Tempo Magazine
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
The cause of the Malari riots is still a mystery. Court trials failed to prove that university students were behind the violence.
JANUARY 15, 1974. University students hit the streets. They demonstrated against the arrival of Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka of Japan. Tanaka was seen as the symbol of foreign capital which must be done away with. Taking the form of a long march from Salemba to Trisakti University in Grogol, West Jakarta, the action carried three demands: eradication of corruption, a change in the economic policy on foreign capital, and abolishment of the institution of Personal Assistant to the President. Hundreds of thousands of people hit the streets. The action, however, ended in turbulence.
According to Hariman, the students’ action ended at 2:30pm, “whereas the riot,” he says, “broke out an hour later.” A mob that claimed to have come from among laborers ransacked Senen Market, Blok M, and the Glodok (Chinatown) area. They went on arampage, burning Japanese-made cars and shops.
Head of the Operations Command for the Restoration of Security & Order (Kopkamtib), Gen. Sumitro, tried to block the mob around the Sarinah area of Central Jakarta. He tried to divert the mob, which was headed toward the Presidential Palace. “Come on, let’swalk together to Kebayoran,” he yelled to the crowd. “My intention was to deflect the direction of their march, away from the National Monument (Monas)…”
The mob was undeterred, however. To Tempo several years ago, Sumitro claimed to have offered a dialog between the Students Council of the University of Indonesia (UI) and Tanaka. Tanaka agreed, but the students responded with the message that “the dialog is substituted with a street dialog…”
Jakarta had in the meantime become a sea of fire. That day more than 10 people died, while hundreds were injured. Nearly 1,000 cars and motorcycles were destroyed and burned, hundreds of buildings damaged. In addition, 160 kilos of gold vanished from jewelry shops. The situation was so critical that Suharto had to escort Tanaka by helicopter to Halim airport for his return trip to his country.
Hariman Siregar, Chairman of the UI Students Council, was dragged to court on charges of subversion. After a four-month trial, he was sentenced to six years in prison.
“I was deemed guilty of subverting the authority of the state,” said Hariman when Tempo visited him in March 2006. The price he had to pay was high. While he was serving his jail term, his father died, his beloved wife fell ill, and his twin children died.
It was that storm over Jakarta on January 15, 1974 (better known as Malari, for Malapetaka Lima Belas Januari, January 15 Catastrophe) that changed the course of Indonesia, because, as Asvi Warman Adam related in an article he wrote, since then Suharto has resorted to repression in a systematic way. Syahrir, who was also detained after the incident, sees Malari as a form of consolidation of Suharto’s power.
In all, the security apparatus arrested 750 people, 50 of them student activists and intellectuals such as Hariman Siregar, Sjahrir, Yap Thiam Hien, Mochtar Lubis, Rahman Tolleng and Aini Chailid. “Imagine, on January 11, I was embraced by Suharto, on the 17th I was arrested,” recalled Hariman. Indeed, on January 11, Suharto received Hariman along with other student leaders at Bina Graha, the presidential office. Suharto had intended all the time to curb the students’ actions.
The prominent persons were detained on the basis of the Anti-subversion Law. Some released after having languished for a year in prison, because they were not proven guilty. The Anti-subversion Law-based trials drew criticism.
Until today, the mystery of the riots has not been unraveled. Sjahrir contended that the court had been unable to prove that the students were behind the burning of the cars and the looting. It should not come as a surprise if speculation arose that the Malari calamity was the fire that sparked resulting from rivalry between generals Sumitro and Ali Murtopo (respectively Chief of Special Operations and Presidential Personal Assistant at that time). Sumitro allegedly harbored
ambition, as cited in the so-called Ramadi Documents. According to Asvi Warman, Ramadi was known to be close to Ali Murtopo.
The late Sumitro confided that he had once asked Ali Murtopo about the rivalry, long before Malari occurred. “Ali, outside voices say that you are my rival. That cannot be. I’m still a military man, I have no political goals. You are a two-star, I’m a four-star. You are Intelligence Coordination Agency (Bakin) Deputy, I’m Operations Commander for the Restoration of Security & Order (Pangkopkamtib) and Armed Forces Deputy Commander (Wapangab). We are too distant from each other to be rivals. Yet, if you want to be President, that is your right.” At that time, Ali Murtopo promptly denied it. “Oh, no. nothing of that sort in my mind,” Sumitro quoted Ali as responding.
The Malari affair eventually caused both generals to lose their jobs. Suharto relieved Sumitro from his posts as Pangkopkamtib and Wapangab and at the same time abolished the institution of Presidential Special Assistant. Even so, several years later Suharto still employed Ali Murtopo to fill various positions in the bureaucracy.
More than three decades have passed, yet today mystery still shrouds the affair. In his biography, Suharto does not mention that dark period. Hariman must continue believing that the government would soon unravel the mystery.
Jumat, 08 Februari 2008
Bloody Dawn at Talangsari
Tempo Magazine
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
Members of a Qu’ran reading group were shot. They were accused of planning to create an Islamic state.
IT was dawn and drizzling at Talangsari, 19 years ago on Monday, February 7. Muslims were preparing for their prayers. The sounds of gunshots were suddenly heard. The noise made by bullets whizzing by could be heard by Warsidi’s followers in a hamlet within the district of Way Jepara, Central Lampung. The cries of people broke the silence.
Four Mobile Brigade platoons of the Black Garuda Military Area Command of Central Lampung were charging as if seeking revenge. They were under Col, A.M. Hendropriyono. The followers of Warsidi were known as a religious learning group. But the military accused them of conspiring to form an Islamic state.
Members of Warsidi’s group had quarreled with the local police force several times. Way Jepara Military Precinct Commander, Captain Sutiman once summoned Anwar, one of the group’s leaders. Anwar refused to comply, asking instead, that Sutiman come to his home. Way Jepara district chief, Zulkifli, later sent anorder for him to appear at the police station.
Anwar still failed to comply.
Accompanied by a few security men, Sutiman and Zulkifli then drove to Anwar’s house. According to the military’s version, this team was attacked with bows and arrows and slingshots. Sutiman died. The bloody fighting continued at dawn the following day.
The total number of victims is confusing. The military version listed 27 people dead. But several non-governmental organizations recorded 246 people killed. The government hunted down the group’s leaders in Jakarta and Central Java. Some of its supporters were arrested and jailed.
Like other human tragedies, the voice of Talangsari victims could be heard when Suharto fell on May 21, 1998. The victims and human rights activists demanded that the government bring those who took part in the shooting to trial.
In June 2001, the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM)set up an ad hoc team to investigate the case. The outcome was unclear. Later Komnas HAM formed a team of inquiry. It visited the scene and interviewed the victims, their families and others involved. The investigation ended in the middle of May 2006.
The settlement of this case will likely be full of ups and downs. The team’s findings are yet to be subjected to legalanalysis. It will be further examined, depending on the’serious’ classification of the human rights violation in the Talangsari tragedy. The results will again be discussed at a Komnas HAM plenary meeting.
If the plenary session finds no serious rights were infringed, the case needs only to be settled through the general court. Butif any serious rights violation is discovered, there would be two options; one is through Law No. 26/2000 on the human rightstribunal, but others say that the proper agency to settle suchcases should be the Truth & Reconciliation Commission.
The path faced by the rights activists and victims of the Talangsari incident is long and winding. Ahmad Fauzi Isnan,sentenced to 20 years in prison, hoped that Komnas HAM could resolve the case. The soldiers involved, he said, had now become high-ranking officials, even striving for power. “They are trying hard with all possible means, not to be called war criminals,” he remarked.
Other victims expect the government to come up with a comprehensive solution. “We urge that the government promptly bring the case to court. Avoid unnecessary delay,” said Azwir Kaili, head of families of Talangsari victims.
Hendropriyono himself preferred the peaceful path. In February 2000, as head of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), he invited 80 victims and their families to his residence in Jakarta to discuss an islah (peaceful settlement). This choice was opposed by some of the victims.
Later, many who joined the islah, chose to withdraw. Now the case is being analyzed at Komnas HAM.
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
Members of a Qu’ran reading group were shot. They were accused of planning to create an Islamic state.
IT was dawn and drizzling at Talangsari, 19 years ago on Monday, February 7. Muslims were preparing for their prayers. The sounds of gunshots were suddenly heard. The noise made by bullets whizzing by could be heard by Warsidi’s followers in a hamlet within the district of Way Jepara, Central Lampung. The cries of people broke the silence.
Four Mobile Brigade platoons of the Black Garuda Military Area Command of Central Lampung were charging as if seeking revenge. They were under Col, A.M. Hendropriyono. The followers of Warsidi were known as a religious learning group. But the military accused them of conspiring to form an Islamic state.
Members of Warsidi’s group had quarreled with the local police force several times. Way Jepara Military Precinct Commander, Captain Sutiman once summoned Anwar, one of the group’s leaders. Anwar refused to comply, asking instead, that Sutiman come to his home. Way Jepara district chief, Zulkifli, later sent anorder for him to appear at the police station.
Anwar still failed to comply.
Accompanied by a few security men, Sutiman and Zulkifli then drove to Anwar’s house. According to the military’s version, this team was attacked with bows and arrows and slingshots. Sutiman died. The bloody fighting continued at dawn the following day.
The total number of victims is confusing. The military version listed 27 people dead. But several non-governmental organizations recorded 246 people killed. The government hunted down the group’s leaders in Jakarta and Central Java. Some of its supporters were arrested and jailed.
Like other human tragedies, the voice of Talangsari victims could be heard when Suharto fell on May 21, 1998. The victims and human rights activists demanded that the government bring those who took part in the shooting to trial.
In June 2001, the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM)set up an ad hoc team to investigate the case. The outcome was unclear. Later Komnas HAM formed a team of inquiry. It visited the scene and interviewed the victims, their families and others involved. The investigation ended in the middle of May 2006.
The settlement of this case will likely be full of ups and downs. The team’s findings are yet to be subjected to legalanalysis. It will be further examined, depending on the’serious’ classification of the human rights violation in the Talangsari tragedy. The results will again be discussed at a Komnas HAM plenary meeting.
If the plenary session finds no serious rights were infringed, the case needs only to be settled through the general court. Butif any serious rights violation is discovered, there would be two options; one is through Law No. 26/2000 on the human rightstribunal, but others say that the proper agency to settle suchcases should be the Truth & Reconciliation Commission.
The path faced by the rights activists and victims of the Talangsari incident is long and winding. Ahmad Fauzi Isnan,sentenced to 20 years in prison, hoped that Komnas HAM could resolve the case. The soldiers involved, he said, had now become high-ranking officials, even striving for power. “They are trying hard with all possible means, not to be called war criminals,” he remarked.
Other victims expect the government to come up with a comprehensive solution. “We urge that the government promptly bring the case to court. Avoid unnecessary delay,” said Azwir Kaili, head of families of Talangsari victims.
Hendropriyono himself preferred the peaceful path. In February 2000, as head of the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), he invited 80 victims and their families to his residence in Jakarta to discuss an islah (peaceful settlement). This choice was opposed by some of the victims.
Later, many who joined the islah, chose to withdraw. Now the case is being analyzed at Komnas HAM.
Tragedy at Night
Tempo Magazine
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
Hundreds died in the Tanjung Priok tragedy, but the perpetrators were released by the court.
THE uproar started with a poster, which read “Women Should Wear Jilbab (Muslim Headscarf)”. It was hung on the wall of Mussola (house of worship) As-Sa’adah at Tanjung Priok, North Jakarta. It was not an unusual appeal, but in September 1984 it caused a tragedy.
The political temperature at that time had neared boiling point. The Suharto government was busy campaigning for the nation to adopt Pancasila (five philosophies) as its sole national ideology, which was sharply resisted by the Muslim community.
Then, one morning on September 7, 1984, First Sergeant Hermanu, a member of the Village Voluntary Security Group (Babinsa) of South Koja in North Jakarta asked local residents to pull down the posters in the mushola. They refused. The next morning Hermanu came back to clean up the posters himself, using newspapers dampened by sewer water.
Rumors spread that Hermanu entered the mushola without taking off his boots. The mushola became dirty. The angered residentswanted to teach the Babinsa member a lesson, but a community leader rescued him from harm. Instead, the residents set Hermanu’s motorcycle on fire.
The military from the Tanjung Priok District Military Command (Kodim) appeared in no time. Four youths who allegedly set fire to the motorcycle were taken to Kodim HQ. Residents asked Amir Biki, a community leader in Tanjung Priok, to help free the four youths. In vain.
The protesting residents then congregated at Sindang Raya, a street in Tanjung Priok. There, a number of prominent community leaders aired their views, including Amir Biki. Not only did they criticize the government’s campaign to adopt a single national ideology, they also demanded the release of the four youths, declaring a deadline of 11pm that day. Otherwise, the mass action would continue. The Kodim rejected the demand.
The protestors then moved to the Kodim HQ. On the way, in front of the North Jakarta Police Office, the protestors were blocked by the police. There were gunshots. Chaos broke out and spread. A number of shops owned by ethnic Chinese were looted.
According to the government official version, there were only 28 deaths, but according to family members of the victims, around 700 residents died in the tragedy. Amir Biki himself died, hit by a bullet. A number of prominent figures like Qodir Djaelani, Tony Ardi and Mawardi, were arrested.
Under Suharto’s rule, this incident was never investigated. Only after his resignation did authorities finally address the tragedy. The victims and their families called for the government to bring Suharto and members of the military involved in the tragedy to court.
The case was tried in an ad hoc human rights court. The perpetrators were made to account for their actions before the law. Among them was Maj. Gen. Sriyanto Muntasram, who at the trial was Commander of the Army Special Forces (Kopassus). Sriyanto, who at the time of the incident was Section Head of Kodim 0502 Operation II in North Jakarta, was accused of being involved in the incident. In August 2004, the court acquitted Sriyanto. The Supreme Court revalidated the ruling on September 2005.
Maj. Gen. (ret) Pranowo, who at the time of the incident was Military Police Chief of the Greater Jakarta Military Command, was also tried. He was accused of allowing his subordinates to torture the arrested demonstrators. The judge failed to find Pranowo guilty and he was acquitted.
A few other officers were found guilty in the lower court, but acquitted by a higher one. Maj. Gen. (ret) Rudolf Butar-Butar, who at the time of the incident was Kodim 0502 North Jakarta Commander, was sentenced to 10 years in jail at the first trial in June 2005. But the Jakarta High Court later acquitted him.Lower-ranked military personnel involved in the incident received differing sentences, ranging from two to three years.
The verdicts were criticized by the victims and their families. “There was no consideration for the feelings of the victims and their families. No sense of justice at all,” said Benny Biki, Amir Biki’s younger brother.
The victims’ families urged the government to take legal action against senior officials like Gen. (ret) Try Sutrisno, a former Vice President who was at the time commander of the Jakarta Garrison, Benny Moerdani (former Kopkamtib chief, now deceased), and Suharto as the President.
When the Attorney General’s Office stopped the legal process against Suharto because of his illness, victims of the Tanjung Priok tragedy and their families lodged a strong protest. “We feel devastated that the legal process was discontinued,” said Ratono, Chairman of the Tanjung Priok Victims Association. It was Suharto’s policies that caused them to lose their families and possessions. By their rationale, possessions can bereplaced. But what of the loss of loved ones?
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
Hundreds died in the Tanjung Priok tragedy, but the perpetrators were released by the court.
THE uproar started with a poster, which read “Women Should Wear Jilbab (Muslim Headscarf)”. It was hung on the wall of Mussola (house of worship) As-Sa’adah at Tanjung Priok, North Jakarta. It was not an unusual appeal, but in September 1984 it caused a tragedy.
The political temperature at that time had neared boiling point. The Suharto government was busy campaigning for the nation to adopt Pancasila (five philosophies) as its sole national ideology, which was sharply resisted by the Muslim community.
Then, one morning on September 7, 1984, First Sergeant Hermanu, a member of the Village Voluntary Security Group (Babinsa) of South Koja in North Jakarta asked local residents to pull down the posters in the mushola. They refused. The next morning Hermanu came back to clean up the posters himself, using newspapers dampened by sewer water.
Rumors spread that Hermanu entered the mushola without taking off his boots. The mushola became dirty. The angered residentswanted to teach the Babinsa member a lesson, but a community leader rescued him from harm. Instead, the residents set Hermanu’s motorcycle on fire.
The military from the Tanjung Priok District Military Command (Kodim) appeared in no time. Four youths who allegedly set fire to the motorcycle were taken to Kodim HQ. Residents asked Amir Biki, a community leader in Tanjung Priok, to help free the four youths. In vain.
The protesting residents then congregated at Sindang Raya, a street in Tanjung Priok. There, a number of prominent community leaders aired their views, including Amir Biki. Not only did they criticize the government’s campaign to adopt a single national ideology, they also demanded the release of the four youths, declaring a deadline of 11pm that day. Otherwise, the mass action would continue. The Kodim rejected the demand.
The protestors then moved to the Kodim HQ. On the way, in front of the North Jakarta Police Office, the protestors were blocked by the police. There were gunshots. Chaos broke out and spread. A number of shops owned by ethnic Chinese were looted.
According to the government official version, there were only 28 deaths, but according to family members of the victims, around 700 residents died in the tragedy. Amir Biki himself died, hit by a bullet. A number of prominent figures like Qodir Djaelani, Tony Ardi and Mawardi, were arrested.
Under Suharto’s rule, this incident was never investigated. Only after his resignation did authorities finally address the tragedy. The victims and their families called for the government to bring Suharto and members of the military involved in the tragedy to court.
The case was tried in an ad hoc human rights court. The perpetrators were made to account for their actions before the law. Among them was Maj. Gen. Sriyanto Muntasram, who at the trial was Commander of the Army Special Forces (Kopassus). Sriyanto, who at the time of the incident was Section Head of Kodim 0502 Operation II in North Jakarta, was accused of being involved in the incident. In August 2004, the court acquitted Sriyanto. The Supreme Court revalidated the ruling on September 2005.
Maj. Gen. (ret) Pranowo, who at the time of the incident was Military Police Chief of the Greater Jakarta Military Command, was also tried. He was accused of allowing his subordinates to torture the arrested demonstrators. The judge failed to find Pranowo guilty and he was acquitted.
A few other officers were found guilty in the lower court, but acquitted by a higher one. Maj. Gen. (ret) Rudolf Butar-Butar, who at the time of the incident was Kodim 0502 North Jakarta Commander, was sentenced to 10 years in jail at the first trial in June 2005. But the Jakarta High Court later acquitted him.Lower-ranked military personnel involved in the incident received differing sentences, ranging from two to three years.
The verdicts were criticized by the victims and their families. “There was no consideration for the feelings of the victims and their families. No sense of justice at all,” said Benny Biki, Amir Biki’s younger brother.
The victims’ families urged the government to take legal action against senior officials like Gen. (ret) Try Sutrisno, a former Vice President who was at the time commander of the Jakarta Garrison, Benny Moerdani (former Kopkamtib chief, now deceased), and Suharto as the President.
When the Attorney General’s Office stopped the legal process against Suharto because of his illness, victims of the Tanjung Priok tragedy and their families lodged a strong protest. “We feel devastated that the legal process was discontinued,” said Ratono, Chairman of the Tanjung Priok Victims Association. It was Suharto’s policies that caused them to lose their families and possessions. By their rationale, possessions can bereplaced. But what of the loss of loved ones?
Trisakti’s Testimony
Tempo Magazine
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
The death of four Trisakti University students triggered the reform movement. But the legal action against the killers seems never-ending.
May 12, 1998
THE parking lot at Trisakti University was filled with people at 11am. Professors, lecturers, students, employees and alumni had gathered to hear a speech by ex-Army Chief, General Abdul Haris Nasution.
By noon, more people had come. It was getting quite hot when about 5,000 students shouted in unison, “Lower the prices of basic necessities! Political Reform! Suharto, step down!”
The senior general, Abdul Haris, failed to make an appearance but the students refused to cancel their big rally to the parliament (DPR) building at Senayan, Central Jakarta, over 10 kilometers from the university.
Around 12pm, about 100 meters out of the campus, a cordon of security forces comprising the West Jakarta Military Command, the Police Mobile Brigade and ‘riot-control’ police stood blocking the roads, ready to intercept the Trisakti students.
Student representative, Trisakti Law School Dean Adi Andojo, and West Jakarta Military Command chief Lt. Col. Amril Amin began negotiations. The result: the peaceful protest march was to reach in front of the old office building of the West Jakarta Mayor’s Office, which was some 300 meters away from the campus.
Adi met the students after the negotiation. “I ask all of you to promise there will be no violence at this place,” he said, whereupon the students applauded. The rally was orderly. Occasionally the students exchanged friendly remarks with the security apparatus, giving them drinks, candies and roses.
At about 4:30pm the security troops asked that the rally be disbanded and the students retreat to the campus. A tense argument ensued. According to witnesses, while they were moving toward the campus, some of the security men made insulting remarks. “It looked as if the police deliberately provoked the students to anger,” said a witness.
Suddenly rifle shots shattered the afternoon air. The students scurried about for shelter since many had not yet entered the campus, even though it was later discovered that even the campus was no longer a “sanctuary,” safe from the violence.
For almost an hour shots were fired at the campus. Hundreds of people were injured. Four students died-Elang Mulia Lesmana, Hafidin Royan, Heri Hartanto and Hendriawan Sie.
Much later, the military prosecutor would accuse the commander of Police Mobile Brigade Unit II, Chief Inspector Erick Kadir Sully of firing the shots. He and 10 of his men were assigned to West Jakarta that day. At about 1:30pm-as stated in the military prosecutor’s indictment-an order came from the West Jakarta Deputy Police Chief, Major Herman Hamid, deploying them to the mayor’s office, to intercept the students who were heading towards the DPR complex.
At that moment, Erick-again according to the military prosecutor’s charges-ordered his men, who were armed with 5.56-caliber Steyr guns, to shoot into the crowd.
This type of bullet was later found inside the bodies of thedead students, following a ballistic test done in Montreal, Canada, and Belfast, Northern Ireland.
The commission investigating human rights violations at Trisakti University, Semanggi I and Semanggi II, has its version of the tragic events that unfolded that day. According to the commission, the combined security forces had attacked, beaten, kicked and shot live bullets and thrown tear gas canisters at students taking cover at the old office building of the West Jakarta Mayor, as well as at those who had returned to the campus.
This incident at Trisakti triggered riots in various places in Jakarta. Student demonstrations were rampant everywhere, and culminated with students occupying the DPR/MPR building for four days until Suharto stepped down on May 21.
We know that the legal process on this case only went so far as to involve a few perpetrators who were on the ground. Details: May 12, 1998
Four Trisakti students are shot dead.
August 12, 1998
Two police Brimob members are sentenced to 34 months in prison March 31 1999
Four other Brimob members receive a similar punishment.
So, where is the accountability of the generals who gave the order for the troops-who were convicted-to shoot? They remain at large, untouched by the law.
There are plans to try them at a human rights court later on. But the fact is that they are only “remembered” during the May 12 annual commemoration, when students call for justice for four
youths who died an early death.
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story
The death of four Trisakti University students triggered the reform movement. But the legal action against the killers seems never-ending.
May 12, 1998
THE parking lot at Trisakti University was filled with people at 11am. Professors, lecturers, students, employees and alumni had gathered to hear a speech by ex-Army Chief, General Abdul Haris Nasution.
By noon, more people had come. It was getting quite hot when about 5,000 students shouted in unison, “Lower the prices of basic necessities! Political Reform! Suharto, step down!”
The senior general, Abdul Haris, failed to make an appearance but the students refused to cancel their big rally to the parliament (DPR) building at Senayan, Central Jakarta, over 10 kilometers from the university.
Around 12pm, about 100 meters out of the campus, a cordon of security forces comprising the West Jakarta Military Command, the Police Mobile Brigade and ‘riot-control’ police stood blocking the roads, ready to intercept the Trisakti students.
Student representative, Trisakti Law School Dean Adi Andojo, and West Jakarta Military Command chief Lt. Col. Amril Amin began negotiations. The result: the peaceful protest march was to reach in front of the old office building of the West Jakarta Mayor’s Office, which was some 300 meters away from the campus.
Adi met the students after the negotiation. “I ask all of you to promise there will be no violence at this place,” he said, whereupon the students applauded. The rally was orderly. Occasionally the students exchanged friendly remarks with the security apparatus, giving them drinks, candies and roses.
At about 4:30pm the security troops asked that the rally be disbanded and the students retreat to the campus. A tense argument ensued. According to witnesses, while they were moving toward the campus, some of the security men made insulting remarks. “It looked as if the police deliberately provoked the students to anger,” said a witness.
Suddenly rifle shots shattered the afternoon air. The students scurried about for shelter since many had not yet entered the campus, even though it was later discovered that even the campus was no longer a “sanctuary,” safe from the violence.
For almost an hour shots were fired at the campus. Hundreds of people were injured. Four students died-Elang Mulia Lesmana, Hafidin Royan, Heri Hartanto and Hendriawan Sie.
Much later, the military prosecutor would accuse the commander of Police Mobile Brigade Unit II, Chief Inspector Erick Kadir Sully of firing the shots. He and 10 of his men were assigned to West Jakarta that day. At about 1:30pm-as stated in the military prosecutor’s indictment-an order came from the West Jakarta Deputy Police Chief, Major Herman Hamid, deploying them to the mayor’s office, to intercept the students who were heading towards the DPR complex.
At that moment, Erick-again according to the military prosecutor’s charges-ordered his men, who were armed with 5.56-caliber Steyr guns, to shoot into the crowd.
This type of bullet was later found inside the bodies of thedead students, following a ballistic test done in Montreal, Canada, and Belfast, Northern Ireland.
The commission investigating human rights violations at Trisakti University, Semanggi I and Semanggi II, has its version of the tragic events that unfolded that day. According to the commission, the combined security forces had attacked, beaten, kicked and shot live bullets and thrown tear gas canisters at students taking cover at the old office building of the West Jakarta Mayor, as well as at those who had returned to the campus.
This incident at Trisakti triggered riots in various places in Jakarta. Student demonstrations were rampant everywhere, and culminated with students occupying the DPR/MPR building for four days until Suharto stepped down on May 21.
We know that the legal process on this case only went so far as to involve a few perpetrators who were on the ground. Details: May 12, 1998
Four Trisakti students are shot dead.
August 12, 1998
Two police Brimob members are sentenced to 34 months in prison March 31 1999
Four other Brimob members receive a similar punishment.
So, where is the accountability of the generals who gave the order for the troops-who were convicted-to shoot? They remain at large, untouched by the law.
There are plans to try them at a human rights court later on. But the fact is that they are only “remembered” during the May 12 annual commemoration, when students call for justice for four
youths who died an early death.
Suharto’s political opponents were of varying ages, ideological views and social backgrounds, but they all spoke out.
Tempo Magazine
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story: Voicing Opposition
Pramoedya Ananta Toer (1925-2006)
IN 1973, President Suharto sent a letter to Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who was in exile on Buru Island. Suharto said that to err was human, and this should be followed by other human tendencies, namely honesty, bravery and the ability to find the right path.
Pramoedya had to suffer exile after the New Order emerged as the winner in the political tempest of 1965. As a member of the People’s Cultural Body (Lekra), which was affiliated with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI)-the side which lost-he was sent to prison for 14 years. His guilt was never proven in court.
When he left prison in 1979, he was not free to conduct activities. For some time he was under house arrest. His home was watched by intelligence officials. Worst of all, he was muzzled, prevented from speaking out in the media.
Pramoedya passed away on April 30, 2006. Up until the end of his life, he stuck to his principles. This was apparent in the reply he sent to Suharto in November 1973. He said: “My parents taught me to love truth, justice, beauty, knowledge, and the homeland…”
Amien Rais
OF the many factors which came together and led to the downfall of Suharto in 1998, one was the efforts of Amien Rais. The socioeconomic condition, which had worsened over the year until May 1998, drove Amien to take a firm stance. “I am ready to takecharge of ‘people power’ if needed, on the condition that therebe no bloodshed,” he said in May 1998.
Amien was not a newcomer to the political stage. After being chosen as Chairman of the Muhammadiyah Executive Board (1995),he made many pointed criticisms. Amien was the first to speak for the concept of (presidential) succession-a sensitive issue at that time (1993). “My conscience led me,” he said, commentingon his bravery.
After that, he made many public criticisms, including the Busang gold mine. In 1996, Amien joined others in developing the publicdiscourse on the need for reformasi in Indonesia. His exploits led to his expulsion from the Indonesian Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) in 1997.
When Indonesia was hit by economic crisis in 1997, Amien and other prominent Indonesians continued to promote the reformasi concept. Together with 50 public figures, Amien formed the People’s Mandate Council (MAR). At a press conference on May 14, 1998, MAR called on President Suharto to immediately resign.
Events unfolded quickly. The Indonesian Republic was overdue for a change. On May 21, Suharto fell due to strong public pressure. Amien was then given the title of Leader of Reforms.
Budiman Sudjatmiko
BUDIMAN Sudjatmiko’s greatest opposition to Suharto and his New Order regime was to establish the Democratic People’s Party (PRD). Launched in July 1996, the party was based on a socialist-democratic foundation. Budiman became the party chairman. A week after the birth of the PRD, a bloody clash took place at the office of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) on Jalan Diponegoro. This clash triggered riots in several parts ofthe Indonesian capital. As a result, as noted by the NationalHuman Rights Commission, five died and 23 went missing.
The government accused the PRD of being behind the rioting. PRD activists were hunted down, and Budiman and his friends were arrested. Budiman was sentenced to 13 years in prison for subversive activity. Budiman continued his opposition from behind bars. He staged a hunger strike and turned down an offerof presidential clemency. He also directed his party from prison.
Since Suharto’s downfall and the emergence of new national leaders, Budiman has never seen a serious effort from thegovernment to put the New Order leader on trial for his crimes. He was angered when the Attorney General issued an Order to StopProsecution (SKPP) on the Suharto case. “It is immoral to take Suharto’s health or humanitarian reasons into consideration,” said Budiman, who is currently Secretary-General of theVolunteers for the Struggle of Democracy-an organizational wing of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Sjahrir
ONE day in 1970 a group of university students met with President Suharto to demand the eradication of corruption.Sjahrir and Akbar Tandjung, students at the University of Indonesia, were among them. During a break in the dialog, Akbar was thirsty and reached for a beverage which had been prepared for them. Sjahrir quickly stopped Akbar from taking it. Suharto saw what happened and got angry. “Don’t drink it if you don’t want to,” he snapped.
Sjahrir felt that this was the source of Suharto’s dislike ofhim. Something else that Suharto definitely did not like waswhen Sjahrir and others formed an anticorruption committee. When the Malari riots erupted in 1974, Sjahrir was one of the many students and academics who were sent to jail.
In prison, Sjahrir continued to be critical. He wrote articles which were published in famous publications such as Prisma. Of course, he did not use his own name. “My writings were published under the name of Daniel Dakhidae or Aini Chalid,” he said.
After getting out of prison, Sjahrir pursued his doctoral degree at Harvard. After completing his studies, Sjahrir continued his exploits. He pioneered the founding of the School of Social Science (SIS), which ran for three years before being banned by the government. He then founded the Padi Kapas Foundation and wrote critical reports for the media. His main theme was clear, namely opposition towards government monopolies and oligopoly during the 1980s. “Government policies should not be used to enrich the President’s family,” he emphasized.
Benny Biki
BENNY Biki, 46, said a prayer for an ailing former President Suharto at Pertamina Central Hospital, in May 2006. “HopefullyPak Harto will get well soon, so that the legal process [against him] can go forward and he can soon stand trial,” he told Tempo.
Benny has his reasons for making such a prayer. His older brother, Amir Biki, was killed during a clash with security forces in Tanjung Priok, 22 years ago.
The Tanjung Priok tragedy was the climax of the Biki brothers’ opposition to the New Order regime. A few days earlier, the two had been mobilizing a crowd to protest against the law on public organizations, which had named Pancasila as the sole source of national doctrine. They felt that this law was at odds with Article 28 of the Indonesian Constitution.
Since this tragedy, which took the lives of scores of people, Benny Biki has led families of the victims in campaigns to demand justice.
No. 23/VIII
February 05-11, 2008
Cover Story: Voicing Opposition
Pramoedya Ananta Toer (1925-2006)
IN 1973, President Suharto sent a letter to Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who was in exile on Buru Island. Suharto said that to err was human, and this should be followed by other human tendencies, namely honesty, bravery and the ability to find the right path.
Pramoedya had to suffer exile after the New Order emerged as the winner in the political tempest of 1965. As a member of the People’s Cultural Body (Lekra), which was affiliated with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI)-the side which lost-he was sent to prison for 14 years. His guilt was never proven in court.
When he left prison in 1979, he was not free to conduct activities. For some time he was under house arrest. His home was watched by intelligence officials. Worst of all, he was muzzled, prevented from speaking out in the media.
Pramoedya passed away on April 30, 2006. Up until the end of his life, he stuck to his principles. This was apparent in the reply he sent to Suharto in November 1973. He said: “My parents taught me to love truth, justice, beauty, knowledge, and the homeland…”
Amien Rais
OF the many factors which came together and led to the downfall of Suharto in 1998, one was the efforts of Amien Rais. The socioeconomic condition, which had worsened over the year until May 1998, drove Amien to take a firm stance. “I am ready to takecharge of ‘people power’ if needed, on the condition that therebe no bloodshed,” he said in May 1998.
Amien was not a newcomer to the political stage. After being chosen as Chairman of the Muhammadiyah Executive Board (1995),he made many pointed criticisms. Amien was the first to speak for the concept of (presidential) succession-a sensitive issue at that time (1993). “My conscience led me,” he said, commentingon his bravery.
After that, he made many public criticisms, including the Busang gold mine. In 1996, Amien joined others in developing the publicdiscourse on the need for reformasi in Indonesia. His exploits led to his expulsion from the Indonesian Association of Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) in 1997.
When Indonesia was hit by economic crisis in 1997, Amien and other prominent Indonesians continued to promote the reformasi concept. Together with 50 public figures, Amien formed the People’s Mandate Council (MAR). At a press conference on May 14, 1998, MAR called on President Suharto to immediately resign.
Events unfolded quickly. The Indonesian Republic was overdue for a change. On May 21, Suharto fell due to strong public pressure. Amien was then given the title of Leader of Reforms.
Budiman Sudjatmiko
BUDIMAN Sudjatmiko’s greatest opposition to Suharto and his New Order regime was to establish the Democratic People’s Party (PRD). Launched in July 1996, the party was based on a socialist-democratic foundation. Budiman became the party chairman. A week after the birth of the PRD, a bloody clash took place at the office of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI) on Jalan Diponegoro. This clash triggered riots in several parts ofthe Indonesian capital. As a result, as noted by the NationalHuman Rights Commission, five died and 23 went missing.
The government accused the PRD of being behind the rioting. PRD activists were hunted down, and Budiman and his friends were arrested. Budiman was sentenced to 13 years in prison for subversive activity. Budiman continued his opposition from behind bars. He staged a hunger strike and turned down an offerof presidential clemency. He also directed his party from prison.
Since Suharto’s downfall and the emergence of new national leaders, Budiman has never seen a serious effort from thegovernment to put the New Order leader on trial for his crimes. He was angered when the Attorney General issued an Order to StopProsecution (SKPP) on the Suharto case. “It is immoral to take Suharto’s health or humanitarian reasons into consideration,” said Budiman, who is currently Secretary-General of theVolunteers for the Struggle of Democracy-an organizational wing of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Sjahrir
ONE day in 1970 a group of university students met with President Suharto to demand the eradication of corruption.Sjahrir and Akbar Tandjung, students at the University of Indonesia, were among them. During a break in the dialog, Akbar was thirsty and reached for a beverage which had been prepared for them. Sjahrir quickly stopped Akbar from taking it. Suharto saw what happened and got angry. “Don’t drink it if you don’t want to,” he snapped.
Sjahrir felt that this was the source of Suharto’s dislike ofhim. Something else that Suharto definitely did not like waswhen Sjahrir and others formed an anticorruption committee. When the Malari riots erupted in 1974, Sjahrir was one of the many students and academics who were sent to jail.
In prison, Sjahrir continued to be critical. He wrote articles which were published in famous publications such as Prisma. Of course, he did not use his own name. “My writings were published under the name of Daniel Dakhidae or Aini Chalid,” he said.
After getting out of prison, Sjahrir pursued his doctoral degree at Harvard. After completing his studies, Sjahrir continued his exploits. He pioneered the founding of the School of Social Science (SIS), which ran for three years before being banned by the government. He then founded the Padi Kapas Foundation and wrote critical reports for the media. His main theme was clear, namely opposition towards government monopolies and oligopoly during the 1980s. “Government policies should not be used to enrich the President’s family,” he emphasized.
Benny Biki
BENNY Biki, 46, said a prayer for an ailing former President Suharto at Pertamina Central Hospital, in May 2006. “HopefullyPak Harto will get well soon, so that the legal process [against him] can go forward and he can soon stand trial,” he told Tempo.
Benny has his reasons for making such a prayer. His older brother, Amir Biki, was killed during a clash with security forces in Tanjung Priok, 22 years ago.
The Tanjung Priok tragedy was the climax of the Biki brothers’ opposition to the New Order regime. A few days earlier, the two had been mobilizing a crowd to protest against the law on public organizations, which had named Pancasila as the sole source of national doctrine. They felt that this law was at odds with Article 28 of the Indonesian Constitution.
Since this tragedy, which took the lives of scores of people, Benny Biki has led families of the victims in campaigns to demand justice.
Kamis, 07 Februari 2008
The National (PNG): Western nations ‘had vested interest in Suharto regime’
By JOHN PASSANT
WAR criminal Suharto is dead. Look for the tears from his Western supporters
.
In their hypocrisy they may recognise he was a dictator, but, they will rationalise, he was “our” dictator.
The man was a mass murderer.
In the years 1965 and 1966, he and his army supporters seized power and killed up to one million Indonesias.
In the name of anti-communism, they killed Chinese people because they were Chinese. This is genocide.
The West was up to its armpits in the blood. The US supplied the names of Communist Party members to Suharto and his cronies. They knew these people would be murdered.
American embassy officials ticked off their names as the army killed them. What did it matter if a few commies were assassinated? Then Australian prime minister then Harold Holt said that “with 500,000 to a million communist sympathisers knocked off, I think it’s safe to assume a reorientation has taken place”.
And how did Australia described this genocide? A “cleansing process” said the Australian embassy in Jakarta.
Ethnic cleansing is a better description.
But the West wanted Suharto in power for its own interests so the mere mass murder of one million people was of no importance to the US or Australia. And then there is East Timor. During the 23 years of brutal occupation, East Timor’s population fell by a third - about 200,000 dead.
Australia (in particular Gough Whitlam) supported this takeover and Malcolm Fraser’s government gave de jure recognition to the Indonesian regime in East Timor. Australia even trained Indonesian army troops, which were used in East Timor (and West Papua) to suppress the indigenous population.
In West Papua from 1969 when the UN supported Act of Free Choice (what Orwellian words!) saw Indonesia installed as the new colonial ruler, the Indonesian army has killed over 100,000 people.
Yet despite all thes murders - murders well known to the West - Suharto has received massive support from the US, Britain and Australia in particular.
Indeed, as Iraq and Afghanistan show (once again), when the West thinks it is in their interests to do so they will don the gloves of blood themselves, rather than rely on proxies like Suharto.
Then there is the looting of the Indonesian coffers. Suharto, his family and cronies were corrupt. Transparency International claimed that Suharto and his family filched as much as K104 billion from the country’s coffers.
The criminal case against him for this corruption ended because of his ill health. The civil case will be settled out of court. I wonder who presently in power in Indonesia benefits from these decisions.
International courts have been useless in the fight against this mass murderer, a man clearly guilty of war crimes and genocide.
That’s because the West did not want him tried. He was their ally.
And further, any action could implicate those who aided and abetted Suharto, like the Australian leaders Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard.
Apparently only those criminals who lose the West’s support (like Saddam Hussein) suffer some sort of retribution.
Certainly those from the West who support dictators are never charged.
And those Western leaders (like Bush, Blair and Howard) who invade other countries and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are never brought to justice. Individual terrorism is abhorrent. State terrorism, whether by Suharto or his Western backers, is just as abhorrent.
Near the site of the Bali bombing - a bombing in which 88 Australians were murdered - there are mass graves from 1965 and 1966. There are about 88,000dead there. Australia’s outrage over Bali should extend to those Suharto murdered. It does not. Only when the working people of Indonesia are in power, instead of Suharto’s cronies, will Indonesia be free of its murderous past. - onlineopinion
* John Passant is a Canberra writer
http://www.thenatio
nal.com.pg/020508/Talking_point.htm
WAR criminal Suharto is dead. Look for the tears from his Western supporters
.
In their hypocrisy they may recognise he was a dictator, but, they will rationalise, he was “our” dictator.
The man was a mass murderer.
In the years 1965 and 1966, he and his army supporters seized power and killed up to one million Indonesias.
In the name of anti-communism, they killed Chinese people because they were Chinese. This is genocide.
The West was up to its armpits in the blood. The US supplied the names of Communist Party members to Suharto and his cronies. They knew these people would be murdered.
American embassy officials ticked off their names as the army killed them. What did it matter if a few commies were assassinated? Then Australian prime minister then Harold Holt said that “with 500,000 to a million communist sympathisers knocked off, I think it’s safe to assume a reorientation has taken place”.
And how did Australia described this genocide? A “cleansing process” said the Australian embassy in Jakarta.
Ethnic cleansing is a better description.
But the West wanted Suharto in power for its own interests so the mere mass murder of one million people was of no importance to the US or Australia. And then there is East Timor. During the 23 years of brutal occupation, East Timor’s population fell by a third - about 200,000 dead.
Australia (in particular Gough Whitlam) supported this takeover and Malcolm Fraser’s government gave de jure recognition to the Indonesian regime in East Timor. Australia even trained Indonesian army troops, which were used in East Timor (and West Papua) to suppress the indigenous population.
In West Papua from 1969 when the UN supported Act of Free Choice (what Orwellian words!) saw Indonesia installed as the new colonial ruler, the Indonesian army has killed over 100,000 people.
Yet despite all thes murders - murders well known to the West - Suharto has received massive support from the US, Britain and Australia in particular.
Indeed, as Iraq and Afghanistan show (once again), when the West thinks it is in their interests to do so they will don the gloves of blood themselves, rather than rely on proxies like Suharto.
Then there is the looting of the Indonesian coffers. Suharto, his family and cronies were corrupt. Transparency International claimed that Suharto and his family filched as much as K104 billion from the country’s coffers.
The criminal case against him for this corruption ended because of his ill health. The civil case will be settled out of court. I wonder who presently in power in Indonesia benefits from these decisions.
International courts have been useless in the fight against this mass murderer, a man clearly guilty of war crimes and genocide.
That’s because the West did not want him tried. He was their ally.
And further, any action could implicate those who aided and abetted Suharto, like the Australian leaders Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard.
Apparently only those criminals who lose the West’s support (like Saddam Hussein) suffer some sort of retribution.
Certainly those from the West who support dictators are never charged.
And those Western leaders (like Bush, Blair and Howard) who invade other countries and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are never brought to justice. Individual terrorism is abhorrent. State terrorism, whether by Suharto or his Western backers, is just as abhorrent.
Near the site of the Bali bombing - a bombing in which 88 Australians were murdered - there are mass graves from 1965 and 1966. There are about 88,000dead there. Australia’s outrage over Bali should extend to those Suharto murdered. It does not. Only when the working people of Indonesia are in power, instead of Suharto’s cronies, will Indonesia be free of its murderous past. - onlineopinion
* John Passant is a Canberra writer
http://www.thenatio
nal.com.pg/020508/Talking_point.htm
Selasa, 05 Februari 2008
Opinion: PRO-CON: Can Indonesia move beyond Suharto’s legacy? NO
KANSAS CITY STAR (USA)
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/464900.html
Posted on Mon, Jan. 28, 2008 10:15 PM
The bloody trail that Suharto blazed after he seized power in 1965 shocks the conscience. Perhaps 100,000 people died in West Papua under Indonesian rule following its fraudulent 1969 annexation of the territory, according to Yale’s Genocide Documentation Project. Between 100,000 and 180,000 died in East Timor as a direct result of Indonesia’s 1975 invasion.
Suharto was no mere thug. Transparency International estimates that Suharto stole perhaps $35 billion, a figure equivalent to the sum of international development assistance to the regime during his 32-year reign. Far from being the “father of Indonesian development,” Suharto’s theft squandered Indonesia’s best chance at balanced development, while political repression enervated civil society and retarded the flowering of democratic institutions in ways that continue to distort economic and political life.
Brad Simpson, history professor, University of Maryland-Baltimore County Comments General Suharto spent his life creating an American version of the evil Dutch East Indies Corporation (VoC) - a Corporate State. In 1961 Suharto organised a pathetic attempt at a military invasion of West Papua, while his Freeport friends in Washington tricked U.S. Pres. Kennedy into writing the “New York Agreement” selling the people of West Papua like cattle to Indonesia.
In 1961 the US Dept. of State said “annexation by Indonesia would simply trade white for brown colonialism”.
After Suharto came to power he gave the colonial minerals to Freeport (1967) & related American corporations; and he put the population of Java to work in factories making the cheap American clothes of the 1970s.
By time America moved its cheap factories to Mexico the people of Java had developed a taste for Colonial Profits of West Papua & other colonies, and too many people liked it.
Posted by: AndrewJ
1/29/2008 5:06 AM
http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/464900.html
Posted on Mon, Jan. 28, 2008 10:15 PM
The bloody trail that Suharto blazed after he seized power in 1965 shocks the conscience. Perhaps 100,000 people died in West Papua under Indonesian rule following its fraudulent 1969 annexation of the territory, according to Yale’s Genocide Documentation Project. Between 100,000 and 180,000 died in East Timor as a direct result of Indonesia’s 1975 invasion.
Suharto was no mere thug. Transparency International estimates that Suharto stole perhaps $35 billion, a figure equivalent to the sum of international development assistance to the regime during his 32-year reign. Far from being the “father of Indonesian development,” Suharto’s theft squandered Indonesia’s best chance at balanced development, while political repression enervated civil society and retarded the flowering of democratic institutions in ways that continue to distort economic and political life.
Brad Simpson, history professor, University of Maryland-Baltimore County Comments General Suharto spent his life creating an American version of the evil Dutch East Indies Corporation (VoC) - a Corporate State. In 1961 Suharto organised a pathetic attempt at a military invasion of West Papua, while his Freeport friends in Washington tricked U.S. Pres. Kennedy into writing the “New York Agreement” selling the people of West Papua like cattle to Indonesia.
In 1961 the US Dept. of State said “annexation by Indonesia would simply trade white for brown colonialism”.
After Suharto came to power he gave the colonial minerals to Freeport (1967) & related American corporations; and he put the population of Java to work in factories making the cheap American clothes of the 1970s.
By time America moved its cheap factories to Mexico the people of Java had developed a taste for Colonial Profits of West Papua & other colonies, and too many people liked it.
Posted by: AndrewJ
1/29/2008 5:06 AM
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)