Notes
Tifa Notes on Indonesia
JANUARY 2010
www.tifafoundation.org
Freedom of The Press And Expressions
Fiscal transparency and accountability
Human Rights & Justice
Citizenship Program
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND EXPRESSIONS “…this decision is not merely the victory of TIME Magazine, as it is also a victory towards freedom of the press and speech in I ndonesia,”
“…this decision is not merely the victory of TIME Magazine, as it is also a victory towards freedom of the press and speech in Indonesia,” was a statement by Todung Mulya Lubis, attorney for TIME Magazine, in response to Supreme Court’s decision on April 16th 2009 to allow a judicial review of his client. The decision had saved TIME Magazine from paying a compensation amount of IDR 1 Trillion, along with apology statements towards the Soeharto family in various mass media, as previously decided by Supreme Court based on a 2007 appeal. The community of Indonesian journalists has two reasons to be pleased with TIME’s victory. Firstly, the decision had acknowledged the Journalism Code of Ethics. Fulfillment of this Code would protect journalists from all civil or criminal claims. Secondly, the decision has acknowledged the Right of Reply as a legal entity. The Right of Reply protects the press from civil responsibilities upon defamations. Another breakthrough on freedom of press is Supreme Court’s Circular Letter to
judges: they are to invite expert witnesses from the Indonesian Press Council for cases related to mass media publications. Looking at these facts, it’s no wonder the freedom of press and expression in Indonesia is considered better than the rest of South East Asia. For example, the Philippines still suffers from severe limits of press freedom, further signified by cases of murder or violence towards journalists. Malaysian and Thai press are still struggling to cope with publication restrictions on sensitive issues regarding the royalties. On top of that, there are also various online access restrictions. Nevertheless, Indonesia’s freedom of press and expression may not be out of the woods just yet. *** The 1999 political liberation took down all the stumbling blocks of press freedom. However, the newfound freedom of press quickly raises its own challenges. Physically, the challenges came from mass groups showing dissatisfaction of the new mass media by anarchy, throwing off threats, sittings and attacks to press offices.
The groups also intentionally attempted to restrict space for journalism work. Symbolically, the challenges came from all society levels, including the government, which was quick to call the new “freedom of the press” as “flubs of the press”. This perception of “flubs” became the concept for those attacking freedom of the press, albeit with different terms. The main message is one: press had gone so far overboard that they need to be restructured. These attacks occurred at the same time with the shift in press threats. Even though mass anarchy still occurred, a bigger threat at the time came from the political elites (namely the government, the military and conglomerates) shrewdly taking advantage of legal cracks. We call these attacks “criminalizing the press”. Criminalization is basically accusing journalists of defamation, or at the very least, public disruption. Political elites tend to add more weight to these accusations by demanding compensations, in amounts clearly devised to ensure bankruptcy or acquisition.
Press criminalization gained its omentum because numerous panels of m judges in district courts have completely disregarded the Press Law, which was originally lex specialis on mass publication cases. The threats of press freedom was further signified with new regulations, full of articles which seemed to support the criminalization attempts, some even allowing chances for repressing the press. To be fair, “press flubs” was partially due to low-quality, biased journalism, full of conflict of interest. At the beginning of Reformation we saw the media acting as sounding boards for political parties; the current media’s tendency to serve political-conglomerates is just as serious. The one thing that remains is the f lurry of freelance reporters. Unemployed journalists came forward, claiming to work for a publication which in reality is scarcely printed, just for the sake of supporting the journalists’ proof of credibility. *** Continued to Freedom of the Press and Expressions...
Notes
January 2010
Chipping Away Freedom through Law Law No 11 in 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions has become the new nightmare. It doesn’t only threaten journalists, but also the civil society, as the regulation stipulates defamation through online activities. Even so, in essence, articles on defamation can be found throughout different regulations. In Indonesia’s Criminal Code alone there are 14 articles on various criminal punishments and compensations on defamations: Articles 142, 142 a, 143, 144, 154 a, 207, 310, 311, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320 and 321. Ironically, the newly revised Criminal Code does not include a decrease in these articles. Aside from that, different threats of defamation accusations can be found in Law No 32 in 2002 on Broadcasting (Article 36 point (5) a jo Article 57), Law No 32 in 2004 on Regional Governance (Article 78 b jo Article 116) and in Law No 42 in 2008 on Presidential Election (Article 41 point (1) c jo Article 214). Journalist groups lead by the Alliance of Independent Journalists has demanded a revision for Law No 40 of 1999 on Press. The intention is to clarify that
defamation is a civil case, and to ban excessive monetary compensation demands to the media or journalists charged with defamations. The suggestion to revise the Press Law was rejected by the Press Council. It was asserted that such revision may serve government’s interest to reclaim control of mass media, as we have seen in Soeharto era. The same dilemma occurred in the revision of Law No 32 in 2002 on Broadcasting. This revision was meant to strengthen the position of Commission of Indonesian Broadcasting, support network television and to control Jakarta-based TV stations. The concern on this revision was its tendency to enable the government in controlling the contents and permissions of electronic media. It should be noted that Law No 33 of 2009 on Films had surprised many in the film business, due to its mysterious stipulations. This law has been problematic ever since. The problems vary from allowing governmental control on both substance and techniques, institutionalizing censorship through direct film cutting, to
the establishment of the Indonesian Body of Films, a body with no clear position or authorities. Regulations may also contradict each other in some areas (copyright, monopoly and distribution). Lastly, some regulations restrict the creativity of filmmaking and the production of independent movies, due to competence requirements for filmmakers. The freedom of press and expression (including the freedom of information access) are in fact continuously endangered, as the 2010 National Legislation Program has included the new Law of Media Convergence. This regulation not only will secure the articles that allow press to be charged with defamations, but also will be a serious threat to around 1000 community radio and 12 community television stations currently operating.
...Freedom of the Press and Expressions
The tumultuous situation on freedom of press and expression may be observed in more detail by looking at the ongoing attempts of toppling journalism (banning particular coverage, threats, physical attacks and murders) and silencing the people. In its Annual Report, the Alliance of Independent Journalists stated 40 cases in 2009, which included: murder (1 case), violence (20 cases), coverage banning (4 cases), criminal charges (7 cases), abduction (2 cases), intimidation (1 case), demonstration (2 cases), and censorship (2 cases), In the context of freedom of expression, banning books and movies are still being done, even without court ruling. The Institution of Film Censorship, for one, banned the movie Balibo, which covered the death of five Australian journalists dur ing Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor in 1975. There was also the Supreme Court ban on five books at the end on 2009.
Criminalizing the freedom of expression has also reached the general society, as shown in Law no. 11of 2008 regarding Electronic Information and Transaction. The disconcerting issue here is the ambiguity of law. It is common for us to see internet users posting threatening or defaming statements online, most of which are not consider crimes. On the other hand, a simple sharing of story on an email may suddenly turn someone into a suspect, as with the case of Prita Mulyasari, charged by Omni International Hospital. On the now-infamous email, Prita had written complaints and questioned the various medical services of the hospital. Criminalizing press or people’s voice is a form of attack no longer limited to the government, but also conducted by companies and socio-religious groups. At the same time, the soaring freedom of expression has triggered unpleasant excesses, causing some to question the
benefit of such freedom. The freedom of expression has triggered a profit-oriented behavior for individuals, social groups and the press. While the media sensationalizes an issue to boost ratings, social groups and individuals voiced out their disagreement to support their political purposes. The situation is made worse with the emergence of unholy matrimonies between mass media conglomerates and the regional government or other democratic actors. This union may have three forms. Firstly, it may be through a new-coverage contract of the political candidate. With a certain price, media may agree to not only supply advertising space, but also block news that may disadvantage the candidate. Media may also publish news of negative messages towards candidate’s competitors. Secondly, the barter of advertising and news. As a consequence for covering (or not covering) particular news, the media may receive large amounts of advertising deals
from the regional government. Thirdly, creating the impression of news fairly earned by the media. In this case, journalists wrote their news based on a transaction, later passed on as coverage on seminars, discussions or press conferences. Last not but least, the oligopoly structure of mass media tends to worsen freedom of the press, as it has became an invisible fence, limiting information that can be published. The interests of media owner, whether triggered by ideological, capital, political or business reasons, will effectively restricts the kinds of news covered by that media, as well as the types of reporting i nvolved. If there are no continuous reports done to increase quality, it can be guaranteed that the Indonesian freedom of expression will ultimately deteriorate. This will then become a disincentive for neighboring countries to grow out of their current press restrictions.
Notes
January 2010
Literally Repressed 2009 brought us numerous online cases, some of which are: Ujang Romansyah, student, Bogor. Ujang was accused of defaming Felly, a fellow Facebook user, by posting misleading Wall messages. Muhammad Iqbal, employee in Lampung Department of Forestry. Veronica Bertha, the Department’s secretary, reported Iqbal to the police for sending Facebook messages to colleague Belinda. Imbar Ismail, a Representative from Southern Sulawesi, was reported to the police for sending inappropriate and demeaning Facebook messages to Dewi Riasari Zainuddin, a dentist in Bandung, West Java. Luna Maya, a celebrity, was reported by an infotainment journalist on December 15th, 2009 for defamation through Luna’s Twitter account.
Throughout 2009 we also saw some anning of books, namely (Note: titles have b been translated for clarity of this article; the books may not currently have an English version): 1. “Pretext for Mass Murder” by John Roosa; 2. “The Voice of Church to the Repressed: All suffering, blood and tears of God’s children in West Papua must end”, by Cocratez Sofyan Yoman; 3. “Lekra Didn’t Burn Books: The Silenced Voice of the People’s Daily, 1950-1965”, by Rhoma Dwi Aria Yuliantri and Muhidin M Dahlan; 4. “Six Pathways to God”, by Darmawan MM,
^/!@ {$-\**> / ? #
5. “Uncovering the Mystery of Religious Variations”, by Drs H Syahrudin Ahmad
Tables/boxes: Data from RSF, FH, online cases and mass media conglomerates. Table: ASEAN Press Freedom Index Negara
Rank
Score
2009
2008
2007
2009
2008
2007
East Timor
74
65
-
16
13,75
27,00
Indonesia
101
111
100
28.5
27,00
30,50
Cambodia
117
126
85
35,50
25,33
Philippines
122
139
128
38.5
45,00
44,75
Thailand
130
124
135
44
34,50
53,50
Malaysia
131
132
124
44.25
39,50
41,00
Singapore
133
144
141
45
49,00
56,00
Brunei
155
-
-
63.5
-
-
Vietnam
166
168
162
81,67
86,17
79,25
Laos
169
164
161
92,00
70,00
75,00
Burma
171
170
164
102,67
94,38
96,17
Source: Reporters Sans Frontières
Notes
January 2010
Table: Freedom of Expression and Belief
Country
PR
CL
Status
D
Brunei
6
5
NF
6
Cambodia
6
5
NF
10
East Timor
3
4
PF
12
Indonesia
2
3
F
12
Laos
7
6
NF
4
Malaysia
4
4
PF
8
Philippines
4
3
PF
14
Singapore
5
4
PF
9
Thailand
6
4
PF
9
Vietnam
7
5
NF
5
Source: Freedom House
PR=political right, CL= civil liberty NF= not freedom, PF=partial freedom, F=freedom D= Freedom of Expression and Belief
Indonesian Mass Media Conglomerates Media Group
Leader of the Group
Newspaper
Magazine/ Tabloid
Radio Station
Television Station
Cyber Media
Other Businesses
Kompas Gramedia Group
Jakob Oetama, Agung Adiprasetyo
Kompas, Jakarta Post, Warta Kota and other 11 local paper
37 magazine and tabloids. 5 book publishers.
Sonora Radio and Otomotion Radio
- (Currently building Kompas TV)
Kompas.com, Kompas Cyber Media
Hotels, Printing House, Promotion Agencies, University,
MNC (Media Nusantara Citra)
Hary Tanoesoedibjo
Seputar Indonesia (Sindo)
Genie, Mom & Kiddie, Realita, Trust Magazine
Trijaya FM, Radio Dangdut TPI, ARH Global, Women Radio
RCTI, Global TV, TPI, Indovision (cable television)
Okezone
IT business
Jawa Pos Group
Dahlan Iskan
Jawa Pos, Fajar, Riau Pos, Rakyat Merdeka and other 90 newspaper in the region
23 weeklies
Fajar FM in Makassar
JTV (JawaPos TV) in Surabaya and other 3 local stations (Pekan Baru, Batam, Makassar)
-
Travel bureau, power house
Hard Rock FM (in Bandung, Jakarta, Bali and Surabaya), MTV Sky (in Jakarta and Bandung)
O’Channel (has been taken over by SCTV)
-
Holder of several international boutique brand
Mugi Reka Aditama (MRA)
Dian Muljani Soedarjo
-
Cosmopolitan, Harper’s Bazaar, Esquire, FHM, Good House Keeping, and other 10 magazine (most franchised magazine)
Bali Post Group
Satria Narada
Bali Post, Suluh Indonesia and 2 other newspaper
Tokoh tabloid
-
Bali TV and 8 local television stations
Bali Post, Bisnis Bali
-
Mahaka Media Group
Erick Tohir
Republika, Harian Indonesia (in Mandarin language)
Golf Digest Magazine, Arena, Parents Indonesia, A+ magazine
Radio JakFM
Jak TV, TV One (join with Bakrie Group)
-
Entertainment, outdoor advertisement
Femina Group
Pia Alisjahbana, Mirta Kartohadiprodjo
-
Femina, Gadis, Ayahbunda, Dewi and other 10 magazine
Radio U-FM
-
-
Production house
Bakrie Group
Anindya Bakrie
-
-
-
ANTV, TV One
Viva News
Property, mining, Crude Palm Oil
Lippo Group
James Riady
Jakarta Globe, Investor Daily, Suara Pembaruan
Investor magazine, Globe Asia, Campus Asia
-
-
-
Property, Hospital, Education, Insurance
Notes
January 2010
What Tifa had Done… 2004
1. Passing of Broadcasting Law. Tifa was actively involved in the advocacy process, and ensured that articles that accommodate the existence of community radios were taken into account. In the advocacy process, Tifa successfully initiated the Indonesian Community Radio Network (Jaringan Radio Komunitas Indonesia or JRKI), the association of Indonesian community radios which is still running today. 2. Many criminalization issues face the media today - currently, Tempo Magazine is facing criminal and civil charges against Tommy Winata – rousing deep sympathy. An international colloquium held by Yayasan Aksara and supported by OSI, Tifa, World Bank, Partnership for Governance Reform and the Dutch Embassy successfully raised public opinion on the threats of media criminalization in Indonesia. Tifa, independently as well as in collaboration with the Independent Journalists Alliance (Aliansi Jurnalis Independen or AJI), also sought to raise support for the Tempo case; from peaceful campaign, raising public opinion through talk shows, to raising media solidarity. At the time, four national media: Suara Pembaruan, Bisnis Indonesia, The Jakarta Post and Koran Tempo printed free advertisements refusing criminalization of the press to show their solidarity. Republik printed a special column on the Tempo case and an editorial on press decriminalization, with refusal advertisement as illustration.
3. Tifa supported the efforts of the Institute of Legal Aid for the Press advocating the Supreme Court’s decision on the resolution of the media case. Although the resolution was not achieved, the Supreme Court issued a Practice Note containing recommendations for the conflict resolution through mediation (by the Press Council). The legal process then became the last resort in resolving the media conflict.
2006 2008
1. In collaboration with the Press Council and AJI, Tifa pushed for the adoption of the Journalism Code of Ethics (Kode Etik Jurnalistik or KEJ) as a revision of the Indonesian Journalists’ Code of Ethics (Kode Etik Wartawan Indonesia or KEWI). KEJ presented an opportunity to develop a media that respects the principles of journalism and honors truth.
1. 1.Public ratings for private television companies have become an alternative to the AGB Nielsen rating system. Alternative Public Ratings, supported by Tifa through the SET Foundation, rates not only the number of viewers, but also the quality of the broadcast and public civility. This step was taken to shed a new perspective on the community, television and advertisement industries in viewing television programs. 2. 2.The Freedom of Information Act was finally passed after five years of advocacy. Tifa has supported these efforts since 2004, and returned with intensive support in 2008. This law requires public agencies, including the government, to provide access to information necessary to the public. This law also opened the doors to greater transparency, and provided new ammunition for civil society advocates in dealing with many issues.
Notes
January 2010
FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY F
rom the budget side, Indonesia is categorized by the World Bank as a decentralized country in South East Asia region. It is not difficult to find the proof. Take a look, for example, the APBN fund transfer to regions was increased two times higher within the last five years. If in 2005 it is 150,5 trillion rupiah, then in 2010, the number of fund transferred has reached 309,8 trillion. Nevertheless, from the transfer amount proportion towards the APBN, this amount of fund that was transferred did not increase significantly (29,5% in 2005 became 30,7% in 2010). It is not surprising if some economists and politicians argue that the fund transfer still needs to be increased to almost 60%-70% from the APBN. The problem is, the trust fund transfer is the consequence of regional autonomy implementation in 2001, after it was
l egalized two years before. This regional autonomy delegates a lot of central government’s authority to the region, except for (a) foreign politics; (b) security defense; (c) judiciary; (d) monetary and f iscal; (e) religion; and (f) affairs of authority on other areas. Besides that, the regional government has quite a large space, not limited to financial and natural resources management affairs. While the fund is being transferred to regions, the demand so that the regional government can be more transparent and accountable is also mounting. *** In terms of budget transparency matter, Indonesia is considered better than a number of countries in South East Asia region (except Singapore). However, still, it is not yet considered sufficient.
Social Audit Towards PNPM Mandiri President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was upset knowing that there were mayors and head of regency that refused the National Program of Self-sufficient Society Empowerment. “I don’t understand. I heard that there was a head of regency who refused PNPM. PNPM has been going on for 3 years, two effective years, state program, it provides 3 billion rupiah to every district starting next year for the people. Why refuse it? Explain to me, explain to the people from the relevant regency,” said President SBY when opening National Conference (Munas) V Kadin, last December 2008. On the government’s perspective, PNPM is a successful program. Moreover, PNPM is believed to be participatory (it is said: from, for and by the people) and not just merely illustration (it is illustrated with steps: giving fish, giving hook, and giving hook and boat). The problem is, beneficiaries of this program are uncertain to feel or evaluate so. This misunderstanding also happens among government officials as stated by President SBY himself.
The question then, how can claims on government policy and/or program is proven based on the perspective of beneficiaries? Social Audit of Self-sufficient PNPM is a research that will measure how far the programmatic intervention within Self-sufficient PNPM helps the poor to go out from poverty. It is expected through this social audit that the dynamic aspect of society can be identified in order to reveal the depth of poverty that is happening. Furthermore, it is also expected that through this social audit, it can be identified why several Selfsufficient PNPM programs have not yet encouraged participation from the marginal society in decision making. This social audit is implemented in 15 villages/ sub-districts of Self-sufficient PNPM projects location which are spread in five regions, which are Sumatera (3 locations), Java-Bali (5 locations), Sulawesi (2 locations), Kalimantan (2 locations) and NTT-NTBMaluku-Papua (3 locations).
This partnership cooperation is an initial stage for the foundation of independent monitoring practices by the community in the future. The partnership support is planned to be continued in 2010 with the emphasis on village level along with the increase of fiscal transfer from regency government to village government. Social audit is a deliberation room for community to evaluate the accountability, effectiveness and appropriateness of government programs compared to their needs. In the future, this deliberation room will be more transparent along with the implementation of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Transparency since April 30, 2010. This Law will enable citizens to obtain the information of government financial report more deeply, and also to waive skepticism over the minimum impact of changes that can be generated from social audit works. (*/)
Notes
According to the Open Budget Index 2008, the transparency is considered half glass full hence it brings trouble to citizens in requiring accountability over the use of public fund. What is quite apparent is that Indonesia does not allocate any “citizen budget” or some kind of presentation on financial plan and report which can be understood by the general public. Without any means to disregard some betterment efforts and achievements at hand, the implementation of fiscal transparency in Indonesia can be reasonably regarded as ‘half-hearted’. This can be seen through many regulations on the role and responsibility of government agencies that are multiinterpretative, the limited access towards financial fund, the artificial society involvement in financial formulation, implementation as well as reporting, and the high hesitation over utilized data. The half-hearted fiscal transparency enables government official, both in central and moreover in regions, to misbehave or to corrupt. This is possible because they clearly understand that accountability that needs to be given can be very limited (read: formalistic), if they do not want to be called as it is (just enough). One of its evidences is that there are only four Regional Government Financial Reports for budget year 2008 which received “unqualified opinion” from BPK. Nevertheless, regional government officials did not feel worried or disturbed because there is no clear and strict sanction for them.
January 2010
In fact, the negative effect of that f inancial report is that the central government suffered difficulty in identifying fiscal activities which were carried out by the regional government. This information is needed because in the regional budget, regional balancing fund is available and distributed by the central government to regional governments. Misbehaves happened not only in the budget revenue side (as seen, for example, from the diligence in creating various types of levy) but also from the expense side (as seen, for example, from the policy of super luxurious office car to development of merely “lighthouse” projects). The logical consequence is worse public service quality, including basic infrastructure which is not maintained (mainly road and irrigation). This is also worsen by the complicated business licensing which causes investors to leave and/or reluctant to invest their capital. Massive natural resources degradation escalates in regions with abundant natural resources. Nevertheless, improvement in the quality of people’s livelihood in these regions is not happening. In short, Indonesia becomes a country with low competitiveness and it is not prosperous. It can be seen from its high rate of poverty. The derivative implication becomes horrible. This matter triggers actions by some groups inside the country to question back the democracy path that has been taken. In the eye of fellow regional countries,
this fact will strengthen their stance to still be undemocratic. The good news is, the opportunity to encourage more substantial fiscal transparency and accountability is still open. On the regulation side, for instance, there is Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Transparency which will be effective in April 2010. Based on this Law, the rights of citizen to obtain information from public agencies is stipulated. Law on Public Information Transparency (UU KIP) becomes strategic because it completes some Law which has already existed before: Law on Anti Corruption, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Witness Protection and Law on Money Laundering. Moreover, there is also Law No. 21 of 2009 on Public Service. This Law stipulates the necessity of society participation in policy-making. From the motive side, IBP study (2009) shows that Indonesia is a country that has the most of budget-advocate groups. However, budget-advocate group has not yet been able to transform into social movement or advocacy instruments for its communities. These groups focus their attention on participation institutionalization of state revenue monitoring, expense tracking, budget literacy and anti-corruption. It also includes revealing biases on budget, from gender to bias for poor groups. Related to that, the presence of international non-governmental organizations, financial institutions and
donors have also given a specific effect. Its focus on the capacity building and society participation efforts have made international NGO presence guarantees pressures from the bottom to urge the government to be more responsive and accountable towards its citizens’ needs. Meanwhile, its focus on the effort of capacity building for bureaucracy staff with incentive strategy and in-depth intervention, have made the existence of financial institution and donors play important roles in encouraging regulatory changes design. In order to improve the quality of f iscal transparency and accountability in Indonesia, Tifa Foundation focuses on programs that encourage capacity building of government budget, both in the revenue or expenditure side. On the revenue side, the main issue is on how to improve the regional government’s income, from the existing activities of natural resource utilization or extractive industry. Various analysis shows that there are many holes that can be utilized by parties who have obtained concession to pay tax and retribution which are less than what it should be. On the expense side, Tifa agrees with the point of view which states that the main issue now is to ensure effectiveness of expenditure which is reflected from the accuracy (priority) of target and usefulness from the beneficiary side. ***
2010
Notes
January 2010
Percentage of Transfer Fund Towards APBN 2005 - 2010 36% 34% 32% 30% 28% 26% Sumber: http://www.fiskal.depkeu.go.id
Percentage of DAU Towards Transfer Fund 2005 - 2010
TRANSFER TO REGIONS, 2005–2010 (in billion rupiah) 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
LKPP
LKPP
LKPP
LKPP
LKPP
RAPBN
I
DANA PERIMBANGAN
143,221.3
222,130.6
243,967.1
278,714.6
285,317.1
292,979.6
A
Shared Fund
50,479.2
64,900.3
62,941.9
78,420.2
74,083.4
76,586.1
B
Public Allocation Fund
88,765.4
145,664.2
164,787.4
179,507.1
186,414.1
195,805.6
C
Special Allocation Fund
3,976.7
11,566.1
16,237.8
20,787.3
24,819.6
20,587.9
II
SPECIAL AUTONOMY AND ADJUSTMENT FUND
7,242.6
4,049.3
9,296.0
13,718.8
24,255.2
16,818.0
A
Special Autonomy Fund
1,775.3
3,488.3
4,045.7
7,510.3
9,526.6
8,878.0
B
Adjustment Fund
5,467.3
561.1
5,250.3
6,208.5
14,728.6
7,940.0
TOTAL
150,463.9
226,179.9
253,263.1
292,433.5
309,572.3
309,797.6
Source: http://www.fiskal.depkeu.go.id
Notes
January 2010
60 50 40 30 20 10
The Global Competitiveness Index: Asean Negara
Rank
Score
2009
2008
2007
2006
Singapore
5
7
5.3
5.45
Malaysia
21
21
5.04
5.1
Thailand
34
28
4.6
47
Brunei
39
-
4.54
-
Indonesia
55
54
4.25
4.24
Viet Nam
70
68
4.1
4.04
Philippines
71
71
4.09
3.99
Cambodia
109
110
353
3.48
Timor-Leste
129
127
3.15
3.2
Source: World Economic Forum
Tabel: CPI: Score dan Rangking Negara-Negara Asean Negara
Score CPI
Rank
2009
2008
2007
2006
2009
2008
2007
2006
Singapore
9.3
9.2
9.3
9.4
3
4
4
5
Malaysia
4.5
5.1
5.1
5.0
56
47
43
44
Thailand
3.4
3.5
3.3
3.6
84
80
84
63
Vietnam
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
120
121
123
111
Indonesia
2.8
2.6
2.3
2.4
111
126
143
130
Philippines
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.5
139
141
131
121
Timor-Leste
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.6
146
145
123
111
Laos
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.6
158
151
168
111
Cambodia
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.1
158
166
162
151
Myanmar
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.9
178
178
179
160
Source: Transparency Internasional
Notes
January 2010
Human Right and Justice
T
he development of Human Rights and Justice (HRJ) in Indonesia for the last 10 years has shown contradicting tendencies. In terms of regulations, there are various legal stipulations made to ensure the maintaining of HRJ. The most valuable achievement is obviously the integration of HRJ norms in the Constitutions (second amendment of 1945 National Constitution). Another significant change worth mentioning is Law No 39/1999 on Human Rights and Law No 26/2000 on the Human Rights Trial. After some stagnation, Indonesia has finally ratified two main covenants, civil & political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. This development is quite among other Indonesian HRJ ratifications. Some of these include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965, Convention Against Torture (CAT) as well as ILO Conventions such as Convention No. 138 Concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment, Convention No. 111 Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation
and Convention No. 182 Concerning The Prohibition and Immediate Action for The Elimination of The Worst Forms of Child Labour. Even so, in the current development, there are regulations made to contradict the spirit of HRJ. This varies from Law No 27/1999 on Indonesia’s Criminal Code changes related to National Security, Law UU No 11 in 2008 on Electronic Information and Transactions, and the some Shari’a regional stipulations validating discrimination, to name a few. There are also issues in HRJ investigations. In the beginning, we saw strong governmental commitment to solve the prioritized cases, such as the May 1998 riot, post-opinion polls’ riot in Timor Leste, violence in Aceh, the Bloody Incident of Tandjung Priok, Maluku conflict, Sampit conflict, the Attack of Indonesian Democratic Party headquarter, and the recent case of murder of Munir, noted HRJ activist. In contrast to a good beginning, current investigations have not gone any further. Trials on HRJ convict field operators instead of masterminds, many of which are roaming free. The tendency spread to other cases – there
is a tendency to ignore HRJ cases that occurred between 1960 and 1970. In everyday politics, it’s very easy to find negations in upholding HRJ. Forced evictions, land expropriation, single-handed retrenchments, ignorance of community / indigenous rights, and various discriminative practices towards communities done as if they had nothing to do with human rights and justice. There is a tendency to treat HRJ like it is a concern in violence and murder only, and not on economical or cultural issues. *** In the coming future, we will continue to see these contradictions. This is especially apparent in four things. First, the asynchronous work of central and regional government. Even if central possesses a commitment and a clear working plan, there is always a possibility that regional may have a different political logic, making it easier for them to conduct HRJ violations, taking on the sentiments of ethnic, religion, race and social strata. Secondly, a mismatch of regulations. The poor process of regulation drafting, often intervened with political trades, often result in conflicting regulations. You may also find sub-regulations with lower authorities that effectively eliminate higher legal regulations. Thirdly, the rise of religious conservative groups will eventually take advantage of government’s ignorance. As a result to this, the minorities are always threatened, suffering from lack of protection on physical or symbolic
violence. Ironically, clauses on HRJ will then be used to defend the government’s lack of action towards the HRJ violators. Lastly is the tendency of looking away from violations, special preferences of HRJ investigations, and criminalization of HRJ activists. These things are caused by a conflict of interest among those political elites with double identities, be it “political businessmen” or “business politicians”. Nevertheless, some opportunities for better HRJ condition should be noted, such as the Law of Free Public Information (which will take effect on April 2010), the Revision of Law on Legal Assistance (current priority on National Legislation Program), updates to Law on Placements & Protection of Migrant Workers, and Revisions on Indonesian Criminal Code and Criminal Code Procedures. Within that context, Tifa Foundation perceives that the most dangerous situations will threaten the vulnerable and marginal society. Those included in these groups are religious minorities, ethnic minorities (including indigenous people), minorities of sexual preference, women, children, victims of human rights and serious crimes, and different abilities. For these reasons, Tifa will focus on building an environment that strengthens the civil society, especially the marginal and vulnerable groups, in order to ensure justice and equality.
Notes
January 2010
Access to Justice “If the law enforcers have any conscience, this sort of case would never reach the court,” Muslih Bambang Lukmono, Judge in Purwokerto District Court. MINAH (55 years old), resident of jibarang, Purwokerto, Central Java, had A to sit through a trial in Purwokerto District Court for stealing 3 cocoa fruits, worth IDR 30,000, from a private-owned farm adjacent to hers. Prior to trial, Minah had apologized and returned the three cocoa fruits. She was still brought to court. Every time Minah attended a court session, she had to spend IDR 50,000 for transportation and meals. This was so unaffordable for Minah that at one time, the prosecutor offered her some money. Muslih Bambang Lukmono, who led the panel of judges, decided on imprisonment for 1 month and 15 days, with a probation period of 3 months. When reading his decision, Bambang was reported to be holding back tears. There are more cases like Minah. The Minah incident is a sign of the difficulties of reaching justice for the common people. It’s no wonder the majority of Indonesians avoid the court. A World Bank
Survey (2008) on Indonesian non-state trials, for example, showed that only 2.1% of respondents have had participated on trials for the last two years. Furthermore, only 34.2% believe in formal justice. 24.3% do not believe in such system, and 41.5% claimed to not have an opinion. Reluctance of taking matters to court is not only caused by financial reasons, but also the strong public perception of a corrupt legal system. It is widely believed that “If you report the loss of your chicken to the police, you’ll lose your cow as well.” This perception is aligned with the survey results of 2007 Global Corruption Barameter. According to the survey, the Indonesian police have the highest index score of 4.2, followed by the judiciary (and the House of Representatives) at 4.1. The higher your index score is, the more corrupt you are perceived to be. In all the sample nations, Indonesia has the highest index scores on these two institutions. The lack of access to true justice is
an almost classic problem in Indonesia. The flurry of political liberalization and democratization apparently were not enough to make a change. Even though the number of legal advocates had increased tremendously since the 1970s (currently 20,400), only some are willing to serve the poor, marginal groups and people in remote areas. Even with regulation updates and the founding of an external monitoring agency, the law officers are still found practicing financial trades for cases, coming up with more and more sophisticated methods over time. Although access to information on justice and human rights are now much more open, the people’s knowledge of the legal system remains limited. It’s true that government is starting to realize how access to justice may speed up poverty alleviation. However, the realization stops on a rhetorical and formal level. To ensure access to justice for the poor,
2007
Corruption’s impact on different sectors and institutions
Source: GCB 2007
marginal groups and people in remote areas, the Tifa Foundation has been supporting community-based paralegal programs for the last three years. These communities are society groups currently fighting for economical, social and cultural rights. The programs are meant to be a conscious effort to transform victims to activists of the law. There are two challenges ahead. One, in increasing the spread of paralegals in various areas. There are geographical limitations, along with lack of advocates with sufficient experience in Indonesian legal assistance institutions. Two, in strengthening paralegal legitimacy in front of law enforcers. It should be noted that for the poor, marginal groups and people in remote areas, paralegals are perceived to be the quickest and most accessible solution, when faced with legal issues.
Notes
January 2010
Excessive Trials
Stealing is a crime regardless of its financial value. However, if our law enforcers had had a better conscience, trial and imprisonment to minor theft do not need to take place.
Here are some cases of theft trials considered unreasonable: Watermelon
Suyanto and Kholil was submitted to Kediri District Court (East Java) for stealing a watermelon. Judges decided on suspension of 15 days. The two defendants had previously spent more than 2 months in prison during trial.
Soap and Green Beans
Rasjo (77) was sentenced with 12 days in prison and a one-month suspension by Sember District Court (Cirebon, West Java) for stealing two pieces of soap and a package of green beans from a minimart, worth IDR 13,450. It was revealed in court that Rasjo had already paid a tenfold compensation of IDR 134,500. Rasjo suspects the compensation was given to the police by the village chief.
A Bag of Cotton
Masinih (27) and 3 members of her family (Juwono (16), Sri Suratmi (25), and Manise (39) was brought to Batang District Court with charges of stealing 14 kg of cotton worth IDR 15,000 from a plantation owned by Segayung Ltd. Masinih had to put a mortgage on her house and land in order to attend the trial. According to Masinih, the theft was done because she couldn’t bear her children’s demands for pocket money.
Light Bulbs
Wayut, 35, a rickshaw driver, was brought to Tanjugkarang District Court (Lampung) for stealing the 50-watt light bulbs installed near his house. Wayut may face seven years in prison. The theft was conducted because Wayut could not afford purchasing light bulbs for his house. Wayut is currently placed in Wayhuwi Correctional Facility, Bandar Lampung.
Five Ears of Corn
Parto (51) was brought to Situbondo District Court (East Java) for stealing five ears of corn on a field that belongs to Supardi. Supardi’s loss was IDR 10,000. The five ears were to be used to feed Parto’s cows. Parto confessed to the crime, saying he happened to be reaping the grass around Supardi’s field. Parto was not accompanied by a lawyer throughout the trial.
Snacks
Sulfiana, 35, a labour worker at United Tobacco Processing Indonesia Ltd., was sentenced to one month in prison, with a suspension of two months by Bangil District Court in Pasuruan (East Java) for stealing snacks worth IDR 19,000. The snacks were bread that Sulfiana was supposed to distribute to other laborers. Sulfiana denied the charges, as he did not feel that he has committed theft. He claimed that during the snack distribution, the laborers were fighting for the bread, and it was later revealed that one worker did not receive his share. If the sentence takes place, Sulfiana may lose his job.
Sengon Wood
Ponjo (64) was sentenced with 75 days in prison by Lumajang District Court for cutting and stealing a sengon tree in a field that belongs to Perhutani, a state-owned forestry enterprise. Ponjo claimed he was not aware of the restriction on cutting trees in Perhutani’s field.
4 Palm Leaves
Samsinur Butar-butar (35), a resident of Buntu Pagar Village in Raja Asahan, along with Adi (30) and Acin (33) was brought to Tanjungbalai District Court for stealing 4 palm leaves in a plantation that belongs to AAG Gunung Melayu Ltd. Samsinur denied the charges, as he claimed the palm leaves were taken from a land bequeathed by his father.
3 Tree Logs
Suyono (36), a farm laborer from Nglebur village, Kedungpring subdistrict, was brought to Lamongan District Court (East Java) for stealing three wooden logs, which was raw material for paper in a plantation that was part of Mojokerto Consolidated Production Forest. The logs are worth IDR 80,000. Suyono may face 8 months in prison or 3 months of confinement. Suyono admitted to stealing the logs to build a small hut next to his in-laws.
Notes
January 2010
Citizenship Program Tifa believes that inclusivity will turn diversity into a precious asset for Indonesia to develop democracy and increase society welfare.
W
ithin the parameters as defined in the Freedom Index, Indonesia is the only country categorized as “free” in South East Asia. Even so, there’s still a lot to be kept in mind. Indonesia is now threatened by failures in delivering an efficient government, building substantive participation, and upholding democracy as the code of conduct. These f ailures have made Indonesia’s democratic condition to be perceived as inconsistent. In the context of inter-society relations, democratic inconsistencies are obviously apparent in terms of religious freedom. More so than conflicts of ideologies (evident in current outpouring of “anti-neo-liberalism”) or ethnics (which tend to be more localized), religious conflicts (both inter-religion or within one belief) tends to push public sentiment, which eventually corners the minority groups. It is not surprising that the 2008 Religious Freedom in the World gave a score of 5 out of 7 to Indonesia (1-3=free, 6-7=not free). The analysis stated that the lack of religious freedom is caused by lack of governmental actions and the low society awareness in the rights of choosing faith. The 2008 Legatum Prosperty Index also perceived Indonesia as weak in its efforts in building social support of religious freedom, albeit having very strong religious beliefs. A panel from US Department of State placed Indonesia as a country that requires supervision, due to its consistent rank in 2008 Countries Particular Concern (CPC) list. This list identifies countries that tolerates or actively conducts violations to religious freedom. ***
Politically, we are believed to be suffering from under-representation. This opinion has been openly expressed by groups that may be categorized as “Political Islam”. The same perception is believed to be a source of concern within cultural, ethnic, and religious minority groups. What’s worse, this “common concern” is often exploited by political candidates to gain votes in legislative or presidential elections, or
in fighting for control of natural resources. When identities are mobilized in such manners, there’s always a possibility that conflict potential will be strengthened, especially when supported by other significant factors, primarily the economy. Conflict potential may arise with internalization of prejudice. Ironically, prejudice is best infiltrated in a world with strong freedom of the press, association and expression. The strong prejudice has made diversity in Indonesia as a burden. Moreover, Indonesia’s diversity is much more complex than neighboring countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines or Thailand. Within this context, the Tifa Foundation has and will continue to support programs that boost inclusivity, be it in politics, economy, society or culture. The basis of inclusivity is framed in a theme of internalizing and upholding democracy, which allows large rooms for local perspective, at the same time effectively eliminating justification for violence. Specifically, in 2010 Tifa Foundation has worked with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to review various legislations and regulations, in order to ensure compliance to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Tifa also supports NGOs that collect evidences or practices of discrimination in public service, such as processing identity cards, birth certificates or marriage certificates. The collection is currently done in five cities, including, Jakarta, Jayapura and Banda Aceh. On top of that, Tifa is working with the Ministry of Religious Affairs to continue the program of introducing critical learning to teachers of Islam. Finally, Tifa supports the development of an early warning system to prevent and handle religious, ethnic and racial conflicts. Tifa is focusing on areas with natural resources, such as gas, oil or mining resources. Tifa believes that inclusivity will turn diversity into a precious asset for Indonesia to develop democracy and increase society welfare.
Specifically, in 2010 Tifa F oundation has worked with the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to review various l egislations and regulations, in order to ensure compliance to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Freedom Index 2008 Country
PR
CL
Status
Indonesia
2
3
F
East Timor
3
4
PF
Malaysia
4
4
PF
Philippines
4
3
PF
Singapore
5
4
PF
Thailand
6
4
PF
Brunei
6
5
NF
Cambodia
6
5
NF
Laos
7
6
NF
Vietnam
7
5
NF
Source: Legatum Institute
PR = political right; CL = civil liberties F = Freedom PF = Partial Freedom NF = Not Freedom
Notes
January 2010
LEGATUM PROSPERITY INDEX TABLE 2008 Builds Social Support via religon freedom
via religion belief
Thailand
-1
-
Malaysia
-12
-
Indonesia
-11
13
Philippines
7
11
Singapore
-15
4
Cambodia
10
-
Vietnam
-17
-11
Brunei
6
5
Cambodia
6
5
Laos
7
6
Vietnam
7
5
Source: Legatum Institute
DEMOCRACY INDEX Rank
County
Index
Category
47
Timor-Leste
7.22
Flawed democracy
54
Thailand
6.81
Flawed democracy
68
Malaysia
6.36
Flawed democracy
69
Indonesia
6.34
Flawed democracy
77
Philippines
6.12
Flawed democracy
82
Singapore
5.89
Hybrid regime
102
Cambodia
4.87
Hybrid regime
149
Vietnam
2.53
Authoritarian regime
Socialist republic, Single-party communist state
157
Laos
2.1
Authoritarian regime
Socialist republic, Single-party communist state
163
Myanmar
1.77
Authoritarian regime
Military junta (de facto Military Dictatorship)
Type of government
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2008
Jl. Jaya Mandala II No. 14E Menteng Dalam Jakarta, 12870 Indonesia Tel : (62) 021 829 2776 Fax : (62) 021 837 83648 public@tifafoundation.org www.tifafoundation.org
Notes
Tifa Notes on Indonesia