He said that the police continue to use articles 106 and 107 of the criminal code on subversion and incitement to detain Papuan activists whenever they raise any problems in Papua, he said.

1

Tunisia… Egypt… Libya… Let’s look closer to home

by Daniel Scoullar

originally appeared at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au

The mass uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and other nearby countries have put despotic rulers, human rights abuses and self-determination into our nightly news bulletins and daily conversations in a way that happens very rarely.

The seemingly contagious way these movements for freedom have spread from country to country makes them particularly fascinating, but there is another reason why they have captured the public imagination. It’s because Australians recognise the ‘fair go’ principle, which can also be put in terms of the human right for every person to be safe from harm, to have control over their lives and to have a say in how their country’s run – regardless of whether they live in Bundoora or Benghazi.

In turn, many of us would also be surprised to hear that we have state sponsored violence and political exclusion much closer to home. They would be further surprised to hear these abuses are taking place within Indonesia, a case study for positive social, economic and political reform.

Despite holidaying in Bali, seeing Jakarta on the news or even watching a wildlife documentary shot in the Sumatran jungle, you could be excused for never having heard of West Papua. It comprises the western half of the island of New Guinea (the eastern half belongs to Papua New Guinea) and a collection of small islands.

West Papua’s landscape is one of tropical islands, coconut strewn beaches, impenetrable rain forests and rugged snow capped mountain peaks. It is home to around three million people, including some of the last remaining humans still untouched by the modern world.

West Papua’s modern history is marked by exploitation and resilience. Colonial explorers claimed it as Dutch territory in the 1600s, the Japanese and Americans made it a key battleground of World War II and the newly independent Indonesian nation invaded and forcibly occupied the territory in 1962, just 13 years before they would do the same in East Timor.

In the 50 years since then, West Papua has been ruled as a country-apart within Indonesia. This is somewhat ironic given West Papua is physically, culturally and historically separate from the rest of Indonesia. Its traditional ties run east and south to Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, northern Australia and the Pacific.

Where military and police abuses were curtailed elsewhere, they were encouraged in West Papua. While ‘unity in diversity’ was the national motto, West Papuan traditional culture was violently suppressed and almost a million ‘transmigrants’ were shipped in and given the reigns of local government and the economy. Even as the post-Suharto human rights reforms resulted in greater freedom of speech for those in Jakarta, incarceration or death are still the standard penalties for raising the Morning Star flag in West Papua. An estimated 100,000 local people have been killed during the occupation.

In 2007 I travelled from East Timor through Indonesia, West Papua and Papua New Guinea on my way back to Australia. My lasting memories are of friendly West Papuans inviting me into their homes to practice English with their children and heavily armed military personnel/police stopping me in the street for seemingly random questioning. When I returned to Melbourne, I met members of the West Papuan refugee community here and learned more about the extent of the abuses taking place in their homeland.

A recent example captured on video and shared on the internet, shows two Papuan men being cruelly tortured by security forces, including one having his genitals burnt. Other examples include activists being shot at demonstrations – or just disappearing. Local prisons are full of political prisoners who have committed no crime other than raising their voice.

It is also important to differentiate this critique of state sponsored human rights abuses and a lack of self-determination from a more general attack on Indonesia as a nation or its culture.

As someone who speaks Indonesian moderately well and has lived and travelled in the region, I know first hand the beautiful diversity within Indonesia’s awe inspiring 17,500 island archipelago. The majority of its 240 million people are not disputing their place in this nation state and democratic, social, economic and political progress continues in most areas.

Nevertheless, acknowledging Indonesia’s strengths is not the same as writing a blank cheque to the worst elements within its military and government. After 24 years of silence, Australia finally found the moral and political strength to take a stand on behalf of the East Timorese people and this is what is needed again, not just from our Prime Minister Julia Gillard, but from other world leaders within our region and right across the globe.

We all know that international diplomacy can be a dirty business where economic and political interests take precedence over doing what is right. We should acknowledge that it is politics and economics that are the key barriers blocking the Australian government from advocating on behalf of the West Papuan people. There is no easy villain such as Muammar Gaddafi to hold up as a symbol of evil. It’s more complicated than that.

International diplomacy can also be a powerful force for improving lives. While East Timor remains poor, I didn’t meet a single person there who wanted to go back to Indonesian rule. Australia is a regional leader, particularly in the areas of good governance and human rights protection, and we should not shy away from this role. We have the power to make a difference in West Papua and, in turn, we carry the corresponding responsibility to do so.

If we simply cast our gaze to distant parts of the world, where people are paying with their lives for basic freedoms, we will overlook those closer to home paying with their own lives for those same freedoms.

1

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑