Tampilkan postingan dengan label KETIDAKADILAN DAN PENINDASAN HARUS DIKALAHKAN DENGAN KEADILAN. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label KETIDAKADILAN DAN PENINDASAN HARUS DIKALAHKAN DENGAN KEADILAN. Tampilkan semua postingan

Senin, 26 Agustus 2013

INDONESIA: COMMNUNAL TENSIONAL IN PAPUA


Indonesia: Communal Tensions in Papua

Asia Report N°15416 Jun 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Indonesian Papua has seen periodic clashes between pro-independence supporters and goverment forces, but conflict between Muslim and Christian communities could also erupt unless rising tensions are effectively managed. Violence was narrowly averted in Mano­kwari and Kaimana in West Papua province in 2007, but bitterness remains on both sides. The key fac­tors are continuing Muslim migration from elsewhere in Indonesia; the emergence of new, exclusivist groups in both religious communities that have hardened the perception of the other as enemy; the lasting impact of the Maluku conflict; and the impact of developments outside Papua. National and local officials need to ensure that no discriminatory local regulations are enacted, and no activities by exclusivist religious organisations are supported by government funds.
The Manokwari drama, played out over more than two years, illustrates some of the changes. It started in 2005, when Christians mobilised to prevent an Islamic centre and mosque from being built on the place where German missionaries brought Christianity to Papua in the mid-nineteenth century. Muslim anger went beyond Papua; many Indonesian Muslims, newly conscious of the history of Muslim traders in the area, saw Islam as Papua’s original religion and found the rejection of the mosque intolerable. Local church leaders, seeing the reaction, believed they needed to strengthen Manokwari’s Christian identity and in 2007 drafted a regulation for the local parliament that would have infused the local goverment with Christian values and symbols and discriminated against Muslims in the process. It was never enacted but generated a furore in Muslim communities across Indonesia and increased the sense of siege on both sides. It remains to be seen how a new draft that began to be circulated in late May 2008 will be greeted.
It is not just in Manokwari, however, that the communities feel themselves under threat. Many indigenous Christians feel they are being slowly but surely swamped by Muslim migrants at a time when the central government seems to be supportive of more conservative Islamic orthodoxy, while some migrants believe they face discrimination if not expulsion in a democratic system where Christians can exercise “tyranny of the majority”. The communal divide is overlain by a political one: many Christian Papuans believe autonomy has not gone nearly far enough, while many Muslim migrants see it as a disaster and are fervent supporters of centralised rule from Jakarta.
In some areas latent tensions have been kept under control by pairing a Papuan Christian district head with a non-Papuan Muslim deputy, with political and economic spoils divided accordingly. That may work in areas like Merauke, where the migrant population has already exceeded 50 per cent, but is not a solution where the majority feels itself under threat.
Where the risk of conflict is high, indigenous Papuan Muslims, largely concentrated in the Bird’s Head region of north western Papua, can play a bridging role, particularly through a new organisation, Majelis Muslim Papua. This organisation is both firmly committed to universal Islamic values and deeply rooted in Papuan culture and traditions. They have a demonstrated capacity to cool communal tensions, working with their Christian counterparts. But the indigenous Muslim community is being divided, too, as more and more have opportunties to study Islam outside Papua and come home with ideas that are at odds with traditional practices. It would be in the interests of all concerned to support a network of state Islamic institutes in Papua that could produce a corps of indigenous religious scholars and reinforce the moderation long characteristic of Papuan Muslims.
Several mechanisms are available for dialogue among religious leaders in Papua, including the working group on religion of the Papuan People’s Council (Maje­lis Rakyat Papua, MRP), a body set up to preserve Papuan rights and traditions, but they do not necessarily have any impact at the grassroots. More effective might be programs designed to identify com­munal hotspots and work out non-religious programs that could benefit both communities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
To the Central Government:
1.  Avoid supporting faith-based activities with an overtly political agenda, so as not to exacerbate existing problems, and instruct the armed forces and police to ensure that Papua-based personnel are not seen as taking communal sides.
2.  Identify new approches to addressing communal tensions at the grassroots level, going beyond the often ineffectual promotion of interfaith dialogue among elites.
3.  Work with the provincial governments to support the State Islamic Institute (STAIN) in Jayapura and facilitate close links with the State Islamic University (UIN) in Jakarta to ensure that Papua develops its own indigenous scholars and teachers able to interpret universal Islamic values in ways that are in harmony rather than conflict with customary traditions.
To Local Governments:
4.  Ensure that government funding of or contributions to religious activities are transparent and independently audited, with amounts and recipients easily available on websites or in public documents.
5.  Avoid funding any groups that preach exclusivity or enmity toward other faiths.
6.  Ensure public debate on the percentage of jobs for Papuans and the impact on further in-migration of non-Papuans before agreeing to any further administrative division.
7.  Reject discriminatory local regulations.
8.    Work with donors to identify areas of high tension where conflict might be defused by non-religious projects involving cooperation for mutual benefit across communities.
To Donors:
9.  Support conflict-resolution training for Papua-based organisations, including the Majelis Muslim Papua and the religious working group of the Papua People’s Council (Majelis Rakyat Papua, MRP).
Jakarta/Brussels, 16 June 2008

INDONESIA: DYNAMICS OF VIOLENCE IN PAPUA, by ICG Asia Report since 9 Aug 2012



Indonesia: Dynamics of Violence in Papua

Asia Report N°2329 Aug 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A spate of violence in Papua in May and June 2012 exposed the lack of a coherent government strategy to address this multidimensional conflict. Shootings of non-Papuans in the provincial capital Jayapura in June, likely involving pro-independence militants, were followed by the death of one of those militants at police hands, highlighting the political dimension of the problem. In Wamena, a rampage by soldiers after the death of a comrade shows the depth of distrust between local communities and the army, and the absence of mechanisms to deal with crises. The shooting of five Papuans by newly arrived members of a paramilitary police unit (Brigade Mobile, Brimob) in a remote gold-mining area of Paniai highlights the violence linked to Papua’s vast resource wealth and rent-seeking by the security apparatus with little oversight from Jakarta. While these events are still under investigation, they signal that unless the Yudhoyono government can address these very different aspects of the conflict, things may get worse. An overhaul of security policy would help.
Two factors are driving much of the violence: a wide range of Papuan grievances toward the Indonesian state and a security policy that seems to run directly counter to the government’s professed desire to build trust, accelerate development and ensure that a 2001 special autonomy law for Papua yields concrete benefits. To date the law has failed to produce either improvement in the lives of most Papuans or better relations with the central government. Its substance has been frequently undercut by Jakarta, although provincial lawmakers also bear responsibility for failing to enact key implementing regulations. One of the last measures to prompt accusations in Papua of Jakarta’s bad faith was the 2011 division into two of the Papuan People’s Council (Majelis Rakyat Papua, MRP), an institution set up under the law to safeguard Papuan values and culture that was supposed to be a single body, covering all of Papua. In many ways the MRP was the keystone of special autonomy but it has been plagued by problems since its much-delayed establishment; the division, with Jakarta’s active endorsement, has further reduced its effectiveness.
These problems would be hard enough to manage if Papua had functioning political institutions, but it does not. An ineffectual caretaker governor appointed in July 2011 has left the Papuan provincial government in limbo. Meanwhile, the organisation of a new election has been stymied by a provincial legislature that has focused most of its energy on blocking the former governor from running and vying in national courts with the local election commission for control over parts of the electoral process. The picture is just as grim at district level. This leaves the central government without an engaged partner in Papua, and Papuans without a formal channel for conveying concerns to Jakarta.
The role of a new policy unit – the Unit for Accelerated Development in Papua and West Papua, known by its Indonesian abbreviation of UP4B – established in September 2011, increasingly appears limited to economic affairs, where it will struggle to show visible progress in the short term. Hopes that it might play a behind-the-scenes political role in fostering dialogue on Papuan grievances are fading, as it becomes increasingly clear that dialogue means different things to different people. Efforts to hammer out some consensus on terms and objectives have been set back by the violence, as the government is reluctant to take any steps that might be perceived as making concessions under pressure.
The challenge for the government is to find a short-term strategy that can reduce violence while continuing to work out a policy that will bring long-term social, economic and political benefits and address longstanding grievances. That strategy must involve clear and visible changes in the administration, control and accountability of both the police and military. The security apparatus is not the only problem, nor are police and soldiers always the perpetrators of violence; many have been victims as well. But they have come to symbolise everything that has gone wrong with Jakarta’s handling of the Papuan conflict. It therefore follows that a change in security policy is the best hope for a “quick win” that can transform the political dynamics and halt the slide toward further violence.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Government of Indonesia:
1.  Develop a more integrated policymaking mechanism on Papua at the national and provincial levels to ensure that:
a) programs designed to deliver concrete benefits to Papuans and build trust are not inadvertently undercut by decisions or actions taken in home affairs or by intelligence and security agencies;
b) a more unified security reporting mechanism is created under the Papuan regional police commander to ensure that elements of the military and intelligence apparatus do not undertake operations that report only to Jakarta and are not coordinated with other relevant authorities in Papua.
c) strict oversight of programs is not restricted to the development sphere but encompasses security policy, including examination of income-generating programs of the security forces; and
d) Papuan perspectives are included, either by participation of elected governors or the head of the MRP.
To the Indonesian National Police:
2.  Improve dissemination of and training in Police Regulation N°8/2009 on Implementation of Human Rights Standards and Principles in Carrying Out Police Tasks, with particular attention to:
a) Article 10(e) prohibiting any form of torture and inhumane or humiliating treatment, even in the face of an order from a superior or extraordinary circumstances;
b) Article 10(f) guaranteeing the health of those in custody and providing medical care as needed;
c) Article 10(g) prohibiting corruption and abuse of authority;
d) Article 17 on procedures for arrest;
e) Article 40 prohibiting police from acting in a way that generates antipathy in the community, including by asking for unauthorised fees and covering up mistakes;
f) Articles 42-44 on protecting human rights in a situation of mass unrest; and
g) Articles 45-49 on use of firearms, particularly the provision that non-violent methods should always be used first and firearms should only be used in a way that is proportional to the threat faced.
3.  Review policy on use of live ammunition with a view to restricting its use to specific situations and ensuring an adequate supply of non-lethal equipment for handling civil unrest.
4.  Ensure that police are fully equipped with protective body equipment when assigned to insecure areas or when facing civil unrest so as to reduce the incentive to shoot first.
5.  Reassess training needs, to ensure that anyone posted to a particularkabupaten (district) in Papua receives a thorough and detailed briefing from those who have served in the area about local conditions, conflict dynamics and relations with local government and community leaders, and that anyone finishing a tour of duty undergoes an equally thorough debriefing so that knowl­edge and lessons learned can be institutionalised.
6.  Redesign allowances and incentive structures so that police are rewarded rather than penalised for taking posts in isolated and difficult areas and encouraged to build stronger links with local communities.
To the Indonesian National Army and the Indonesian National Police:
7.  Make a clear commitment to ending impunity for inappropriate use of force and torture and to enforcing more credible sanctions against individuals responsible for such behaviour in a visible and public manner so that Papuans can see that justice is being done.
8.  Ensure in particular that there is a policy – rigorously implemented – of zero tolerance that begins in police and military academies for kicking, beating with any instrument including rifle butts or other forms of physical violence in the course of detention, interrogation or on-the-spot punishment for alleged offences.
9.  Make clear that “emotion” can never be used to justify excessive use of force, especially in reacting to attacks by Papuan groups.
10.  Provide more systematic oversight and scrutiny of income and expenditures in district and sub-district-level commands, particularly in those close to mining sites, with a view to ending illegal levies on the trans­port of goods and services.
To the Unit for Accelerated Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B):
11.  Work with the provincial and district-level governments in Papua as well as ministries at national level to identify gaps in implementation of special autonomy legislation and develop strategies for addressing them.
To the National Elections Commission (KPU):
12.  In light of the Constitutional Court’s upholding of the practice of voting by acclamation (using the noken system), work with the provincial-level elections commission (KPUD Papua) to develop clear guidelines that will ensure tabulating these votes includes at least minimum standards against electoral fraud and conduct increased voter education efforts accordingly.
To Papuan Provincial Legislators and the Elected Governor (when one is in place):
13.  Give top priority to enacting the some two dozen regulations necessary to ensure that special autonomy is fully implemented.
Jakarta/Brussels, 9 August 2012

Sabtu, 24 Agustus 2013

INDONESIA: POLICE OFFICERS BEAT UP A JOURNALIST IN ENAROTALI, PAPUA

INDONESIA: Police officers beat up a journalist in Enarotali, Papua

August 23, 2013

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-113-2013

23 August 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INDONESIA: Police officers beat up a journalist in Enarotali, Papua
ISSUES: Police violence; threats and intimidation; torture
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the torture of a journalist in Enarotali, Papua, by three police officers. The Chief of Paniai District Police has apologised to the victim and promised that he will take action against the three officers. It is likely, however, that the ‘action’ will be administrative and not criminal.
CASE NARRATIVE:
According to a local activist, on 15 August 2013 at around 4.30 p.m. a journalist for Bintang Papua Andreas Badii was riding his motorbike home after buying a wick for his oil stove when a police officer named Lukman stopped and searched him. When the officer found the wick inside Andreas’s bag, he asked what it was for. In a jokingly but polite manner, Andreas replied: ‘Ah, Uncle, you are just acting like you do not know.’ The police officer, who was a member of Paniai District Police, wast offended with Andreas’s response. He asked Andreas repeatedly: ‘are you opposing me?’ (Picture: Andreas Badii was beaten on his head so that his nose bled heavily. Courtesy of a local activist in Papua)
Andreas explained that he did not mean to oppose the officer and that the threads were only a wick for his oil stove. However, the officer responded by beating Andreas’s head which at that time was covered with a helmet. Two other police officers named Frendi Tomatala and Wellem Usior approached Andreas and also beat him on the face so that the journalist’s nose and lips were injured. One of the police officers pulled Andreas’s shirt from behind making him fall off his motorbike, and Wellem Usior also appointed his gun at Andreas. Andreas’s nose and lips were bleeding heavily but instead of taking him to a hospital for medical treatment, the three police officers took him to East Paniai Sub-District Police Station which is around 500 metres from the scene.
In the police station an unidentified officer explained to Andreas that they had been conducting a security operation since January 2013 and that they were all tired and suffering from lack of sleep. For such reason, the police officers tend to be aggressive. Andreas was later released after being held at the police station for around 30 minutes. Before leaving the station, he looked for the Chief of the Paniai District Police who was unfortunately not around at that time.
The following morning at 8.45 a.m., Andreas was about to go to Paniai District Police to file a complaint about the abuse when the Chief of the district police, Semmy Ronny Aba, called him. The Chief apologised for the bad behaviour of his subordinates and explained that since the Indonesian National Police have a set of code of conduct, a complaint from Andreas can be legally followed up. At 9.15 a.m. Andreas met with the Chief himself who later ordered the officers from the police’s internal monitoring unit to take his complaint.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
In 2009, the Chief of the Indonesian Police issued a regulation which calls for all its members to respect human rights in implementing their roles and duties. According to Article 10 point c of the regulation, for instance, Indonesian police officers are prohibited from using violence, unless it is necessary to prevent a crime or to arrest criminal suspects. Yet despite the astonishing articles under the regulation, violence by police officers remains common as of today. As an example, in early August this year, a police officer shot a mentally ill Papuan to death even though the man did not pose any harm or involve in any criminal activity. Torture has also been reported to be rampant in Indonesia, with police officers marked as state officials who perpetrated the abuse the most.
Although many cases on torture and violence by the police have been reported, only a limited number of them ended in the criminal punishment of the perpetrators. The complaints which did not end up this way were either not followed up at all or were examined by an internal monitoring mechanism within the police, the Professionalism and Security Division. Critics have been addressed to such mechanism not only because it is lacking of transparency but also due to its administrative nature and how it is often used to substitute criminal proceeding. Such substitution is not in accordance with the UN Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in which one of provisions requires the adequate punishment of the perpetrators under a criminal proceeding.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the relevant authorities listed below asking for their intervention in this case that instead of being given administrative sanction, the three police officers who ill-treated Andreas will be criminally punished. Please also urge them to ensure that adequate reparation is provided to Andreas.
The AHRC is writing separately to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, asking for his intervention on this matter.
To support this appeal, please click here:  
SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear ...................,
INDONESIA: Police officers beat up a journalist in Enarotali, Papua
Name of victim: Andreas Badii
Names of alleged perpetrators: First Police Brigadier (Briptu) Wellem Usior, Second Police Brigadiers (Bripda) Frendi Tomatala and Lukman. The officers are attached to Paniai District Police
Date of incident: 15 August 2013
Place of incident: Enarotali, Papua
I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the torture and ill-treatment against a journalist of Bintang Papua by three police officers from Paniai District Police, Enarotali, Papua. I have been informed by a local activist that in the morning of 15 August 2013, Andreas Badii was riding his motorbike home when Bripda Lukman stopped and searched him. The officer found a wick in Andreas’s bag and inquired on what the journalist will used it for. Responding to such question, Andreas replied jokingly ‘ah, Uncle, you are acting like you do not know’ which was countered rather nastily by the officer. Bripda Lukman asked to Andreas, ‘are you opposing me?’ while the journalist was explaining that what the officer found was just a wick for his oil stove. However, Bripda Lukman hit Andreas on his head while kept asking ‘are you opposing me?’
Two other officers identified as Briptu Wellem Usior as well as Bripda Frendi Tomatala later approached Andreas and started beating him on his head so that Andreas’s nose and lips injured and bleeding heavily. One of the three officers pulled Andreas’s shirt causing him to fall off his motorbike whereas Briptu Wellem Usior appointed his gun at the journalist. Although Andreas was heavily bleeding on his lips and nose, the police officers did not take him to the hospital but to East Paniai Sub-District Police Station which was located around 500 metres away from the scene. Andreas was released on the same day after being held for 30 minutes at the station.
According to the information I have obtained, Andreas received a phone call from the Chief of Paniai District Police, Semmy Ronny Aba, who apologised for the behaviour of his subordinates. Apart from that, the Chief explained that the officers have breached the police’s code of conduct that he will take action against them. The Chief met his promised as after Andreas met him in the afternoon of the same day, the Chief ordered his officers from the internal monitoring unit to take Andreas’s complaint.
I appreciate the fact that the Chief of Paniai District Police has apologised to Andreas directly and also has ordered for the police’s internal monitoring unit (Provost) to follow up Andreas’s complaint. However, I wish to emphasise that this internal mechanism within the police should not be treated as the substitute for the criminal proceeding against the three police officers who have assaulted Andreas. What the officers have done to Andreas was not simply a breach of conduct but – much more serious than that – a crime and a human rights violation.
Bearing this in mind, an effective and impartial investigation on this case should take place that the three officers will be punished criminally in accordance with the law. The ongoing investigation under the Provost shall be continued and conducted transparently, but should not be considered as the substitute for the criminal proceeding. As a state party to the UN Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, I am calling you to comply with the obligation to ensure that the perpetrators of torture and ill-treatment are punished adequately and criminally, as required for the convention. In addition to that, I am urging you to ensure that adequate reparation is given to Andreas.
I look forward for your positive, adequate and swift response in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
----------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
President of the Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Veteran No. 16
Jakarta Pusat
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 3458 595
Fax: +62 21 3484 4759
E-mail: webmaster@setneg.go.id
2. Ms. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo
General Director of Human Rights
Ministry of Law and Human Rights
Jl. HR Rasuna Said Kav. 6–7
Kuningan, Jakarta 12940
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 525 3006, 525 3889
Fax: +62 21 525 3095
3. Gen. Timur Pradopo
Chief of the Indonesian National Police
Jl. Trunojoyo No. 3
Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan 12110
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 384 8537, 726 0306
Fax: +62 21 7220 669
E-mail: info@polri.go.id
4. Mr. Tito Karnavian
Chief of Papua Regional Police
Jl. Dr. Sam Ratulangi No. 8 Jayapura
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 967 531 014, 533 396
Fax: +62 967 533 763
5. Ms. Siti Nur Laila
Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission
Jl. Latuharhary No. 4-B
Jakarta 10310
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 392 5227-30
Fax: +62 21 392 5227
E-mail: info@komnas.go.id
6. Mr. Abdul Haris Semendawai
Chairperson of Witnesses and Victims Protection Agency
Gedung Proklamasi
Jl. Proklamasi No. 56
Jakarta Pusat 10320
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 3190 7021
Fax: +62 21 3192 7881
E-mail: lpsk_ri@lpsk.go.id

Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Rabu, 21 Agustus 2013

HABITUS PAPUAN PEOPLE IN LAND OF PAPUA

HABITUS PAPUAN PEOPLE IN PAPUA


The people of West Papua were among the first farmers in the world and in the highlands have been gardening their foods using incredibly sophisticated techniques including irrigation for over 9,000 years.

These gardens which decorate many of the hillsides of the new Guinea highlands are very intricate and skillful and used to grow crops such as sweet potato and taro, staples for many Melanesian and other Pacific people.

And yet the Indonesian government describes West Papuans as "primitive".
In a further attempt to starve West Papuans and to eradicate the intrinsic parts of Papuan culture, the Indonesian military regularly kills domestic pigs, burns these precious gardens and forces west Papuan people to grow the Indonesian staple of rice instead and to raise not pigs but Asian buffalo.

It is in ways such as this that the Indonesian military and government is slowly beginning to eradicate West Papuan livelihood, culture and way of life.

The Indonesian government is trying its hardest to turn West Papua into an Indonesian land.

How long will West Papuans be able to garden freely and live as Papuans whilst Indonesia continues to tear into their fields for multinational corporations and military posts?

The Indonesian occupation is trying to tear out the very heart of Papuan livelihood.

If West Papua is not independent soon, West Papua will no longer be a Papuan land.

Senin, 19 Agustus 2013

DAFTAR NAMA-NAMA AGEN INFORMAN APARAT KEAMANAN INDONESIA DI TANAH PAPUA

DAFTAR NAMA-NAMA ORANG PAPUA YANG MENJADI AGEN INDONESIA

Written By www.star-papua.com on Minggu, 10 Februari 2013 | 20.15


“ORANG ASLI PAPUA YANG BEKERJA UNTUK INDONESIA UNTUK MENJADI AGEN INFORMASI TNI-POLRI INDONESIA”

Star-Papua—Berita hebo melalui SMS kepada seluruh warga Papua, selama Tiga hari terakhir ini, menyebutkan beberapa nama-nama Orang Asli Papua Wilayah adat Meepago (suku Mee),  mereka diduga menjadi agen Militer tentara, Polisi, BMP, Bais, Intel. Hanya untuk kepentingan “Uang dan Jabatan”. Sms yang kirim kewww.malanesia.com pada Rabu (06/02/2013).

Nama-nama yang tercantum dalam sms yakni; 1. Ruben Magai, 2. Agar Madai, Samuel Yogi, 4.Nahason Utii, 5.Deki Tenouye, 6. Ananias Pigai, 7.Naftali Kobepa, 8.Sadrak Degei, 9.Yulian Nawipa, 10. Isayas Douw (Bupati Nabire), 11.Mesak Magai, 12. Tomas Tigi (Bupati Dogiyai), nama-nama ini yang sementara informasi sedang beredar melalui sms, mereka juga berharap smsnya teruskan kesesama orang Papua supaya menyetahuinya.

“Kemudian, orang Papua hati Indonesia, mereka ini juga mengangkal jati diri harga diri sebagai orang Papua, mereka mengakui sepenuhnya orang Indonesia,”Bunyi smsnya.

Orang Papua yang menjadi mencari informasi  kerja mereka hanya mencari informasi seputar Papua merdeka, melacak keberadaan Tpn-Opm, mencari tahu nama-nama aktivis Papua Merdeka, dan mencari Tahu agenda Perjuangan Papua merdeka, setelah mendapat informasi mereka melapor kepada Tentara, polisi, untuk Menembak dan menangkap, dengan alasan menjalankan tugas Negara.

Sedangkan Nama-nama lain, seperti dilangsir  back list  http://www.wpnla.net/, di antaranya adalah, 1 BIODATA AGEN.pdf, 2. DATA AGEN.pdf, 3. DAFTAR AGEN POS – 6 MULIA.pdf, dan 4. DAFTAR INFORMAN KOTARAJA.pdf

Rahasia  “Biodata Agen” Satgas Ban – 5 / Kopassus Kota Raja, pada oktober   2007,  Nama-nama sebagai berikut; 1.  Abdul M Syarif  Asal Daerah    Biak,  Agen tersebut sangat potensial  untuk mengikuti semua kegiatan  Markus Haluk dan Buktar Tabuni.  2. John Morring asal  padang Bulan, (kerjanya memberikan informasi tentang gerakan dari pada mahasiswa), 3. Alfius, asal entrop kerjanya, ( dalam memberikan informasi tentang kegiatan-kegiatan jumpa pers dan demonstrasi-demonstrasi) lebih lengkapnya klik link ini; http://www.wpnla.net/wp-content/uploads/BIODATA-AGEN.pdf

Data Agen lain yakni; 1. Abdul M Syarif, asal Biak,  tugasnya mengikuti kegiatan dari Markus haluk dan Buchtar  Tabuni. 2. Rudi,  asal kamkey,  tugasnya kejadian- kejadian menonjol yang terjadi di daerah Kotaraja, dan sekitarnya. Lebih lengkap buka link ini: http://www.wpnla.net/wp-content/uploads/DATA-AGEN.pdf

Daftar informasih kota raja, menyebutkan nama-nama yang  menjadi informan yaitu Mahasiswa, masyarakat sipil, toko adat, Pegawai sipil, dan swasta. mereka juga anggota Intel, BMP dll. Buka langsung link ini: http://www.wpnla.net/wp-content/uploads/DAFTAR-INFORMAN-KOTARAJA.pdf

Kemudian selanjutnya,  daftar agen pos enam mulia Puncak Jaya, sebanyak tujuh orang asal puncak jaya, selengkapnya buka halaman web ini; http://www.wpnla.net/wp-content/uploads/DAFTAR-AGEN-POS-%E2%80%93-6-MULIA.pdf

Masih banyak yang belum terdata, lebih lengkapnya akan di muat dalam waktu dekat. Begitu disampaikan oleh salah satu aktivis Ham  asal Papua, yang langsung dari lapangan dia juga mendapatkan informasi dari orang yang terpercaya. Hingga saat ini masih mencari informasi selengkapnya.  Ungkap melalui sms. (M/A.Bonai)

Minggu, 18 Agustus 2013

BREAKING NEWS: MAYORA AND ASTRA OFFICES OCCUPIED MIFEE IN LAND OF MERAUKE-PAPUA

Breaking News: Mayora and Astra Offices Occupied in Merauke.

Masyarakat-Wambi-Distrik-Okaba-sedang-pertemuan-bersamaAround 100 people from the SSUMAWOMA Malind Woyu Maklew Intellectual Forum are currently occupying PT Mayora and PT Astra’s company offices on Jalan Ternate, Merauke City.
The occupation started at 11.00 local time, involving youth and community members from the Malind Muli Woyu Maklew sub-ethnic group, from villages such as Wamal, Dokib, Wambi, Dodalim and Kimam.
Their demand is that the two companies stop their operations and drop their investment plans for sugar-cane plantations in Okaba, Ngguti, Tubang and Ilwayab. At the time of writing, two hours after the action started, the companies had yet to respond to the people’s demands. The action was being guarded by dozens of local police.
Recently it was reported that the companies had used Brimob military police and the accusation of separatism to force people in affected villages to accept an agreement with the company.
After villagers in Yowid village reported that they had been intimidated into signing PT Mayora’s document, the SSUMAWOMA forum recorded video testimony of the elders who had been forced to sign (which can be watched here:https://awasmifee.potager.org/?p=472 ).
Then yesterday ( Sunday 11/8) the SSUMAWOMA forum organised a meeting and press conference in the Payum beach area of Merauke city. As tabloidjubi.com reported the discussion, there was heated argument between the people attending, but in the end all present were agreed on the need to oppose the two companies.
anakwoboyuAside from the intimidation experienced in Yowid, the discussion focussed on some of the other impacts that villagers are already experiencing as companies engage in the first phase of their plans, to survey the land and open negotiations with indigenous landowners. From Tabloid Jubi’s report:
A well-known Marind intellectual, Leonardus Moyuend, explained how villagers in the area were already feeling the pressure and can no longer sleep well. They also cannot go about their everyday activities as before, knowing about the companies’ plans to start operations around their villages. “To be honest, when the companies move in, it totally destroys the arrangement between one village and its neighbours,” he explained.
The problem, Leonardus continued, was that each village would make different claims about the boundaries of their land. “We never ad clear information from the government about this major program. If there is really a desire for companies to operate here, then all concerned parties such as the District Legislative Council, indigenous leaders from each village and other stakeholders should sit down with the government and investors and start discussions again from the beginning”, he said.
Instead what has been happening, he said, is that companies move in to the different villages on the quiet and then tell some of the people there that they are going to invest. “This is a really bad method the companies are using. It is the reason we have a strong commitment to resist the various areas of work they are focussing on”, he said.
He added that village elders had already given a mandate to local intellectuals to speak out and make interventions to oppose investment activities in their villages “We will never stay passive in the face of the companies’ efforts” he stated.
Meanwhile, an indigenous leader from kampung Wambi, Wilhelmus Bole Kaize said that he had already held meetings together with local indigenous people around ten times. The outcome was always that the people of that village opposed investment. The reason was because it would destroy the natural environment the people had taken care of through the years.
According to him, the area around Kampung Wambi should be used for tourism and culture. The outlook could be promising. In that way, there would be no more possibilities for corporate investors to move in. “We are completely agreed to resist the investors,” he said.
Three years after the MIFEE megaproject was launched, opening up Merauke Regency to plantation companies, initiatives by local people to organise to resist the companies appear to be on the increase. While the SSUMAWOMA forum is mostly concerned with the western part of the MIFEE area, a week ago on August 3rd another meeting brought together villagers from all over the central area of Merauke Regency. In that area companies such as Medco, Rajawali and Wilmar are operating and land is also being taken over for agriculture by transmigrants. That meeting also demanded that the government withdraw the permits for companies that are destroying the forest.
Johanes Mahuze, from Tanah Tinggi explained the predicament: “Real Marind people live with the land and the forest and wildlife are kept safe. We sit, we stand and we live from the land. We carry out our traditional rituals from the land and the forest, and the animals provide our food. If the land, forest and animals are all gone and we no longer own them, then the Marind Anim people are wiped out and become Plastic Marind, having to buy what we need for our traditions from the shops. We don’t want to become Plastic Marind”.
We will try to provide information on the outcome of the occupation action when we receive it.
Action report received via email.
This entry was posted in Merauke News and tagged . Bookmark thepermalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Kamis, 15 Agustus 2013

MASYARAKAT TELUK BINTUNI MENGINGINKAN AKUNTABILITAS DALAM PROYEK TANGGUH DI BINTUNI PROPINSI PAPUA BARAT

Masyarakat Teluk Bintuni menginginkan akuntabilitas dalam proyek Tangguh


Peserta menyiapkan daftar rekomendasi untuk disampaikan ke BP dalam lokakarya bulan November 2012 di Bintuni. (Foto: Mnukwar)
DTE 95, Maret 2013
Komunitas mengkritik kurangnya transparansi dan janji-janji yang tidak dipenuhi dalam proyek gas Tangguh di Papua Barat yang dioperasikan oleh BP, sebuah perusahaan multinasional yang berbasis di Inggris. 
Dalam sebuah lokakarya tiga hari yang diadakan di Bintuni, Papua Barat, baru-baru ini, masyarakat yang terkena dampak proyek gas Tangguh menuntut agar BP dan pemerintah Indonesia mendengarkan keluhan mereka dan memberi mereka kesempatan untuk berpendapat akan hidup mereka, penghidupan dan masa depan wilayah Teluk Bintuni. 
Dalam kunjungan kenegaraan ke Inggris pada bulan November 2012, Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono menerima gelar kehormatan dari Ratu Inggris yang menandai hubungan yang lebih erat antara kedua negara.  Selama di Inggris Presiden SBY juga menandatangani berbagai kesepakatan dalam bidang perdagangan, pertahanan keamanan serta pendidikan. Paling menyolok di antaranya adalah penandatanganan kesepakatan senilai US$12,1 milyar (setara dengan Rp109 trilyun) untuk perluasan produksi BP dalam ekstraksi gas dan pemrosesan gas alam cair (LNG) di Teluk Bintuni, Papua Barat (lihat kotak untuk informasi lebih rinci)[1].
Baru-baru ini Presiden SBY kembali dijamu oleh salah satu negara Eropa yang menghasilkan antara lain sebuah perjanjian yang berkaitan dengan eksploitasi sumber daya alam di Papua Barat. Perusahaan besar Jerman, Ferrostaal akan membangun pabrik pemrosesan petrokimia senilai US$2 milyar (sekitar Rp18 trilyun) di Teluk Bintuni, yang menggunakan gas dari Tangguh sebagai bahan mentahnya[2]. Tahun lalu sebuah kesepakatan awal untuk membangun pabrik petrokimia di Teluk Bintuni telah ditandatangani dengan LG dari Korea Selatan[3].
 
Pengembangan sektor minyak dan gas di Papua Barat adalah salah satu target MP3EI (Masterplan Percepatan dan Pengembangan Pembangunan Ekonomi Indonesia), sebuah inisiatif pemerintah pusat yang mengundang banyak kritik karena mengabaikan masalah-masalah keberlanjutan sosial dan lingkungan serta perubahan iklim[4]. Setidaknya di Papua Barat MP3EI berjalan cepat.
Masyarakat setempat, yang tanah adat dan sumber daya alamnya menjadi target rencana-rencana pembangunan semacam itu, sulit untuk memahami apa yang terjadi di wilayah mereka dan bagaimana menyampaikan pendapat mereka. Mereka menyaksikan orang lain datang melakukan eksploitasi terhadap sumber daya kayu mereka sejak bertahun-tahun lamanya. Gelombang eksploitasi yang terbaru ini tampaknya sama sekali berbeda skalanya. 

Menyuarakan keprihatinan
Keprihatinan masyarakat akan proyek Tangguh diangkat dalam lokakarya 3 hari yang diselenggarakan di kota kecil Bintuni, Papua Barat, antara tanggal 21-23 November 2012. Lokakarya tersebut berjudul “Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam yang Berkeadilan dan Menghargai Hak Masyarakat Adat di Era Otonomi Khusus”.  Mengingat eksploitasi sumber daya alam yang meningkat di Teluk Bintuni, tidak heran jika wakil komunitas lokal datang ke lokakarya dengan sikap skeptis. Tampak jelas peserta lokakarya sudah bosan mendengar berbagai janji dan inisiatif yang berjalan di tempat, bahkan sebaliknya semakin menjajah kehidupan mereka. 
Lokakarya disusun seputar pembahasan laporan DTE “Tangguh, BP dan Standar Internasional” dengan masyarakat yang bermukim di kawasan Teluk Bintuni[5]. Pengeboran gas BP dan proyek gas alam cair berlokasi di pantai selatan Teluk Bintuni, sedangkan Bintuni, kota terdekat, berada di pantai utara. Sejak awal nyata benar bahwa harapan utama masyarakat hadir dalam lokakarya ini adalah untuk memanfaatkan kesempatan bertemu dan berdiskusi mengenai dampak-dampak proyek serta pembangunan lainnya. Pada hari terakhir lokakarya diskusi melibatkan staf BP dan wakil pemerintah daerah.
LP3BH, sebuah organisasi pembela HAM di Manokwari, dan Jaringan Advokasi LSM Papua Barat adalah penanggungjawab utama lokakarya ini, sedangkan fasilitasi dilakukan bersama-sama oleh LP3BH, Bin Madag Hom dan DTE. 
Lokakarya ini dihadiri oleh sekitar 70 orang wakil komunitas dan kelompok perempuan, organisasi antar agama dan pemuda, baik dari wilayah pantai utara maupun selatan. Mereka semua mengalami dampak pembangunan proyek Tangguh. Menurut mereka, ini untuk pertama kalinya sebuah lokakarya diselenggarakan oleh ornop bagi masyarakat, dimana para peserta dapat berbicara terbuka, duduk sama rata dengan perusahaan dan wakil pemerintah daerah. 
Pada hari pertama, para peserta membagikan pengalaman mereka tinggal di sekitar proyek Tangguh. “Kami hidup harmonis sebelum ada proyek Tangguh,” kata salah seorang peserta. “Sejak ada proyek, kehidupan kami berubah. Tumbuh kecemburuan, terutama antara komunitas di selatan dan utara, juga di antara mereka yang mendapat fasilitas lebih baik dan yang tidak.”
Wakil masyarakat juga menyatakan bahwa mereka tidak suka melihat orang luar mendapat pekerjaan lebih baik di proyek sedangkan masyarakat setempat hanya menjadi pekerja kasar. Dampak terhadap akses untuk mencari ikan juga menjadi keluhan serius. Selain itu sejumlah komunitas di pantai selatan mengeluhkan akibat yang mereka tanggung setelah tergusur proyek pemrosesan LNG[6]. Di balik ini semua, kita tahu bahwa kehidupan masyarakat di sekitar Teluk Bintuni sedang berubah akibat pengaruh dari luar yang terjadi di luar kendali mereka. Perubahan-perubahan ini menuju ke sebuah masa depan yang tidak menunjukkan tanda-tanda yang membawa perbaikan taraf kehidupan. Salah satu contoh yang disebutkan peserta adalah ketiadaan listrik yang memadai di Kabupaten Bintuni, seperti yang pernah dijanjikan kepada masyarakat.
Pada hari kedua, lokakarya membahas isi laporan DTE, yang merupakan kumpulan janji-janji proyek Tangguh dalam hal sosial, HAM dan lingkungan. Sebagian besar peserta tidak tahu akan adanya dokumen-dokumen penting BP tersebut yang menguraikan standar sosial dan lingkungan dari pembangunan proyek Tangguh. Dalam proses Amdal di awal proyek, masyarakat sudah memberikan pandangan mereka kepada perusahaan, sebagian besar mengharapkan adanya perbaikan penghidupan. Namun hingga saat ini mereka masih menunggu harapan-harapan tersebut dipenuhi. 
Peserta juga tertarik mengetahui lebih jauh mengenai proyek-proyek BP di belahan dunia lainnya dan keuntungan yang diperoleh. Perbedaan menyolok antara kemampuan perusahaan mengeruk laba dan taraf hidup masyarakat yang terpapar ‘modernitas tanggung’ oleh perusahaan, menambah rasa telah diperlakukan tidak adil. 
File 392
Wakil-wakil BP dan Bappeda (kiri dan tengah) dalam lokakarya bersama masyarakat, dengan fasilitator dari Bin Madag Hom (kanan) (Foto: Mnukwar)
Atas permintaan masyarakat dan ornop penyelenggara lokakarya, hari terakhir lokakarya diisi dengan diskusi antara wakil BP dan Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah (Bappeda). Diskusi berlangsung sangat jujur dan terbuka. Peserta perwakilan masyarakat  mengkritik kinerja BP dan Bappeda secara terbuka. Hal ini menunjukkan kuatnya rasa akan adanya hubungan yang tidak setara antara masyarakat setempat dan lembaga yang berkuasa serta perusahaan yang melakukan eksploitasi sumber daya alam di Teluk Bintuni. 
Lokakarya ini menghasilkan sejumlah rekomendasi bagi BP dan pemerintah daerah setempat  (lihat rekomendasi).
Proses dialog antara komunitas dan perwakilan BP yang berlangsung selama lokakarya dibawa ke dalam pertemuan TIAP (Panel Penasehat Independen Tangguh) yang kebetulan berlangsung 2 minggu setelah lokakarya. Rekomendasi dari peserta lokakarya secara resmi disampaikan kepada wakil BP dan pemerintah daerah, juga kepada panel TIAP oleh wakil LP3BH. 
Pengembangan proyek Tangguh
Perluasan proyek Tangguh, yang disepakati secara resmi di London, mencakup pembangunan ‘kereta produksi’ (train) ketiga yang direncanakan akan beroperasi secara penuh pada tahun 2018. Hal ini akan meningkatkan kapasitas produksi kilang Tangguh sebesar 3,8 juta ton LNG per tahun, menjadi total 11,4 juta ton per tahun. Sebagai bagian dari kesepakatan pembangunan kereta ketiga ini, sejumlah besar gas akan memasok kebutuhan pasar domestik Indonesia melalui PT PLN selain juga untuk memasok pabrik petrokimia yang telah disebut di atas. 
BP adalah operator proyek Tangguh dan memiliki 37,16% sahamnya[7].  Mitra BP adalah MI Berau BV dari Jepang, yang memegang 16,3% saham; CNOOC Ltd dari Cina (13,9%), Nippon Oil Exploration (Berau) Ltd dari Jepang (12,23%), KG Berau/KG Wiriagar dari Jepang (10%), LNG Japan Corporation (7,35%) dan Talisman dari Australia (3,06%)[8]
File 394
Peserta dari Gemapuan (sebuah kelompok perempuan) membacakan rekomendasi peserta lokakarya kepada wakil-wakil BP dan Pemda pada hari terakhir lokakarya bulan November 2012 di Bintuni, Papua Barat. (Foto: Mnukwar)

Apakah BP akan mendengarkan?
Dari berbagai keprihatinan yang disampaikan masyarakat mengenai penghidupan mereka dalam lokakarya, dapat disimpulkan bahwa BP belum mampu menanggulangi dampak operasi mereka saat ini di Teluk Bintuni secara memadai. Sekarang mereka bahkan memperluas proyek Tangguh dan kemungkinan besar akan menimbulkan dampak yang lebih besar lagi. Masyarakat sipil Papua sudah berulangkali menyampaikan kekuatiran mereka, baik di Papua, di Indonesia maupun di forum internasional. Sekarang masyarakat setempat sudah menyampaikan keprihatinan mereka secara langsung kepada perusahaan dan pemerintah daerah. 
Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir BP telah dipaksa untuk mengakui dampak-dampak negatif operasinya di beberapa lokasi, misalnya, pasca ledakan di Deepwater Horizon dan kecelakaan tumpahnya minyak di laut di Amerika Serikat, saat ini BP memperkirakan perlu menanggung biaya pembersihan dan kompensasi sebesar US$42 milyar (sekitar Rp378 trilyun)[9]. Masih perlu kita lihat bagaimana BP akan menanggapi tuntutan untuk bertanggunggugat di Papua Barat.

Dokumen berikut ini disiapkan oleh para peserta wakil komunitas lalu diserahkan kepada wakil BP dan pemerintah daerah pada hari terakhir lokakarya di Bintuni.
Rekomendasi
Forum lokakarya pengelolaan sumber daya alam yang berkeadilan dan menghargai hak masyarakat adat di era otonomi khusus, Teluk Bintuni Papua Barat, pada tanggal 21-23 November 2012, bertempat di hotel Steenkool, merekomendasikan kepada pihak Pemerintah Daerah Kabupaten Teluk Bintuni dan BP Tangguh, sebagai berikut:
Pemda Teluk Bintuni
  1. Perlu adanya transparansi dan keberpihakan eksekutif dan legislatif kepada masyarakat.
  2. Perlu adanya keterbukaan dan transparansi dari pihak Pemerintah Daerah (eksekutif dan legislatif) tentang aktivitas BP Tangguh berkaitan dengan bagi hasil migas kepada masyarakat adat. 
  3. Pemerintah Daerah segera mendorong pengesahan perda dan perdasus tentang pembagian hasil migas.
  4. Pemerintah Daerah segera meninjau kembali sistem rekrutmen penerimaan tenaga kerja lokal dan non lokal yang tidak sesuai dengan keputusan Amdal. 
  5. Pemerintah harus membentuk Komisi Informasi Daerah.
BP Tangguh
  1. Forum ini meminta kepada BP Tangguh agar meninjau kembali Amdal yang telah dibuat.
  2. Selama ini pembangunan yang dilakukan oleh BP Tangguh meliputi pendidikan, kesehatan dan ekonomi rumah tangga (usaha ekonomi keluarga) secara non fisik belum maksimal seperti apa yang dijanjikan. BP Tangguh segera meningkatkan program-program community development.
  3. Forum ini meminta kepada pemerintah dan manajemen BP Tangguh untuk menghadirkan Presiden  BP Tangguh (William Lin) untuk bertemu langsung dengan masyarakat adat 7 suku di Kabupaten Teluk Bintuni, jika tidak pemerintah dan BP Tangguh memfasilitasi masyarakat adat 7 suku untuk bertemu langsung dengan Presiden BP Tangguh di Inggris.
  4. Diharapkan BP Tangguh untuk melaksanakan forum lokakarya seperti ini setiap tahunnya di Kabupaten Teluk Bintuni. 
  5. Perusahaan harus menginformasikan segala kebijakan yang diambil terkait eksplorasi secara terbuka kepada komunitas masyarakat adat, masyarakat luas dan pemerintah.
Ditetapkan di: Bintuni
Pada tanggal: 23 November 2012
File 398

[1] Lihat The Jakarta Globe, 2 November 2012 'Indonesia and Britain ink deals on trade, defence, education' http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/indonesia-and-britain-ink-deals-on-trade-defense-education/553799 (artikel dalam bahasa Inggris)
[2] Surat Pernyataan Kehendak (LoI) atau kesepakatan awal, lihat The Jakarta Globe, 6 Maret, 2013.  'Ferrostaal to build US$2b plant In W.Papua', http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/ferrostaal-to-build-2b-plant-in-w-papua/577270,  dan http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=875008 (artikel dalam bahasa Inggris)
[3] Lihat ‘Rencana Besar untuk Papua’ http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/story/rencana-besar-untuk-papua,  DTE 91-92, Mei 2012.
[4]  Lihat ‘Rencana Besar untuk Papua’ http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/story/rencana-besar-untuk-papua seperti di atas.
[5] Lihat BP Tangguh, Teluk Bintuni dalam konteks Papua http://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/story/bp-tangguh-teluk-bintuni-dalam-konteks-papua
[6] Sebuah kampung digusur demi pembangunan pabrik pemrosesan LNG dalam pembangunan proyek Tangguh.  BP membangun sebuah kampung pemukiman baru untuk masyarakat yang tergusur tersebut. Pabrik LNG itu sendiri secara resmi beroperasi pada tahun 2004. Lihathttp://www.downtoearth-indonesia.org/id/story/bp-tangguh-teluk-bintuni-dalam-konteks-papua.
[7] Lihat The Guardian, 22 Feb 2013. 'BP and government lawyers prepare for battle over environmental cost of spill' (artikel dalam bahasa Inggris)
[8] Lihat The Financial Times, 1 Nov 2012.  'BP wins approval for Tangguh expansion' (artikel dalam bahasa Inggris)
[9] Lihat The Jakarta Post, 7/Sep/2012, ‘BP to sell 40% of third LNG train’s output to PLN’, http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/09/07/bp-sell-40-third-lng-train-s-output-pln.html (artikel dalam bahasa Inggris)