Black May 1998: 12th Commemmoration

Canadians Committed to Ethnic Voice in Indonesia (CCEVI) in collaboration with Southeast Asia Group, Asian Institute, University of Toronto invite all of you to attend a memorial service in commemmoration of Black May 1998 in Indonesia.

Date: May 29, 2010
Time: 12:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Venue: 108 N - Seminar Room North House
Munk School of Global Affairs
1 Davonshire Place, Toronto, ON M5S 3K7

Sheri Gibbings, a PhD candidate of Department of Anthropology of the University of Toronto will present a talk titled "Violence, Order, and Talk: A Saat in Yogyakarta, Indonesia."

Abstract
There has been considerable interest in discussing the rise of inter-communal violence in Indonesia, especially religious and ethnic violence. With few exceptions this literature discusses the role decentralization has played in producing conflict in Indonesia. Another part of this literature has examined the changing role of paramilitary, vigilante and militia groups since the fall of the New Order. Most of these authors agree that since the collapse of the New Order in 1998 there has been less state sponsored violence but an increase of violence and conflict by paramilitary, criminal and vigilante groups that are largely independent from the state. Yet with this democratization of violence in post New Order Indonesia, under what conditions does the state claim the right to use violence? When does the state claim a monopole of the legitimate use of violence and security in this era of increasing privatization of violence?

This talk will explore a relocation of 800 street vendors in Yogyakarta where both the government and street vendors use the threat of violence. I am interested in a particularly tense moment, a few months before a government planned relocation. I argue that this apprehensive moment, assumes a similar structure and feeling evoked in moments such as elections, and as what has been described as a saat in Bahasa Indonesia. I describe how this saat, a possible moment of violence, has its own structure and vocabulary and occupies a space between “actual” and “possible” violence, and how this space generates unique and very powerful structures of feeling, narratives and talk around violence. The narratives associated with this saat are powerful because they are imagined in relation to other incidents of violence in the past and present. In this way, I argue that the talk of violence had a pervasive and persuasive hold over those involved in the relocation because it drew on other abnormal moments from the past, which placed this moment also outside the “normal” and the everyday and to surpass the exigencies of the local and the present.


Further information and RSVP, please visit: http://webapp.mcis.utoronto.ca/EventDetails.aspx?eventId=9096

Mungkinkah Terulang Lagi?

Sabtu, 15 Mei 2010 | 03:52 WIB
Oleh: Salahuddin Wahid (Wakil Ketua Komnas HAM 2002-2007; Pengasuh Pesantren Tebuireng)

Dua belas tahun berlalu sejak Tragedi Mei 1998, salah satu tragedi kelam yang pernah menimpa kita. Total ada 1.338 orang tewas dan 92 wanita Tionghoa mengaku diperkosa walaupun sampai hari ini masih disangkali negara.

Warga yang tidak mengalami mungkin sudah banyak yang melupakan peristiwa keji itu. Akan tetapi, bagi korban dan keluarganya hal itu akan tetap ada dalam ingatan walau ada yang bisa memaafkan. Apalagi, perjuangan keluarga korban untuk memperoleh keadilan tidak mendapat perhatian memadai dari pemerintah.

Kita pun sudah melupakan siapa yang harus bertanggung jawab dan apa penyebab timbulnya kerusuhan itu. Komnas HAM melakukan penyelidikan pro justicia kasus tersebut pada 2003 dan menyerahkan laporan ke DPR dan Kejaksaan Agung. Akan tetapi, sampai saat ini tak ada langkah tindak lanjut apa pun.

Penyelidikan Komnas HAM mengungkap fakta bahwa peristiwa itu tidak terjadi tiba-tiba dan kebetulan, melainkan dipersiapkan dengan matang oleh kekuatan yang berpengalaman dan tahu persis apa yang harus dilakukan. Pelaku di lapangan juga bukan sembarang orang, mereka terlatih dan mampu secara fisik dan mental. Tim Komnas HAM tidak mampu mengungkap siapa kekuatan di balik kerusuhan itu. Hanya Kejaksaan Agung yang bisa mengungkap lewat penyidikan.

Tak bisa disalahkan kalau banyak pihak menduga mereka yang punya pengalaman, kemampuan, dan terlatih itu terkait dengan militer, seperti oknum TNI, desertir, atau tentara bayaran (kalau ada). Namun, kita gegabah kalau menuduh oknum TNI sebagai dalang atau pelaksana kerusuhan itu tanpa bukti.

Dugaan keterlibatan

Walau sudah menduga apa jawabannya, mengikuti pikiran kritis yang agak liar, dalam sebuah diskusi tidak resmi beberapa tahun lalu saya memaksakan diri bertanya kepada seorang mayor jenderal TNI yang pada 1998 aktif di lembaga intelijen TNI. Apakah betul tidak ada oknum TNI yang terlibat dalam tragedi itu? Mengapa intelijen TNI tidak mampu mendeteksi potensi kerusuhan itu?

Mayjen tersebut tentu membantah ada oknum TNI yang terlibat, tetapi mengakui bahwa intelijen TNI dan Bakin tak mampu mendeteksi atau kecolongan. Pihak perencana dan pelaksana itu lebih unggul dibandingkan dengan lembaga intelijen dan kita tidak tahu apakah lembaga intelijen yang sekarang sudah jauh meningkat.

Lalu saya tanyakan apakah betul kesimpulan berikut: kalau tidak ada oknum atau desertir TNI yang merencanakan dan menjalankan kerusuhan itu, mungkinkah ada pihak lain yang punya kepentingan, kekuatan, dan kemampuan juga melakukan kerusuhan yang sama?

Artinya, jika suatu waktu pihak itu merasa sudah tiba saat yang tepat untuk melakukan tindakan keji (lagi) dan ada kebutuhan memaksa, maka pihak tersebut akan bisa melakukan dan pihak intelijen kita tidak mampu mendeteksi.

Sang Mayjen tidak menyetujui kesimpulan saya, tetapi jawabannya tidak meyakinkan. Maka, tidak ada salahnya saya mengangkat masalah itu kepada masyarakat. Mungkinkah kerusuhan terulang lagi pada masa depan? Apakah faktor sosial-politik- ekonomi memicu pihak pelaku kerusuhan? Apakah faktor semacam itu kini sudah tampak gejalanya? Mungkinkah kita menengarai dan mewaspadai pihak yang berpotensi melakukan?

Kita perlu mengungkap semua teka-teki itu bukan hanya mencari siapa yang bertanggung jawab, tetapi lebih kepada upaya mencegah terjadinya kembali kerusuhan keji itu. Dengan demikian, sangat layak kalau kita mendorong Kejaksaan Agung agar menyidik kasus Mei 1998 dan kasus-kasus terkait. Presiden, yang pada 2005 sudah berjanji kepada orangtua korban kasus Trisakti, perlu mendesak Kejaksaan Agung untuk menyidiknya.

Jangan kecolongan lagi

Situasi sosial-ekonomi- politik saat ini belum dianggap bisa memicu kerusuhan. Kekecewaan rakyat memang meningkat, tetapi jauh di bawah kondisi tahun 1998. Kita harus selalu mewaspadai perkembangan dan jangan sampai kecolongan lagi. Ketidakpercayaan kepada aparat penegak hukum harus ditanggapi dengan langkah nyata memperbaikinya.

Akan tetapi, kalau ada kerusuhan lagi, apakah keturunan Tionghoa kembali jadi sasaran? Amy Chua, profesor dari Yale University, mengakui ada kemungkinan cukup besar, seperti diungkapkannya dalam buku World on Fire, How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability, 2003. Menurut dia, keturunan Tionghoa selama pemerintahan Orde Baru telah mengalami aneka kebijakan: ganti nama, larangan memakai bahasa Tionghoa, larangan merayakan Imlek, dan larangan menganut agama orang Tionghoa. Kekerasan Mei 1998 membuktikan bahwa kebijakan itu gagal.

Lebih lanjut, Amy Chua menganalisis, kelompok minoritas Tionghoa adalah kelompok market-dominant minorities yang kaya raya berkat sistem ekonomi pasar. Ini yang menimbulkan rasa iri hati dari kelompok mayoritas yang miskin. Ketidakpuasan itu ditambah kekurangmampuan dan kurangnya kapasitas kepolisian menjaga keselamatan pihak yang membutuhkan sehingga memperberat situasi.

Oleh karena itu, perlu dijalankan kebijakan ekonomi yang betul-betul memihak rakyat, khususnya di daerah perkotaan yang amat rawan dihasut dan berpotensi ikut-ikutan terlibat dalam kerusuhan. Pendekatan Pemprov DKI dan banyak kota besar lain, seperti penggusuran terhadap pedagang tradisional demi kepentingan pemodal yang umumnya kalangan Tionghoa jelas seperti menumpuk jerami kering yang mudah terbakar. Pemerintah kota besar bisa belajar dari Wali kota Solo yang bersedia berunding lebih dari 50 kali dengan pedagang untuk mencari kesepakatan merevitalisasi pasar tradisional.

Jakarta's Appointment of General Challenged in Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 04, 2010

An article from Yati Andriyani, KontraS, Indonesia

INDONESIA: Jakarta's appointment of general challenged in court

The democratic transition in Indonesia is still hampered by a number of government policies. Civil supremacy, law enforcement and human rights are not priority issues for the government in drafting these policies. This is true even of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, even though it is considered reformist.

There has been no resolution to many cases of severe human rights violations that occurred during Soeharto’s authoritarian regime from 1965 to 1998. In fact, some policies can potentially hamper efforts to encourage accountability from parties involved in violence, including the military.

In January, the Indonesian government again made a decision that defies the values and spirit of human rights and the rule of law. The president appointed Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, an army officer with a poor track record on human rights violations during Soeharto’s regime, as deputy defense minister. The president also appointed other officials including Dr. Ir. Lukita Dinarsyah Tuwo as deputy minister of national development planning and Dr. Fasli Jalal as deputy minister of education.

Sjafrie’s appointment shocked human rights and democracy activists, as well as victims and victims’ families, as he is a high military official considered responsible for human rights violations in May 1998, before and after Soeharto’s fall.

During the kidnapping and forced disappearances of activists in 1997-1998, and the violence against civilians at Trisakti and the riots that followed in May, 1998, Sjafrie was commander of Kodam Jaya, as well as second in command after Gen. Wiranto in a security operation called Mantap Jaya III in the same period. The National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM) mentioned Sjafrie’s name in the context of command responsibility in its investigation report.

A number of victims and the families of people who were kidnapped or disappeared during those events, assisted by legal counselors from the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), Jakarta Legal Aid, Imparsial and the Setara Institute, have taken legal action to have the presidential appointments revoked. Their case was filed in Jakarta on April 5.

In their petition, the complainants point out that the presidential decree contradicts a number of laws and is detrimental to victims of human rights violations.

It is contradictory to victims’ right to a fair trial and to the principles of truth and justice. The appointment of Sjafrie violates the principle of equality before the law for the complainants who are currently involved in legal processes at the Supreme Court. However, their complaint may face complications because there is no direct connection between the results of state investigations and the appointment of Sjafrie as deputy defense minister.

The complainants also point out that the presidential decree is detrimental to the prevention of future violence by the military. Indonesia has passed a law aimed at preventing institutions including the national police and the State Intelligence Agency from misusing violence. The law orders the establishment of a Human Rights Court to demand accountability for acts of violence, to enable legal proceedings to prevent recurrence, and to correct any wrong behavior of the state apparatus and in political activities.

Finally, the complainants state that the presidential decree violates a national law on the establishment of laws and regulations, which demands respect for humanity, the protection of human rights, and equal worth and dignity for every citizen of Indonesia.

This civil litigation is being enacted to prevent impunity on the part of the military and the government during the process of democratic transition, for which civil supremacy, law and human rights are prerequisites. The presidential decree is detrimental to the victims' efforts to achieve justice through the Human Rights Court, as well as threatening the future of democracy, which requires accountability from the perpetrators of human rights violations and military reforms.

The article was also published on UPI Asia Online.


(Yati Andriyani works for the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), in Jakarta as head of Impunity Watch and Fulfillment of Victims’ Rights. ©Copyright Yati Andriyani.)