“RESTORAN INDONESIA PARIS” Dan “KETIKA BUNG (KARNO) Di ENDE”

Kolom IBRAHIM ISA

Senin, 17 Februari 2014
----------------------------------

“RESTORAN INDONESIA PARIS” Dan “KETIKA BUNG (KARNO) Di ENDE”

* * *

Sahabatku, Chalik Hamid, mendatangi aku dan membisikkan sesuatu padaku pada akhir acara menonton dua film Indonesia: Restaurant Indonesia (film dokumenter) dan film cerita (2 jam 10 menit) -- “Ketika Bung di Ende”.

“Yang hadir 94 orang, Pak Isa”, kata Chalik Hamid sambil tersenyum.

Suatu kegiatan budaya menonton film Indonesia yang diselenggarakan oleh Perhimpunan Persaudaraan Indonesia di Nederland, di gedung sekolah Schakel, Diemen, hari Minggu, 16 Februari 2014, itu berakhir dengan sukses. Ruangan pertemuan Schakel itu penuh, Sementara hadirin ada yang tidak dapat tempat duduk. Kegiatan yang disela makan lontong-sayur, bakso Indonesia, lemper dan martabak itu berakhir dengan masing-masing membawa kesan mendalam sekitar kesadaran kebangsaan Indonesia. Hadirin punya kesan mendalam Minggu kemarin itu.

Seperti dinyatakan oleh Ketua Perhimpunan Persaudaraan Indonesia di Nederland, SUNGKONO, pada penutupan acara, dua film yang dipertunjukkan hari ini baik sekali. Dalam mempertahankan dan memupuk semangat dan jiwa kepedulian kita terhadap Tanah Air dan Bangsa.

Dalam mengkhayati ajaran Bung Karno: JAS MERAH -- JANGAN SEKALI-KALI MELUPAKAN SEJARAH!

* * *

FILM DOKUMENTER “RESATURANT INDONESIA”

Baik sebelum maupun setelah menjabat sebagai presiden, Gus Dur beberapa kali mengunjungi Restaurant Indonesia, Paris. Ketika datang ke Paris, Presiden Abdurrahman Wahid memerintahkan duta besar RI untuk mengundang semua anggota koperasi Restoran Indonesia ke KBRI. Bagian Kebudayaan KBRI di Paris pernah mengatakan: “Restoran Indonesia adalah duta Indonesia di Paris”.

Betapa tidak terharu dan bertambah kokoh semangat kita, menyaksikan dokumenter sekitar Restaurant Indonesia, Paris. Para warga Indonesia yang paspornya sewenang-wenang dicabut oleh penguasa militer Indonesia ketika itu (1965/66), karena mereka menolak mengutuk Presiden Sukarno, namun dengan semangat berdikari membangun restaurant Indonesia di Paris agar kawan-kawan senasib bisa mempertahankan hidup di negeri asing tanpa bersandar pada bantuan negeri. Dan yang lebih mengharukan lagi, ialah bahwa kawan-kawan baik muda dan tua, yang berprofesi sebagai jurnalis, dokter, insinyur, aktivis ormas, pakar mupun yang mahasiswa, tetap mempertahankan semangat kepedulian dengan Tanah Air dan Bangsa, dengan menjadikan Restaurant Indonesia, sebagai tempat kegiatan kebudayaan Indonesia.
Tanpa mempedulikan intrik dan fitnah dari fihak KBRI Orba ketika itu yang melarang masyarakat Indonesia dan tamu-tamu dari Indonesia mengunjungi Resturant Indonesia.

* * *

Yang lebih mengesankan lagi ialah film yang kedua:

“Ketika Bung di Ende.”

Dalam penjelasannya Persaudaran menyampaikan a.l sbb: Lewat film ini kita dibawa mengikuti Bung Karno dan Ibu Inggit ketika beliau berdua pada

Januari 1934 dibuang oleh pemerintah Belanda ke Ende di Flores. Bung Karno selama di pembuangan,meskipun selalu diikuti oleh polisi kolonial, berusaha bergaul dengan rakyat setempat. Beliau berusaha memahami fikiran hidup mereka dan secara pandai mengajar mereka apa arti kata MERDEKA.

Beradanya Bung Karno di Ende telah membantu meningkatkan kesedaran politik rakyat di Ende. Mereka diantaranya membantu Bung Karno beliau berkomunikasi dengan kawan-kawan beliau di Jawa.

Film feature ini bisa di download sendiri di:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhaY6rhX0U

6 dec. 2013 - Geüpload door Egy Massadiah

Cuplikan Film Ketika Bung di Ende yang diproduseri oleh Egy Massadiah.Pemain Baim Wong ...

Ketika Bung di Ende - YouTube

* * *

Sedikitnya ada tiga hal dalam film “Ketika Bung Di Ende” yang mungkin kurang atau belum disoroti, atau, bahkan tidak cukup diangkat, dalam mengisahkan periode pembuangan Bung Karno ke Ende. Yaitu ketika Bung Karno menjelang disengat sakit malaria yang akut.

Beliau ketika itu semacam bersemedi, memikirkan situasi dalam pembuangan dan nasib haridepan tanah air tercinta. Pemikiran beliau menunjukkan semangat dan jiwa revolusioner Bung Karno tak tunduk di bawah penindasan, penahanan dan pembuangan. Tetap yakin bahwa perjuangan berlangsung terus.

Perhatikan kata-kata Bung Karno di bawah ini:

“Aku memandang lautan dengan hempasan gelombangnya yang besar berirama memukul pantai. Dan aku tak henti-hentinya berpikir bagaimana lautan tidak pernah bisa diam.

Memang ada pasang naik dan pasang surut, tapi ia terus bergulung secara abadi. Itu sama dengan Revolusi kami, pikirku. Revolusi kami tidak akan pernah berhenti. Revolkusi kami, seperti juga lautan, adalah hasil ciptaan Tuhan, satu-satunya Maha Penyebab dan juga Maha Pencipta. (Buku “Bung Karno Penyambung Lidah Rakyat Indonesia”, Cindy Adams – halaman 164. -- Edisi Indonesia, 2007.

* * *

Kemudian bagaimana Bung Karno yang semula percaya pda TAHAYUL, belakangan membebaskan jiwa dan fikirannya dari kungkungan tahayul tsb.

“Di Flores aku juga membersihkan diri dari segala tahayul. Selalu aku percaya akan adanya hari baik dan hari buruk, aku persaya pada jimat yang membawa berkah dan jimat yabng memiliki pengaruh jahat . . . . .

“Baiklah aku mempercayainya.

Tidak lama kemudian aku dibuang ke Flores. Aku tidak begitu lagi percaya padanya. Inilah yang membuat aku berniat membuang kepercayaan yang picik ini.Dan aku mengatakan kepada diriku, “Bukankah engkau sudah melihat betapa jahatnya tahayul ini, sehingga engkau tidak mau makan di piring yang retak, karena engkau percaya bahwa hal yang mengerikan akan menimpamu kalau engkau melakukannya”. . .. . . … Dengn terbebasnya aku dari tahayul, tidakkah aku harus berterima kasih kepada Flores? (Ibid – halaman 162).

* * *

Suatu ketika seorang simpatisan Bung Karno di Flores menganjurkan Bung Karno melarikan diri dari Flores. Dia, seorang stoker kapal, bersama kawan-kawannya akan mengatur sedemikian rupa agar berhasil rencana lolos dari Flores. Sehingga Bung Karno bisa langsung memimpin perjuangan di tengah-tengah masyarakat yang luas. Simpatisan stoker itu menganjurkan agar Bung Karno beekerja secara rahasia.

Ini jawab Bung Karno pada simpatisannya Sang Stoker itu:

“Kalau aku kabur, itu hanya kulakukan agar bisa berjuang kembali untuk kemerdekaan. Tapi begitu aku melakukan hal itu, akan akan ditangkap lagi dan dibuang kembali. Jadi tidak ada gunanya.

“Tidak dapatkah Bung Karno berjuang secara rahasia?” (tanya simpatisan)

“Ini bukan cara Bung Karno. Aku dianggap sebagai lambang dari perjuangan kemerdekaan. Dengan tetap tinggal di sini, rakyat dapat menilai, bagaimana pemimpin mereka juga menderita untuk cita-cita. Aku telah berpikir tentang godaan untuk kabur dan mempertimbangkan buruk-baiknya.

Agaknya lebiuh baik bagi Sukarno untuk tetap menjdi lambang dari pengorbanan menuju cita-cita”. (Ibid, halaman 158).

* * *

Jalannya perkembangan selanjutnya adalah seperti yang diprediksi oleh Bung Karno.

SUKARNO TETAP MENJADI LAMBANG DARI PERJUANGAN KEMERDEKAAN INDONESIA !!

* * *

SUNGGUH KERDIL . . . SUNGGUH KERDIL !!

Kolom IBRAHIM ISA
Senin, 17 Februari 2014
---------------------------------

SUNGGUH KERDIL . . . SUNGGUH KERDIL  !!

Sudah hampir setengah abad PKI dibubarkan Jendral Suharto. ..
Sudah 3 juta korban manusia tak bersalah dituduh PKI .  . . kemudian dibantai . . . . .
Sudah sekitar 20 juta keluarga  EKS-TAPOL dituduh tak bersih lingkungan, didiskriminasi serta  dikucilkan . ..
Sudah setengah abad film anti-PKI diputar setiap tahun  selama 30 tahun lebih . .  . . . . 

Tokh . . . . masih takut pada orang-orang tua eks-tapol, eks-PKI, yang sakit-sakitan . .. 
Kumpul-kumpul di Semarang menjenguk sahabat lama yang sakit  . . . .


Perlu sepasukan Polisi dan preman menggerebek dan menahan gaék-gaék  itu . . 
Alangkah kerdilnya nyali manusia-manusia Orde Baru itu . . . .

Sati film dokumenter Joshua Oppenheimer  - THE ACT OF KILLING  -
Cukup bikin mereka kalap, kelabakan, mengalami "mimpi-buruk" . . .
Sehingga perlu seorang jurubicara pemerintah tampil membela diri .  .

Sungguh kerdil, sungguh kerdil !
Kalau tokh mau dibilang masih punya  nyali. .  . .

*    *    *

IBRAHIM ISA'S Selected Indonesian News Items

IBRAHIM ISA'S Selected Indonesian News Items

Saturday, February 15^th, 2104 –
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- PAPUA -- The political demography of conflicts

--- Human Rights Violation -- Oscar-Nominated ‘Act of Killing’ Confronts Indonesia’s Dark Past

--- Indonesia-Singapore --When Terrorists in One Country Are, Freedom-Fighting Icons in Another

* * *

Jakarta Post - February 10, 2014
The political demography of conflicts in Papua

Riwanto Tirtosudarmo, Jakarta -- Demography is rearing its ugly head, and as a
result, political development in Papua has become convoluted. This issue was a
major topic during the recent seminar on Papua organized by the Research
Center of Politics at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).

The convolution of demography and politics were exposed in at least two cases
-- the increasing number of non-Papuans and the demographic manipulation in
the creation of new districts. What is worrying is the contribution of a
political demographic nexus to the increasing political and communal conflicts
in Papua.

The perception that in-migration to Papua has resulted in the marginalization
of the indigenous population has been around since the early 1980s, when
Soeharto's New Order government accelerated the relocation of people from Java
and Bali under the transmigration program to Papua. The transmigration policy
was criticized for endangering both the local population and the environment
as new settlements destroyed the surrounding tropical forests. The
transmigration program had practically ceased in the early 1990s as the
financial capacity of the central government began to shrink. Yet, voluntary
migration cannot be stopped, as in-migration continues to be driven by the
process of equalizing economic and human resource gaps between different
areas.

The last two decades of the voluntary movement from Java to other islands is
perhaps a major contribution to rapid social transformation in this
archipelago. As the result of 2010 population census showed, the in-migration
rate to Papua and West Papua province was the highest in Indonesia. While the
actual number of people who migrate to Papua might not be as high as the
number of migrants who move to, say, Riau province. However, given the low
population in Papua, the movement consequently has higher social, economic and
political impacts than in Riau.

Since the political problems in former East Timor and Aceh have been resolved,
Papua is now the most politically troubled place in the country. Bitter
decolonization in the early 1960s and its aftermath were followed by
grievances resulting from structural injustices committed by the Indonesian
government in Papua. Papuans continued to be restless while any attempts to
resolve the problem had different responses from different groups of Papuans.

The fragmentation of Papuan society, which stems from the enormous ethnic
heterogeneity, constitutes the underlying factor that significantly
contributed to the divisive nature of political leadership in Papua. The
decentralization policy, the product of the post-Soeharto regimes, granted
regional autonomy to regency and municipal level governments. An initial idea
that autonomy should be given to the province was totally rejected by the
military. The response by the local elites on the locus of regional autonomy
at the regency level, however, is unprecedented. Expectations of fund
disbursements and the opportunity to hold local power have driven the rapid
creation of district governments all over the place, particularly outside
Java.

In the case of Papua, apart from the establishment of special autonomy, the
decision to create the second province, West Papua, was originally perceived
as part of Jakarta's rule and divide policy, to weaken the potential
separatist movement in Papua. Yet, as the local elites saw the economic and
political benefits, the drive to create new regencies rapidly accelerated. The
manipulation of demographic statistics to meet the requirements for creating
new districts is therefore, uncontrollable.

The role of local political elites both in the issue of the impact of in-
migration and demographic manipulation in the creation of new districts is
indisputable. In the case of in-migration issues, violence usually occurs in
the form of sporadic attacks by Papuan militia groups against the migrant
communities.

In the case of demographic manipulation in the creation of new regencies, a
study by Sidney Jones from the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflicts
(IPAC) shows that the direct link with the political mobilization by the local
elites is driven by the need to create new regencies, and the political and
communal violence in several highland districts. Jones, who presented her case
at the LIPI seminar, argued that the conflicts among Papuan elites in the
creation of new regencies indicated that the idea of divide-and-rule from
Jakarta was no longer necessary as Papuans had now divided themselves.

The problems and the dilemmas of initiating a dialogue to find a peaceful
solution for the Papuan conflicts are separate from the extreme prejudice from
Jakarta toward the Papuans. As Muridan Widjojo the leader of the LIPI research
group noted in the seminar, the issues were also clearly based on the fact
that no single authority represented the Papuans. Muridan strongly argued that
the strategy that must be adopted should not simply mirror the way Jakarta
resolved the Aceh conflict. Muridan, who also leads Jaringan Damai Papua
(Papua Peace Network) with Father Neles Tebay, reminded us all that we had to
face a long and tedious process, just to lay the initial foundations for a
dialogue to resolve the conflicts in Papua.
[The writer is a researcher at the Research Center for Society and Culture,
LIPI.]

* * *

Oscar-Nominated ‘Act of Killing’ Confronts Indonesia’s Dark Past

By Shaun Tandon on 10:37 am February 15, 2014.

Adi Zulkadry and Anwar Congo, two of the subjects featured in Oscar-nominated documentary ‘The Act of Killing’, being made up for a recreation of one of the 1965 massacres in Medan. (Photo courtesy of Final Cut)

Hong Kong. Anwar Congo makes no secret of the fact that he killed about 1,000 people with his bare hands, boasting about the methods he used to murder alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia.
There were blocks of wood used to cave in skulls; machetes with which he butchered victims, or a simple wire that he says helped achieve quick and effective strangulation.
Congo’s testimony provides the chilling framework for director Joshua Oppenheimer’s Oscar-nominated documentary “The Act of Killing”, which turns its cameras on to the perpetrators of massacres that claimed at least 500,000 lives.
Oppenheimer says that the attention the film has received around the world is forcing Indonesia to address a dark episode in its history, which ushered in the 32-year rule of dictator Suharto.
“I thought I had wandered into Germany 40 years after the Holocaust to find the Nazis were still in power,” Oppenheimer said of the men who feature in his documentary.
“They are very proud of what they did and often told me the stories with smiles on their faces,” he said on the phone from Los Angeles.
In the film the men, who carried out the killings during a purge triggered by a failed coup in late 1965, show little if any remorse.
“What I hope — should we be so lucky as to win the Academy Award — is that it will encourage Indonesians to finally hold their leaders to account for their crimes,” said Oppenheimer.
Some in Indonesia have not welcomed the film, contending the country was already taking its own steps towards coming to terms with the episode — and that such outside interference hinders the process.
The film is nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar. It is also in the running for two Bafta awards — the British equivalent whose ceremony takes place on Sunday.
While Oppenheimer has publicized the film, a number of the Indonesians involved in its production — including the person cited as one of its co-directors — have chosen to stay anonymous in fear for their safety.
‘Imposing denial’
To get the likes of Congo to talk, the film invites those involved in the killings to reenact their past as though they were making a feature film, including musical numbers and even attempts at slapstick humor.
Those involved do not seem aware that the film will cast them in a bad light. It makes for compelling — and disturbing — viewing.
“I was not sure whether it was safe to approach these people at all, but when I did I found they were immediately boastful,” Oppenheimer said.
Army General Suharto blamed the coup attempt on Indonesia’s Communist Party, and the military actively encouraged — and in some cases took part in — the anti-communist killings that erupted in some parts of the country.
Suharto put down the coup and used the episode to muscle out then-president Sukarno and take power, later ruling Indonesia for three decades.
Paramilitary groups such as the one Congo was part of were given license to gather and kill suspected communists, and seize their property and possessions. No action has ever been taken against those responsible for the deaths.
“I suddenly realized that all these men are boasting not because they are proud but because they know what they did is wrong,” said Oppenheimer.
“They are trying to deny that to themselves and impose that denial on the whole society.”
The film was produced by Oscar-winner Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”) and Oscar-nominated Werner Herzog (“Encounters at the End of the World”). It has so far picked up 32 international awards.
Taking sides
“The Act of Killing” was not granted a general release at Indonesian cinemas, with the government raising doubts about the film’s portrayal of history. Beyond special select screenings, the film is available for download.
The killings are not closely examined by school textbooks and were not widely discussed during Suharto’s iron-fisted rule.
However following his fall in 1998, and in recent years, Indonesians have begun to talk about the issue more openly with frequent newspaper stories, academic seminars and published memoirs.
Critics say more needs to be done, and point to the fact the Attorney General’s office has refused to start a probe despite an extensive 2012 report from Indonesia’s official human rights body which claimed to have found extensive evidence of abuse.
Presidential spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said the film “is simplifying a dark, complicated period of history,” and was one-sided.
In a statement issued last week to the Jakarta Globe newspaper, the film’s anonymous co-director denied the charge it had been produced by foreigners out to negatively affect Indonesia’s global reputation.
“A negative image is when unfairness and impunity is being sustained. Negative image is when there was no apology conveyed to the victims and the families of the victims of the crimes against humanity. A negative image is to make the architect of the mass killing a hero,” the co-director’s statement said.
And Oppenheimer, who is working on a follow-up focusing on the victims’ side of the story, is convinced “The Act of Killing” has helped mainstream media in Indonesia address the genocide and open it up further for public debate.
“There’s no stuffing the genie back in the bottle,” he said. “It is opening a space for people to finally acknowledge the most painful and troubling aspect of contemporary Indonesia without fear.”
Agence France-Presse



* * *

When Terrorists in One Country Are Freedom-Fighting Icons in Another

By Johannes Nugroho on 10:25 am February 15, 2014.

Tensions are running high between Indonesia and Singapore over the former’s decision to name a naval vessel after two convicted members of the Indonesian Marine Corps who carried out the bombing of the MacDonald House office building in Singapore on March 10, 1965.

The bone of contention lies in how Harun Said and Usman Ali, the two Indonesian commandos, are seen by both countries.
In Singapore, they are the perpetrators of the bombing of a civilian target, while the Indonesian government sees them as national heroes who carried out their duty during Konfrontasi (1963-1966) with Malaysia.
The disparate labels for the two men are understandable considering Singapore, still part of Malaysia at the time, and Indonesia were locked in a dispute that stemmed from the latter’s objection toward the formation of the federal state of Malaysia encompassing large swaths of territory on the island of Borneo that Indonesia had laid claim to.
But, objectively speaking, were Usman and Harun terrorists or war heroes? Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.” By this definition alone what the two men did qualifies as an act of terrorism.
Singaporean police records state that when they were arrested floating at sea, the two men said they were a fisherman and a farmer, before later confessing to the bombing. It was not, however, until later during their trial for murder that the two revealed they were members of the Indonesian Marine Corps with express orders “to cause trouble in Singapore” as part of confrontation with Malaysia.
Apparently the two men chose to reveal their status in the hope of being treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. When the presiding judge denied them POW status, because “members of enemy armed forces, who are combatants and who come here with the assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers and are captured, such persons are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war,” Usman and Harun retracted their statements that they were members of the Indonesian military.
Despite lobbying by the government for their release, Usman and Harun were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Yet, when their bodies were brought back to Jakarta after their execution in 1968, the two were interred in the National Heroes Cemetery with full military honors.
It could well be argued that the granting of national hero status to the two men was Indonesia’s way of “saving face” after a failed diplomatic attempt to have the two released.
It was also a delicate time for Indonesia as the new government under then-president Sukarno was trying to extricate itself from the confrontation.
The hero status for both men was also anomalous even by Indonesian standards as people given this recognition are usually those who perished in combat against enemy forces. Usman and Harun never actually met this criteria as never during Konfrontasi did the Indonesian government nor its Malaysian counterpart officially declare war on each other.
So, essentially, both were perpetrators of a state-sponsored act of terrorism. Hence, the adamant position by the Singaporean government that Usman and Harun were terrorists.
By the same token, Indonesians should look at the incident as a lesson in how not to conduct bilateral relations. Sukarno’s accusation that Malaysia was a puppet state of the United Kingdom has never been proved.
To this date, it remains obscure why Sukarno instigated the “unofficial war” against Malaysia in 1963. Some historians have argued that his earlier success in wresting Papua from the Dutch emboldened him to try a similar tactic with the former British Malaya, though Sukarno always publicly denied any territorial ambitions.
Nevertheless, Sukarno’s coveting Malaysia as part of a Greater Indonesia may not have been just a flight of fancy. In many ways, his model for the state of Indonesia was the ancient Majapahit Empire, which encompassed Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and parts of Thailand and Indochina.
Whatever his motives, the border skirmishes and acts of sabotage against Malaysia during Konfrontasi appeared to be designed to provoke the British, who had granted independence to Malaysia in 1957, into declaring war against Indonesia.
Had they done so, Sukarno would certainly have obtained his evidence that Malaysia was simply an extension of British imperial powers.
Johannes Nugroho is a writer and businessman from Surabaya. He can be contacted at johannes@nonacris.com.



* * *

BAGAIMANA BERSIKAP TERHADAP PLAGIAT YANG DISIARKAN KOMPAS

IBRAHIM ISA
Sabtu, 15 Februari 2014
----------------------------------


 BAGAIMANA BERSIKAP TERHADAP PLAGIAT YANG DISIARKAN KOMPAS

*    *    *

JIKA BENAR YANG DITULIS DI BAWAH INI  -- BAHWA ANGGITO ABIMANYU MENJIPLAK ARTIKEL HATBONAR SINAGA --

PATUTLAH KOMPAS DAN PENULIS YANG BERSANGKUTAN  - - - YANG MEMPERTANGGUNGJAWABKANNYA PADA MASYRAKAT . ., . ,!!



JANGN BELAGAK PILON . . ., .,


Amsterdam


*    *  **



Salim Said schreef op 15-2-2014 10:38:

Ada komentar? Para Ekonom barangkali ada yang berminat mengomentari?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barata media <redaksi.bmc@gmail.com>
Date: 2014-02-15 16:28 GMT+07:00

Subject: Anggito Abimanyu Menjiplak Artikel Orang? (OPINI-nya di KOMPAS 10 Feb 2014)

http://t.co/bhX3deLkaR

Anggito Abimanyu Menjiplak Artikel Orang? (OPINI-nya di KOMPAS 10 Feb 2014)

Penulis Ugm
15 Feb 2014 | 09:50

Hal yang tidak paling saya sukai dari Koran KOMPAS adalah rubrik OPINI.Sebabnya, Kompas sepertinya masih tergila-gila pada gelar, pangkat dan jabatan seseorang. Setiap hari OPINI KOMPAS hanya diisi oleh orang-orang bergelar mentereng dan ciamik dari berbagai perguruan tinggi. KOMPAS sepertinya sudah tidak mengakomodasi penulis umum (di luar kalangan akademisi) untuk mengisi rubrik OPINI-nya. Halaman OPINI KOMPAS beberapa tahun belakangan ini nyaris mirip bahan perkuliahan di perguruan tinggi. Konseptual, njlimet, teoritis dan berjarak dengan masyarakat awam. Mungkin bagi KOMPAS, dengan mengakomodasi tulisan hanya dari kalangan akademisi (dan orang-orang beken) diyakini image "bonafid" akan diraih. Padahal sebaliknya, tulisan para akedemisi bikin pusing, membosankan, kaku dan sering tidak kontekstual dengan kebutuhan dan permasalahan sehari-hari (di masyarakat & negara). Entah apa yang menyebabkan KOMPAS berlaku demikian akhir-akhir ini. Padahal hingga sepuluh tahunan yang lalu, tatkala halaman OPINI KOMPAS masih terbuka untuk umum, terasa sangat berwarna dan menarik. Dahulu penulis OPINI KOMPAS bisa datang dari kalangan mahasiswa, seniman, profesional, wiraswastawan, penulis, ibu rumah tangga dan orang awam lainnya yang memiliki kemampuan menulis dan menyampaikan gagasan dengan baik. "Tergila-gilanya" KOMPAS dengan penulis para akdemisi akhir-akhir ini sangat klop dengan kebutuhan para akademisi untuk mendapatkan kredit poin (KUM) dari menulis artikel di koran. Harap tahu saja, bahwa artikel para akademisi yang dimuat di koran mendapat kredit poin dari Dikbud untuk kenaikan pangkat dan tunjangan. Padahal tidak selamanya tulisan akdemisi (dan bergelar panjang) isinya menarik dan kontekstual dengan permasalahan terkini dan harian yang sedang berkembang. Sudah ratusan (bahkan ribuan) penulis dari kalangan di luar akademisi yang opininya mental di tangan desk opini KOMPAS. Bukan karena tulisannnya jelek melainkan ketiadaan gelar yang panjang, pangkat dan jabatan yang disandang. Baru dikirim langsung disortir masuk kotak sampah di kantor redaksi. Beda dengan kalangan akademisi (bisa jadi redaktur belum membaca judul dan isinya), skedar baca namanya langsung diacc untuk dimuat.  Nah, dari perilaku (yang kemungkinan  seperti itu) sesekali redaktur suatu saat pasti akan kecolongan juga. Misalnya akademisi tenar, dengan jabatan seabrek, gelar luar negeri dan panjang pula, namun tidak berintegritas, contohnya melakukan plagiasi atau menjiplak karya orang.

Apa sih kurangnya Anggito Abimanyu itu? Gelar doktor (luar negeri pula), jabatan seabrek, tapi menulis OPINI di Kompas (10 Februari 2014) yang sebagian besar isinya ternyata   "mengakuisisi" karya orang lain, yang notabene bukan siapa-siapa alias awam.  Cilakanya lagi, materi yang dijiplak plek kalimat per kalimat itu ternyata pernah nagkring di KOMPAS pada tahu 2006.

Ini link Opini Anggito Abimanyu yang menjiplak karya orang awam itu:

http://budisansblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gagasan-asuransi-bencana.html?m=1

Ini link Opini Hatbonar Sinaga yang nyaris semuanya dijiplak Anggito:

http://www.munawarkasan.com/index.php/artikel-asuransi/43-menggagas-asuransi-bencana

Inilah bagian-bagian dari artikel milik Hatbonar Sinaga ( 2006) dengan OPINI Anggito Abimanyu di Kompas 10 Feb 2014:

Hatbonar: Dalam buku The 100 Greatest Disasters of All Time karya Stephen J Spignesi, dua bencana di Indonesia masuk peringkat ke-22 dan 30. Letusan Gunung Tambora di Sumbawa tahun 1815 merenggut 150.000 jiwa dan menurunkan suhu Bumi. Adapun letusan Gunung Krakatau tahun 1883 menelan 36.000 nyawa.

Jika buku tersebut disusun setelah tsunami Aceh, bencana yang merenggut nyawa sekitar 300.000 jiwa itu akan bertengger di posisi 18.

Anggito:Dalam The 100 Greatest Disasters of All Time karya Stephen J Spignesi, dua bencana di Indonesia berada di peringkat ke-22 dan ke-30. Pertama, letusan Gunung Tambora di Sumbawa (1815) yang merenggut 150.000 jiwa dan menurunkan suhu bumi. Kedua, letusan Gunung Krakatau (1883) yang menelan 36.000 nyawa. Jika buku itu disusun setelah tsunami Aceh, bencana yang merenggut nyawa sekitar 300.000 jiwa itu akan bertengger di posisi ke-18.

Hatbonar:Sejak tsunami Aceh pada akhir 2004 hingga saat ini, setidaknya terjadi lima bencana besar, seperti longsor di TPA Leuwigajah, gempa Nias, gempa Yogyakarta, lumpur panas Sidoarjo, dan banjir di Sinjai, dan sekitarnya.

Anggito:Sejak tsunami Aceh di akhir 2004 hingga saat ini, setidaknya terjadi enam bencana besar, seperti longsor di TPA Leuwigajah, gempa Nias, gempa Yogyakarta, lumpur panas Sidoarjo, banjir di Sinjai dan sekitarnya, dan erupsi Merapi. Perlu diperhitungkan bencana akhir-akhir ini di Sinabung dan banjir di mana-mana.

Hatbonar:Kini kita masih hangat memperbincangkan gempa dan dampak negatifnya serta kesulitan yang dihadapi pemerintah dalam menolong rakyatnya, sehubungan gempa bumi dan tsunami di wilayah selatan Pulau Jawa. Data korban jiwa dan harta benda belum selesai dihimpun. Entah berapa lagi korban manusia dan harta bendanya yang tertelan peristiwa itu.

Anggito:Kini kita masih hangat membincangkan gempa dan dampak negatifnya serta kesulitan yang dihadapi pemerintah untuk menolong rakyatnya sehubungan dengan gempa bumi dan tsunami di wilayah selatan Pulau Jawa. Data korban jiwa dan harta benda belum selesai dihimpun. Entah berapa lagi korban manusia dan harta benda yang tertelan peristiwa itu.

Hatbonar:Atas dasar inilah Rancangan Undang-Undang Penanggulangan Bencana (RUUPB) diusulkan DPR. Penyelenggaraan penanggulangan bencana direncanakan meliputi empat bidang, yaitu pengurangan risiko bencana, penanganan tanggap darurat, rehabilitasi dan rekonstruksi, serta penatakelolaan bencana.

RUUPB didesain untuk menggeser cara pandang respons darurat yang berorientasi jangka pendek ke manajemen risiko bencana (catastrophe risk management) dan lebih menjamin keberlangsungan (sustainability).

Anggito:Indonesia memiliki UU Nomor 24 Tahun 2007 mengenai Penanggulangan Bencana (UUPB) dan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 21 Tahun 2008 tentang Penyelenggaraan Penanggulangan Bencana. Penyelenggaraan penanggulangan bencana direncanakan meliputi empat bidang: pengurangan risiko bencana, penanganan tanggap darurat, rehabilitasi dan rekonstruksi, dan penatakelolaan bencana. UUPB didesain untuk menggeser cara pandang respons darurat yang berorientasi jangka pendek ke manajemen risiko bencana dan lebih menjamin keberlangsungan.

Hatbonar:Namun, sayang, RUUPB sama sekali tidak menyinggung aspek asuransi. Sebagai salah satu teknik pengelolaan risiko, tak perlu disangsikan bahwa asuransi dapat berkontribusi pada tahap mitigasi risiko bencana, tahap rehabilitasi dan rekonstruksi pascabencana. Pada tahapan mitigasi risiko, perusahaan asuransi bisa berpartisipasi sebagai pihak yang memberikan edukasi kepada masyarakat mengenai cara-cara memperkecil kerugian akibat bencana.

Anggito:Namun, sayang,  UU dan PP Penanggulangan Bencana sama sekali tak menyinggung secara spesifik aspek asuransi. Sebagai salah satu teknik pengelolaan risiko, tak perlu disangsikan bahwa asuransi dapat berkontribusi pada tahap mitigasi risiko bencana, tahap rehabilitasi, dan rekonstruksi pascabencana. Pada tahap mitigasi risiko, perusahaan asuransi bisa berpartisipasi sebagai pihak pemberi edukasi kepada masyarakat mengenai cara memperkecil kerugian akibat bencana.

Hatbonar: Dalam kasus bencana alam, beberapa jenis asuransi bisa memberikan ganti rugi. Yang paling sering adalah asuransi harta benda, asuransi kendaraan bermotor, asuransi kecelakaan diri, asuransi jiwa, atau asuransi kesehatan.

Dengan asuransi harta benda yang diperluas dengan jaminan risiko gempa bumi, rusaknya bangunan akibat gempa bumi atau tsunami bisa mendapatkan penggantian dari perusahaan asuransi. Juga tersedia asuransi bencana, seperti banjir, tanah longsor, letusan gunung berapi, atau bahkan kerusuhan sosial.

Anggito:Dalam kasus bencana alam, beberapa jenis asuransi bisa memberi ganti rugi. Yang paling sering adalah asuransi harta benda, asuransi kendaraan bermotor, asuransi kecelakaan diri, asuransi jiwa, dan asuransi kesehatan. Dengan asuransi harta benda yang diperluas dengan jaminan risiko gempa bumi, rusaknya bangunan akibat gempa bumi atau tsunami bisa mendapat penggantian dari perusahaan asuransi. Tersedia juga asuransi bencana, seperti banjir, tanah longsor, letusan gunung berapi, bahkan kerusuhan sosial.

Hatbonar:Yang selalu inheren dengan bencana adalah korban manusia. Asuransi kecelakaan diri bisa memberikan penggantian biaya pengobatan atau memberi santunan cacat.

Bagaimana jika korban tewas? Asuransi jiwa akan memberikan santunan kepada ahli waris. Bencana juga selalu menimbulkan pengungsi yang sering kali rentan terserang penyakit. Nah, di sinilah pentingnya asuransi kesehatan. Pengungsi bisa berobat ke rumah sakit dengan biaya ditanggung perusahaan asuransi.

Anggito:Yang selalu inheren dengan bencana adalah korban manusia. Asuransi kecelakaan diri bisa memberi penggantian biaya pengobatan atau santunan cacat. Bagaimana jika korban tewas? Asuransi jiwa akan memberi santunan kepada ahli waris. Bencana juga selalu menimbulkan pengungsi yang sering rentan terserang penyakit. Nah, di sinilah pentingnya asuransi kesehatan. Pengungsi bisa berobat ke rumah sakit dengan biaya ditanggung perusahaan asuransi.

Hatbonar:Setiap terjadi bencana, pemerintah selalu merogoh APBN untuk rehabilitasi dan rekonstruksi. Untuk Yogyakarta dan sekitarnya, pemerintah menggelontorkan sedikitnya Rp 6 triliun. PBB pun membantu lebih dari 80 juta dollar AS. Di sinilah perusahaan asuransi bisa berbicara banyak. Biaya rekonstruksi dan rehabilitasi dalam bentuk pembangunan rumah atau fasilitas umum tidak semuanya akan menjadi tanggungan pemerintah.

Anggito:Setiap terjadi bencana, pemerintah selalu merogoh APBN untuk rehabilitasi dan rekonstruksi. Untuk Yogyakarta dan sekitarnya, pemerintah menggelontorkan sedikitnya Rp 6 triliun. PBB pun membantu lebih dari 80 juta dollar AS. Di sinilah perusahaan asuransi bisa berbicara banyak. Biaya rekonstruksi dan rehabilitasi dalam bentuk pembangunan rumah atau fasilitas umum tidak semuanya akan menjadi tanggungan pemerintah.

Hatbonar:Melalui RUUPB, pemerintah bisa menstimulus, bahkan bila perlu mewajibkan masyarakat (secara bertahap) agar mengasuransikan harta benda dan jiwanya. Sebagian masyarakat kita masih berpikir asuransi adalah nomor kesekian dalam prioritas hidupnya. Apalagi masyarakat menengah ke bawah yang masih lebih fokus pada pemenuhan kebutuhan dasarnya.

Anggito:Melalui UUPB, pemerintah bisa menstimulus bahkan jika perlu mewajibkan masyarakat (secara bertahap) agar mengasuransikan harta benda dan jiwanya. Sebagian masyarakat kita masih berpikir asuransi adalah nomor sekian dalam prioritas hidupnya. Apalagi masyarakat menengah ke bawah yang masih lebih fokus pada pemenuhan kebutuhan dasarnya.

Hatbonar:Saat terjadi bencana Departemen Sosial berperan pada lapisan (layer) pertama dalam mengoordinasi evakuasi korban dan bantuan sosial. Pada layer kedua, mulailah berfungsi jaminan sosial yang menjamin asuransi jiwa dan asuransi kesehatan. Adapun kerusakan aset tidak ada jaminan sosial. Untuk itulah diperlukan asuransi wajib.

Anggito:Saat terjadi bencana, Kementerian Sosial berperan pada lapisan pertama dalam mengoordinasi evakuasi korban dan bantuan sosial. Pada lapis kedua, mulailah berfungsi jaminan sosial yang menjamin asuransi jiwa dan asuransi kesehatan. Kerusakan aset tak ada jaminan sosialnya. Untuk itulah diperlukan asuransi wajib.

Hatbonar:Dalam setiap bencana, persentase klaim asuransi hanya sebagian kecil dari total kerugian. Ini tidak hanya terjadi di Indonesia. Di Amerika Serikat, yang masyarakatnya insurance minded, tidak semua mengasuransikan rumahnya terhadap ancaman bencana. Hasil riset National Hurrican Survival Initiative yang dirilis 16 Mei 2006 menyatakan, sepertiga rumah di wilayah rentan badai tidak ada asuransinya.

Hal yang sama terjadi di Jepang. Gempa bumi yang mengguncang Kobe pada Januari 1995 menghancurkan 100.000 bangunan dan 6.500 orang tewas dengan kerugian material lebih dari 110 miliar dollar AS. Klaim asuransi “hanya” 6 juta dollar AS karena kurang dari 5 persen bangunan yang diasuransikan.

Anggito:Dalam setiap bencana, persentase klaim asuransi hanya sebagian kecil dari total kerugian. Ini tak hanya terjadi di Indonesia. Di AS, yang masyarakatnya  insurance minded, tak semua mengasuransikan rumahnya terhadap ancaman bencana. Hasil riset National Hurrican Survival Initiative yang dirilis 16 Mei 2006 menyatakan, sepertiga rumah di wilayah rentan badai tidak ada asuransinya.

Hal yang sama terjadi di Jepang. Gempa bumi yang mengguncang Kobe pada Januari 1995 menghancurkan 100.000 bangunan dan 6.500 orang tewas dengan kerugian material lebih dari 110 miliar dollar AS. Klaim asuransi ”hanya” 6 juta dollar AS karena kurang dari 5 persen bangunan yang diasuransikan.

Hatbonar: Subsidi pembangunan rumah dari pemerintah pascabencana hanya bersifat jangka pendek. Idealnya, pemerintah membuat skema asuransi wajib untuk risiko bencana yang merupakan perluasan dari asuransi kebakaran.

Beberapa negara berkembang, seperti Turki, Iran, dan China, telah mempunyai asuransi wajib. Di Turki, misalnya, pemerintah mewajibkan asuransi gempa bumi pada rumah, ruko, maupun apartemen melalui The Turkish Catastrophic Pool. Pada tahun 2000 dengan limit harga pertanggungan 50.000 dollar AS, premi tahunan sebesar 47 dollar AS.

Dimasukkannya aspek asuransi dalam RUUPB akan memberikan banyak manfaat bagi korban bencana, pemerintah, dan industri asuransi. Dorongan berasuransi oleh pemerintah akan meningkatkan kesadaran masyarakat Indonesia. Efeknya, pertumbuhan industri asuransi di Indonesia semakin baik.

Anggito:Subsidi pembangunan rumah dari pemerintah pascabencana hanya bersifat jangka pendek. Idealnya, pemerintah membuat skema asuransi wajib untuk risiko bencana yang merupakan perluasan dari asuransi kebakaran. Beberapa negara berkembang, seperti Turki, Iran, dan China, telah mempunyai asuransi wajib. Di Turki, misalnya, pemerintah mewajibkan asuransi gempa bumi pada rumah, ruko, dan apartemen melalui The Turkish Catastrophic Pool. Pada 2000, dengan limit harga pertanggungan 50.000 dollar AS, premi tahunan sebesar 47 dollar AS.

Dimasukkannya aspek asuransi dalam UUPB akan memberi banyak manfaat bagi korban bencana, pemerintah, dan industri asuransi. Dorongan berasuransi oleh pemerintah akan meningkatkan kesadaran masyarakat Indonesia. Efeknya, pertumbuhan industri asuransi di Indonesia semakin baik.

Hatbonar:Tahap awal, yang paling mendesak adalah asuransi bencana terhadap rumah tinggal. Selanjutnya bisa asuransi kecelakaan diri, asuransi jiwa, dan seterusnya. Asosiasi asuransi (umum dan jiwa) hendaknya berinisiatif untuk mengajukan usulan konkret semacam Catastrophe Risk Management kepada pemerintah yang antara lain untuk mengetahui besar kecilnya risiko suatu daerah terhadap bencana tertentu, serta cara penanggulangan risiko katastropik dengan memanfaatkan metodologi manajemen risiko.

Bank Dunia juga telah mengirim utusannya ke Indonesia untuk membicarakan asuransi bencana ini, dan siap memberikan asistensi. Tunggu apalagi!

Anggito:Tahap awal, yang paling mendesak adalah asuransi bencana terhadap rumah tinggal. Selanjutnya bisa asuransi kecelakaan diri, asuransi jiwa, dan seterusnya. Asosiasi asuransi (umum dan jiwa) hendaknya berinisiatif mengajukan usulan konkret semacam manajemen risiko katastrofik kepada pemerintah yang antara lain untuk mengetahui besar kecilnya risiko suatu daerah terhadap bencana tertentu dan cara penanggulangan risiko katastrofik dengan memanfaatkan metodologi manajemen risiko.Semoga dengan adanya ini bisa membawa hikmah buat KOMPAS untuk tidak menyepelekan orang awam yang tak bergelar dan berpangkat untuk ikut berkiprah membangun bangsa ini melalui aktivitas menulis di KOMPAS. Semoga!

--
Anda menerima pesan ini karena Anda berlangganan grup "diskusi kita" dari Grup Google.
Untuk berhenti berlangganan dan berhenti menerima email dari grup ini, kirim email ke diskusi-kita+berhenti berlangganan@googlegroups.com .
Untuk opsi lainnya, kunjungi https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

IBRAHIM ISA'S Selected Indonesian News Items Saturday, February 15th, 2104

IBRAHIM ISA'S Selected Indonesian News Items

Saturday, February 15^th, 2104 –
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--- PAPUA -- The political demography of conflicts

--- Human Rights Violation -- Oscar-Nominated ‘Act of Killing’ Confronts Indonesia’s Dark Past

--- Indonesia-Singapore --When Terrorists in One Country Are, Freedom-Fighting Icons in Another

* * *

Jakarta Post - February 10, 2014
The political demography of conflicts in Papua

Riwanto Tirtosudarmo, Jakarta -- Demography is rearing its ugly head, and as a
result, political development in Papua has become convoluted. This issue was a
major topic during the recent seminar on Papua organized by the Research
Center of Politics at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).

The convolution of demography and politics were exposed in at least two cases
-- the increasing number of non-Papuans and the demographic manipulation in
the creation of new districts. What is worrying is the contribution of a
political demographic nexus to the increasing political and communal conflicts
in Papua.

The perception that in-migration to Papua has resulted in the marginalization
of the indigenous population has been around since the early 1980s, when
Soeharto's New Order government accelerated the relocation of people from Java
and Bali under the transmigration program to Papua. The transmigration policy
was criticized for endangering both the local population and the environment
as new settlements destroyed the surrounding tropical forests. The
transmigration program had practically ceased in the early 1990s as the
financial capacity of the central government began to shrink. Yet, voluntary
migration cannot be stopped, as in-migration continues to be driven by the
process of equalizing economic and human resource gaps between different
areas.

The last two decades of the voluntary movement from Java to other islands is
perhaps a major contribution to rapid social transformation in this
archipelago. As the result of 2010 population census showed, the in-migration
rate to Papua and West Papua province was the highest in Indonesia. While the
actual number of people who migrate to Papua might not be as high as the
number of migrants who move to, say, Riau province. However, given the low
population in Papua, the movement consequently has higher social, economic and
political impacts than in Riau.

Since the political problems in former East Timor and Aceh have been resolved,
Papua is now the most politically troubled place in the country. Bitter
decolonization in the early 1960s and its aftermath were followed by
grievances resulting from structural injustices committed by the Indonesian
government in Papua. Papuans continued to be restless while any attempts to
resolve the problem had different responses from different groups of Papuans.

The fragmentation of Papuan society, which stems from the enormous ethnic
heterogeneity, constitutes the underlying factor that significantly
contributed to the divisive nature of political leadership in Papua. The
decentralization policy, the product of the post-Soeharto regimes, granted
regional autonomy to regency and municipal level governments. An initial idea
that autonomy should be given to the province was totally rejected by the
military. The response by the local elites on the locus of regional autonomy
at the regency level, however, is unprecedented. Expectations of fund
disbursements and the opportunity to hold local power have driven the rapid
creation of district governments all over the place, particularly outside
Java.

In the case of Papua, apart from the establishment of special autonomy, the
decision to create the second province, West Papua, was originally perceived
as part of Jakarta's rule and divide policy, to weaken the potential
separatist movement in Papua. Yet, as the local elites saw the economic and
political benefits, the drive to create new regencies rapidly accelerated. The
manipulation of demographic statistics to meet the requirements for creating
new districts is therefore, uncontrollable.

The role of local political elites both in the issue of the impact of in-
migration and demographic manipulation in the creation of new districts is
indisputable. In the case of in-migration issues, violence usually occurs in
the form of sporadic attacks by Papuan militia groups against the migrant
communities.

In the case of demographic manipulation in the creation of new regencies, a
study by Sidney Jones from the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflicts
(IPAC) shows that the direct link with the political mobilization by the local
elites is driven by the need to create new regencies, and the political and
communal violence in several highland districts. Jones, who presented her case
at the LIPI seminar, argued that the conflicts among Papuan elites in the
creation of new regencies indicated that the idea of divide-and-rule from
Jakarta was no longer necessary as Papuans had now divided themselves.

The problems and the dilemmas of initiating a dialogue to find a peaceful
solution for the Papuan conflicts are separate from the extreme prejudice from
Jakarta toward the Papuans. As Muridan Widjojo the leader of the LIPI research
group noted in the seminar, the issues were also clearly based on the fact
that no single authority represented the Papuans. Muridan strongly argued that
the strategy that must be adopted should not simply mirror the way Jakarta
resolved the Aceh conflict. Muridan, who also leads Jaringan Damai Papua
(Papua Peace Network) with Father Neles Tebay, reminded us all that we had to
face a long and tedious process, just to lay the initial foundations for a
dialogue to resolve the conflicts in Papua.
[The writer is a researcher at the Research Center for Society and Culture,
LIPI.]

* * *

Oscar-Nominated ‘Act of Killing’ Confronts Indonesia’s Dark Past

By Shaun Tandon on 10:37 am February 15, 2014.

Adi Zulkadry and Anwar Congo, two of the subjects featured in Oscar-nominated documentary ‘The Act of Killing’, being made up for a recreation of one of the 1965 massacres in Medan. (Photo courtesy of Final Cut)

Hong Kong. Anwar Congo makes no secret of the fact that he killed about 1,000 people with his bare hands, boasting about the methods he used to murder alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia.
There were blocks of wood used to cave in skulls; machetes with which he butchered victims, or a simple wire that he says helped achieve quick and effective strangulation.
Congo’s testimony provides the chilling framework for director Joshua Oppenheimer’s Oscar-nominated documentary “The Act of Killing”, which turns its cameras on to the perpetrators of massacres that claimed at least 500,000 lives.
Oppenheimer says that the attention the film has received around the world is forcing Indonesia to address a dark episode in its history, which ushered in the 32-year rule of dictator Suharto.
“I thought I had wandered into Germany 40 years after the Holocaust to find the Nazis were still in power,” Oppenheimer said of the men who feature in his documentary.
“They are very proud of what they did and often told me the stories with smiles on their faces,” he said on the phone from Los Angeles.
In the film the men, who carried out the killings during a purge triggered by a failed coup in late 1965, show little if any remorse.
“What I hope — should we be so lucky as to win the Academy Award — is that it will encourage Indonesians to finally hold their leaders to account for their crimes,” said Oppenheimer.
Some in Indonesia have not welcomed the film, contending the country was already taking its own steps towards coming to terms with the episode — and that such outside interference hinders the process.
The film is nominated for a Best Documentary Oscar. It is also in the running for two Bafta awards — the British equivalent whose ceremony takes place on Sunday.
While Oppenheimer has publicized the film, a number of the Indonesians involved in its production — including the person cited as one of its co-directors — have chosen to stay anonymous in fear for their safety.
‘Imposing denial’
To get the likes of Congo to talk, the film invites those involved in the killings to reenact their past as though they were making a feature film, including musical numbers and even attempts at slapstick humor.
Those involved do not seem aware that the film will cast them in a bad light. It makes for compelling — and disturbing — viewing.
“I was not sure whether it was safe to approach these people at all, but when I did I found they were immediately boastful,” Oppenheimer said.
Army General Suharto blamed the coup attempt on Indonesia’s Communist Party, and the military actively encouraged — and in some cases took part in — the anti-communist killings that erupted in some parts of the country.
Suharto put down the coup and used the episode to muscle out then-president Sukarno and take power, later ruling Indonesia for three decades.
Paramilitary groups such as the one Congo was part of were given license to gather and kill suspected communists, and seize their property and possessions. No action has ever been taken against those responsible for the deaths.
“I suddenly realized that all these men are boasting not because they are proud but because they know what they did is wrong,” said Oppenheimer.
“They are trying to deny that to themselves and impose that denial on the whole society.”
The film was produced by Oscar-winner Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”) and Oscar-nominated Werner Herzog (“Encounters at the End of the World”). It has so far picked up 32 international awards.
Taking sides
“The Act of Killing” was not granted a general release at Indonesian cinemas, with the government raising doubts about the film’s portrayal of history. Beyond special select screenings, the film is available for download.
The killings are not closely examined by school textbooks and were not widely discussed during Suharto’s iron-fisted rule.
However following his fall in 1998, and in recent years, Indonesians have begun to talk about the issue more openly with frequent newspaper stories, academic seminars and published memoirs.
Critics say more needs to be done, and point to the fact the Attorney General’s office has refused to start a probe despite an extensive 2012 report from Indonesia’s official human rights body which claimed to have found extensive evidence of abuse.
Presidential spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said the film “is simplifying a dark, complicated period of history,” and was one-sided.
In a statement issued last week to the Jakarta Globe newspaper, the film’s anonymous co-director denied the charge it had been produced by foreigners out to negatively affect Indonesia’s global reputation.
“A negative image is when unfairness and impunity is being sustained. Negative image is when there was no apology conveyed to the victims and the families of the victims of the crimes against humanity. A negative image is to make the architect of the mass killing a hero,” the co-director’s statement said.
And Oppenheimer, who is working on a follow-up focusing on the victims’ side of the story, is convinced “The Act of Killing” has helped mainstream media in Indonesia address the genocide and open it up further for public debate.
“There’s no stuffing the genie back in the bottle,” he said. “It is opening a space for people to finally acknowledge the most painful and troubling aspect of contemporary Indonesia without fear.”
Agence France-Presse



* * *

When Terrorists in One Country Are Freedom-Fighting Icons in Another

By Johannes Nugroho on 10:25 am February 15, 2014.

Tensions are running high between Indonesia and Singapore over the former’s decision to name a naval vessel after two convicted members of the Indonesian Marine Corps who carried out the bombing of the MacDonald House office building in Singapore on March 10, 1965.

The bone of contention lies in how Harun Said and Usman Ali, the two Indonesian commandos, are seen by both countries.
In Singapore, they are the perpetrators of the bombing of a civilian target, while the Indonesian government sees them as national heroes who carried out their duty during Konfrontasi (1963-1966) with Malaysia.
The disparate labels for the two men are understandable considering Singapore, still part of Malaysia at the time, and Indonesia were locked in a dispute that stemmed from the latter’s objection toward the formation of the federal state of Malaysia encompassing large swaths of territory on the island of Borneo that Indonesia had laid claim to.
But, objectively speaking, were Usman and Harun terrorists or war heroes? Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal.” By this definition alone what the two men did qualifies as an act of terrorism.
Singaporean police records state that when they were arrested floating at sea, the two men said they were a fisherman and a farmer, before later confessing to the bombing. It was not, however, until later during their trial for murder that the two revealed they were members of the Indonesian Marine Corps with express orders “to cause trouble in Singapore” as part of confrontation with Malaysia.
Apparently the two men chose to reveal their status in the hope of being treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. When the presiding judge denied them POW status, because “members of enemy armed forces, who are combatants and who come here with the assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers and are captured, such persons are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war,” Usman and Harun retracted their statements that they were members of the Indonesian military.
Despite lobbying by the government for their release, Usman and Harun were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Yet, when their bodies were brought back to Jakarta after their execution in 1968, the two were interred in the National Heroes Cemetery with full military honors.
It could well be argued that the granting of national hero status to the two men was Indonesia’s way of “saving face” after a failed diplomatic attempt to have the two released.
It was also a delicate time for Indonesia as the new government under then-president Sukarno was trying to extricate itself from the confrontation.
The hero status for both men was also anomalous even by Indonesian standards as people given this recognition are usually those who perished in combat against enemy forces. Usman and Harun never actually met this criteria as never during Konfrontasi did the Indonesian government nor its Malaysian counterpart officially declare war on each other.
So, essentially, both were perpetrators of a state-sponsored act of terrorism. Hence, the adamant position by the Singaporean government that Usman and Harun were terrorists.
By the same token, Indonesians should look at the incident as a lesson in how not to conduct bilateral relations. Sukarno’s accusation that Malaysia was a puppet state of the United Kingdom has never been proved.
To this date, it remains obscure why Sukarno instigated the “unofficial war” against Malaysia in 1963. Some historians have argued that his earlier success in wresting Papua from the Dutch emboldened him to try a similar tactic with the former British Malaya, though Sukarno always publicly denied any territorial ambitions.
Nevertheless, Sukarno’s coveting Malaysia as part of a Greater Indonesia may not have been just a flight of fancy. In many ways, his model for the state of Indonesia was the ancient Majapahit Empire, which encompassed Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and parts of Thailand and Indochina.
Whatever his motives, the border skirmishes and acts of sabotage against Malaysia during Konfrontasi appeared to be designed to provoke the British, who had granted independence to Malaysia in 1957, into declaring war against Indonesia.
Had they done so, Sukarno would certainly have obtained his evidence that Malaysia was simply an extension of British imperial powers.
Johannes Nugroho is a writer and businessman from Surabaya. He can be contacted at johannes@nonacris.com.



* * *