2) Papua invites Papua New Guinea to celebrate Indonesian Independence Day
3) Australia needs to figure out its own place in Asia -
4) People Complaint Puskesmas Sentani Has No Toilet
5) Moratorium Impacts Local Fish Supplies in Mimika
6) The Statement by the Police Force in West Papua does not comply with the law
———————————————————————————————————-
1) KNPB Support Three Issues of PIF Secretariat
He said of the three issues driven, KNPB is more concerned with the issue of decolonialization. Papua’s status of observer obtained in MSG Summit in Honiara last month has proved Papua as a nation, which should prepare itself to become an independent nation.
He further said KNPB earlier also stated its rejection against some national and international companies in Papua since those companies have triggered a number of human right violations in Papua. “It’s time to fight the American and Indonesian capitalism in Papua,” he said.
Meanwhile, Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Dame Meg Taylor on phone conversation to Jubi on Saturday (8/8/2015) said the PIF Secretariat had three recommendations submitted by several civil society coalitions at Pacific Region. The recommendation would be discussed on next week in the Committee Forum held at Suva, Fiji.
She told the Pacific leaders would be asked to consider the situation in West Papua and openly to express their concern on human right violations as well as to enforce the settlement of differences between the parties in peace.
“Three agendas that possibly would be recommended are including the fact-finding mission to West Papua consist of the ministers of Pacific countries, encouraging West Papua to get into the list of decolonization and providing a sanction to the Indonesian private and State companies that are proven doing the human right violations,” Dame Taylor said. (Mawel Benny/rom)
———————————————
http://www.antaranews.com/en/news/99903/papua-invites-papua-new-guinea-to-celebrate-indonesian-independence-day
2) Papua invites Papua New Guinea to celebrate Indonesian Independence Day
Senin, 10 Agustus 2015 18:13 WIB | 708 Views
"The presence of foreign countries will be confirmed on August 15-16," Papuas assistant for Economic Affairs and Social Welfare, Elia Loupatty, stated here on Monday.
"We hope that foreign countries, especially those close to Indonesia, can attend the celebrations. Their presence will be confirmed next week," she noted.
According to Loupatty, a simple ceremony will be organized to celebrate the 70th Independence Day of Indonesia.
"Panjat pinang (greasy-pole climbing), marathon race, and art and cultural competitions will be held to commemorate the event," she pointed out.
Loupatty stated that the local administration will hold competitions of traditional sports, including a decorative boat event.
"However, the local government is also concerned about the traffic arising due to the crowds congregating for sacred contemplation at the Trikora Heroes Cemetery and for the commemoration ceremony for Indonesias proclamation of independence at the Mandala Stadium, Jayapura," she remarked.
She noted that military, police, and community groups will attend the commemoration ceremony.
(Uu.A063/INE/KR-BSR/O001)
————————————————————————————————-
3) Australia needs to figure out its own place in Asia -
Endy Bayuni and Sabam Siagian, Jakarta | Opinion | Mon, August 10 2015, 6:23 AM -
Relations with Indonesia have once again drawn the attention of the foreign policy community in Australia, this time it is not prompted by what Prime Minister Tony Abbott does or says, but rather by a new book that calls for a change in the way the country deals with its giant northern neighbor.
Ken Ward, a retired Foreign Service officer, in his book Condemned to Crisis (Lowy Institute Paper) calls on Australia to discard the long-held foreign policy mantra that “Indonesia is its most important relationship” and that Canberra should be more realistic in its expectations of Indonesia since relations are always prone to crisis. Ward also suggests that Australian politicians be more circumspect in what they say in public to prevent differences from escalating into crises.
We fully agree with his bold recommendation to stop making Indonesia Australia’s most important relationship because not only does it make no different to Indonesia, but it also makes us uncomfortable, since we can never reciprocate the feeling. Australia is barely in the top five of Indonesia’s most important relationships; some may even say that it would be lucky to be in the top 10.
The mantra has been repeated by every single prime minister since Paul Keating outlined it in a luncheon speech in Sydney in 1994 in the presence of then Indonesian ambassador Sabam Siagian.
It was really addressed to the Australian public rather than to Indonesia. There are strategic reasons for making the Australian embassy in Jakarta the largest in the world, and for every newly elected Australian prime minister to make Indonesia the destination of his or her first overseas visit. But to call Indonesia its most important relationship smacks of hypocrisy when Australia bypasses Indonesia in economic ties and when Canberra continues to regard Indonesia more as a potential threat than a friend, evidenced by the 2013 revelation of a massive Australian eavesdropping operation on Indonesian leaders.
This is not to say that Australia is unimportant to Indonesia.
Today, the two countries have intensive relationships in all sectors, as two large neighbors should. And there is ample room for improvement, most notably in our economic ties.
We should not be under any illusion that relations will always be smooth. There will be differences, and some of these will lead to tensions and turn into diplomatic rows. But then Indonesia also constantly fights with some of its other neighbors like Singapore and Malaysia.
If anything, these tensions and rows are indications of the intensity of our relationship. To suggest that the relationship is condemned to crisis, or prone to crisis, is not only stretching it a little but it could lead to wrong conclusions and policy prescriptions.
Indonesia and Australia are condemned to be neighbors by geographical dictates. But why be so negative about it? Why can’t we say that we are blessed to be neighbors, as we are?
No two close neighbors can be so unlike as Indonesia and Australia are, but differences in cultures, historical experiences and levels of economic development necessarily make it challenging for the two countries to forge their rich relationship. Sure, both countries have recalled their ambassadors in recent years, but that too is normal in such an intensive relationship. It only becomes a crisis when the two countries sever their relationship or go into a war, which has never happened.
Where Ward gets it wrong is in his recommendation that Australians adopt a more temperate language in dealing with Indonesia. Fault their large embassy in Jakarta for failing to inform them that Indonesia today is a vibrant democracy, with free speech that matches any other free society around the world.
Indonesians can take all the insults Australians throw. Yes, some will be offended, but whatever Australian politicians, media columnists and talk-back radio hosts say about Indonesia, we have heard it worse from our own people talking about our president, government and politicians, corruption, terrorism, human rights violations, Papua and the executions of drug traffickers.
By being direct, frank and honest, you will get much further in building the trust that is essential in any relationship. You cannot restore trust, which thanks to Abbott is currently in huge deficit, by holding yourself back.
While we are in the business of being open, here is our frank assessment of Australia. Rather than trying to figure out where Indonesia is heading with all the changes that are taking place in this century, Australia would be better trying to figure out its own place and future in the emerging Asia.
This is a topic outside Ward’s book, but it is an important question that Australia must answer to be able to craft a more effective foreign policy in building relations with Indonesia and the rest of Asia.
Australia is struggling with existential uncertainty. Is it part of Asia? Does it want to become part of Asia?
Its economic future and hence prosperity, is increasingly tied to Asia. China is by far its largest trading partner and Australia is also trading more and more with its Asian neighbors. But that is probably as “Asian” as Australia gets; that, and in addition to its geographic location and the rising Asian mix in its population.
Politically, Australia is still stuck in 20th century mode. It is a monarchy with a head of state in London, and all its security arrangements are Cold War relics, whereby they take orders from Washington.
Australia is out of sync with the emerging geopolitical environment of Asia today. Until Australia fixes this anomaly and moves into the 21st century, it is hard for Indonesia and the rest of Asia to take Australia more seriously.
__
The writers are senior editors of The Jakarta Post and former editors-in-chief of the newspaper. They are Class 1979 and Class 2004 of the Nieman Fellowship program for journalists at Harvard University. Siagian was formerly Indonesia’s ambassador to Australia. -
Ken Ward, a retired Foreign Service officer, in his book Condemned to Crisis (Lowy Institute Paper) calls on Australia to discard the long-held foreign policy mantra that “Indonesia is its most important relationship” and that Canberra should be more realistic in its expectations of Indonesia since relations are always prone to crisis. Ward also suggests that Australian politicians be more circumspect in what they say in public to prevent differences from escalating into crises.
We fully agree with his bold recommendation to stop making Indonesia Australia’s most important relationship because not only does it make no different to Indonesia, but it also makes us uncomfortable, since we can never reciprocate the feeling. Australia is barely in the top five of Indonesia’s most important relationships; some may even say that it would be lucky to be in the top 10.
The mantra has been repeated by every single prime minister since Paul Keating outlined it in a luncheon speech in Sydney in 1994 in the presence of then Indonesian ambassador Sabam Siagian.
It was really addressed to the Australian public rather than to Indonesia. There are strategic reasons for making the Australian embassy in Jakarta the largest in the world, and for every newly elected Australian prime minister to make Indonesia the destination of his or her first overseas visit. But to call Indonesia its most important relationship smacks of hypocrisy when Australia bypasses Indonesia in economic ties and when Canberra continues to regard Indonesia more as a potential threat than a friend, evidenced by the 2013 revelation of a massive Australian eavesdropping operation on Indonesian leaders.
This is not to say that Australia is unimportant to Indonesia.
Today, the two countries have intensive relationships in all sectors, as two large neighbors should. And there is ample room for improvement, most notably in our economic ties.
We should not be under any illusion that relations will always be smooth. There will be differences, and some of these will lead to tensions and turn into diplomatic rows. But then Indonesia also constantly fights with some of its other neighbors like Singapore and Malaysia.
If anything, these tensions and rows are indications of the intensity of our relationship. To suggest that the relationship is condemned to crisis, or prone to crisis, is not only stretching it a little but it could lead to wrong conclusions and policy prescriptions.
Indonesia and Australia are condemned to be neighbors by geographical dictates. But why be so negative about it? Why can’t we say that we are blessed to be neighbors, as we are?
No two close neighbors can be so unlike as Indonesia and Australia are, but differences in cultures, historical experiences and levels of economic development necessarily make it challenging for the two countries to forge their rich relationship. Sure, both countries have recalled their ambassadors in recent years, but that too is normal in such an intensive relationship. It only becomes a crisis when the two countries sever their relationship or go into a war, which has never happened.
Where Ward gets it wrong is in his recommendation that Australians adopt a more temperate language in dealing with Indonesia. Fault their large embassy in Jakarta for failing to inform them that Indonesia today is a vibrant democracy, with free speech that matches any other free society around the world.
Indonesians can take all the insults Australians throw. Yes, some will be offended, but whatever Australian politicians, media columnists and talk-back radio hosts say about Indonesia, we have heard it worse from our own people talking about our president, government and politicians, corruption, terrorism, human rights violations, Papua and the executions of drug traffickers.
By being direct, frank and honest, you will get much further in building the trust that is essential in any relationship. You cannot restore trust, which thanks to Abbott is currently in huge deficit, by holding yourself back.
While we are in the business of being open, here is our frank assessment of Australia. Rather than trying to figure out where Indonesia is heading with all the changes that are taking place in this century, Australia would be better trying to figure out its own place and future in the emerging Asia.
This is a topic outside Ward’s book, but it is an important question that Australia must answer to be able to craft a more effective foreign policy in building relations with Indonesia and the rest of Asia.
Australia is struggling with existential uncertainty. Is it part of Asia? Does it want to become part of Asia?
Its economic future and hence prosperity, is increasingly tied to Asia. China is by far its largest trading partner and Australia is also trading more and more with its Asian neighbors. But that is probably as “Asian” as Australia gets; that, and in addition to its geographic location and the rising Asian mix in its population.
Politically, Australia is still stuck in 20th century mode. It is a monarchy with a head of state in London, and all its security arrangements are Cold War relics, whereby they take orders from Washington.
Australia is out of sync with the emerging geopolitical environment of Asia today. Until Australia fixes this anomaly and moves into the 21st century, it is hard for Indonesia and the rest of Asia to take Australia more seriously.
__
The writers are senior editors of The Jakarta Post and former editors-in-chief of the newspaper. They are Class 1979 and Class 2004 of the Nieman Fellowship program for journalists at Harvard University. Siagian was formerly Indonesia’s ambassador to Australia. -
——————————————————————-
4) People Complaint Puskesmas Sentani Has No Toilet
Sentani, Jubi – Despite its status as a Community Health Center with the best service given by Jayapura Regional Health Office, local residents are still complaining of the services provided by the Sentani Community Health Center (Puskesmas).
“We are often unable to get a queuing card although we came early. How can it happen when it’s still in the morning? In addition, the service hours seems to be restricted, the staffs are already gone on the lunch time,” Dunlop Hawai resident Dortea Krebru told Jubi in Sentani on last week.
At the same place, Dorlince Wenda who lives in Camat Lama Sentani said this Puskesmas that actually provided services for decades still do not have a toilet.
“If the patients from distant want to use the toilet, where to go? Fortunately, the local residents are nicely offering their toilet,” she said.
Meanwhile, the Head of Puskesmas Sentani Dian Gritnowati when confirmed about the public complaint declined that Puskesmas only provides service until lunchtime. “Currently Puskesmas Sentani provides services for public until afternoon. The staffs are used to go home at four in the afternoon. The patients are used to decrease during the day, but our staffs are still ready to stay in Puskesmas,” she said.
About queuing card, she admitted it’s intentionally limited, but people still could get services if running out of the card. “But it’s not applied for dental polyclinic where people are rarely to be queued because we only have one staff there,” she explained.
However, she confirmed about the toilet. She admitted that she proposed it once to relevant office but has no response until now. “Regarding this current situation around the Puskesmas, the environment is not too feasible to build a toilet here,” she said. (Engel Wally/rom)
——————————————————-
Timika, Jubi – Twelve foreign-flag ships are still harboring at Mimika waters to wait for a decision whether to resume operations or to be deported to their home countries after the moratorium.
“So, we are waiting for the regulation or instruction from the Central Government when those ships could resume their operations or be deported,” the Head of Mimika Marine and Fisheries Office, Ir. Ignatius Eddy Santoso, M.Si said in Timika on last week.
This is a consequence of regulation issued by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to extend the moratorium of permit of former foreign-flag ship for six months after the issuance of moratorium until next October. “Since the twelve foreign ships have no activities, the ship crews have been sent home while waiting for regulation from the central,” he said.
He further declared the operation permit for foreign-flag ship in Mimika region was issued by the Provincial Government instead of Regional Government. “The Regional Government is not authorized to issue permit for those ships. They have a permit from the Provincial Government,” he said.
According to him, the minister’s policy on moratorium of foreign-flag ship and transshipment applied since October 2014 is regarded a positive influence on Indonesian fisheries sector, especially in Mimika.
However, in the term of supply, fish supplies for local market are decreasing due to the lack of the ships. Therefore, the local marine and fisheries office made arrangement with distributor to bring the fishes from outside of Mimika region, such as Kamimana and Tual. “Moratorium has impact to the community, that it helps the local community. But it also caused the lack of fish supplies in Timika,” he explained.
Meanwhile, the extension of ship moratorium is restricted in the Regulation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries No.10/PERMEN-KP/2015 on the Amendment of the Regulation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries No. 56/PERMEN-KP/2014 about the Moratorium of Commercial Fisheries Permit in Marine Management Area of the Republic of Indonesia.
The only change of the regulation is mentioned in the Article 3 in which regulates the validity period of the previous moratorium that only valid until 30 April 2015. While the new regulation signed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries Susi Pudjiastuti on 23 April 2015 said the moratorium would extend until October 2015 due to extra time needed for verification towards the former foreign-flag ships. (Eveerth/rom)
————————————————————
6) The Statement by the Police Force in West Papua does not comply with the law
The statement made by J.H. Sitorus, head of public relations of the West Papua Police, as reported in the media in response to the
aspirations of the Papuan people is very narrow-minded and is not in accordance with the law.
I say this because the statement is very sceptical and narrow-minded in its failure to understand the true significance of
Law 21/2001 on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua, as amended in Law 35/2008 which makes that same stipulation applicable also to
the Province of West Papua.
I should like to point out that Article 48 of Law 21/2001 clearly states that the replacement and appointment of the Chief of Police in
Papua and also in West Papua is the responsibility of the governors of the two provinces above-mentioned (see article 48, para 5).
This is because in the implementation of their respective duties the afore-mentioned officials are accountable to the two governors in
the Land of Papua. This is because matters of security should always be answerable to those who are responsible for these matters while
there should always be co-ordination between the two chiefs of police.
As for the aspirations of the Papuan people as expressed through their organisations and their leaders with regard to everything
regarding the indigenous Papuan people, this should be in accordance with the provisions of these laws on autonomy, with which officials
like the aforesaid Sitorus who is not an indigenous Papuan should comply.
The opportunity for an indigenous Papuan to occupy a leading position in the police force has now been granted to Brigadier-General
Drs Paulus Waterpauw, the Chief of Police of Papua and now also of West Papua.
Certainly the indigenous Papua people note that besides Waterpauw, there are also several middle-ranking police officers who are likely
to get the opportunity to occupy these positions when they become vacant. These officials should make known their views in the print
and electronic media in Manokwari and West Papua which should be acknowledged and respected by all police officers, including Mr
Sitorus.
The fact is that the chief of police in West Papua, Brigadier General Royke Lumowa, has no understanding whatsoever of the
aspirations of the Papuan people; according to information we have received, the aforementioned officer has been conveying his views to
several leaders of the community in Manokwari. In my opinion, the provisions of the police force in the Land of
Papua following the enactment of the Autonomy Law in 2001, it should now be properly implemented, not only by stakeholders such as the
governors and the members of the legislative assemblies in Papua and West Papua. This means that there should immediately be the proper
implementation of article 48, para (3) according to which regional provinces should issue regulations regarding the duties of the police
force in the Land of Papua, with regard to public order and security and their financing, in order to end the anxieties being felt by the
Papuan people.
This is a matter of great importance which appears not to have been understood by officers who are now working in the Land of Papua,
including Mr Sitorus. The result is that they frequently say things without having any basis in the law, in recognition of the fact that
the provinces of Papua and West Papua are special regions, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of Indonesia.
--------
Statement by Yan Christian Warinussy, Executive Director of the LP3BH
aspirations of the Papuan people is very narrow-minded and is not in accordance with the law.
I say this because the statement is very sceptical and narrow-minded in its failure to understand the true significance of
Law 21/2001 on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua, as amended in Law 35/2008 which makes that same stipulation applicable also to
the Province of West Papua.
I should like to point out that Article 48 of Law 21/2001 clearly states that the replacement and appointment of the Chief of Police in
Papua and also in West Papua is the responsibility of the governors of the two provinces above-mentioned (see article 48, para 5).
This is because in the implementation of their respective duties the afore-mentioned officials are accountable to the two governors in
the Land of Papua. This is because matters of security should always be answerable to those who are responsible for these matters while
there should always be co-ordination between the two chiefs of police.
As for the aspirations of the Papuan people as expressed through their organisations and their leaders with regard to everything
regarding the indigenous Papuan people, this should be in accordance with the provisions of these laws on autonomy, with which officials
like the aforesaid Sitorus who is not an indigenous Papuan should comply.
The opportunity for an indigenous Papuan to occupy a leading position in the police force has now been granted to Brigadier-General
Drs Paulus Waterpauw, the Chief of Police of Papua and now also of West Papua.
Certainly the indigenous Papua people note that besides Waterpauw, there are also several middle-ranking police officers who are likely
to get the opportunity to occupy these positions when they become vacant. These officials should make known their views in the print
and electronic media in Manokwari and West Papua which should be acknowledged and respected by all police officers, including Mr
Sitorus.
The fact is that the chief of police in West Papua, Brigadier General Royke Lumowa, has no understanding whatsoever of the
aspirations of the Papuan people; according to information we have received, the aforementioned officer has been conveying his views to
several leaders of the community in Manokwari. In my opinion, the provisions of the police force in the Land of
Papua following the enactment of the Autonomy Law in 2001, it should now be properly implemented, not only by stakeholders such as the
governors and the members of the legislative assemblies in Papua and West Papua. This means that there should immediately be the proper
implementation of article 48, para (3) according to which regional provinces should issue regulations regarding the duties of the police
force in the Land of Papua, with regard to public order and security and their financing, in order to end the anxieties being felt by the
Papuan people.
This is a matter of great importance which appears not to have been understood by officers who are now working in the Land of Papua,
including Mr Sitorus. The result is that they frequently say things without having any basis in the law, in recognition of the fact that
the provinces of Papua and West Papua are special regions, as recognised in accordance with the Constitution of Indonesia.
--------
Statement by Yan Christian Warinussy, Executive Director of the LP3BH
- The Institution of Research, Anayzing and Development for Legal Aid.
8th August, 2015
Translated by Carmel Budiardjo, recipient of Right Livelihood Award 1995.
8th August, 2015
Translated by Carmel Budiardjo, recipient of Right Livelihood Award 1995.
——————————————————-
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.