NM case : Mindboggling law enforcement Pandaya  ;  A staff writer at The Jakarta Post

                                               JAKARTA POST, 20 Desember 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

Prostitution may be illegal in Indonesia, but the way the police handle high-profile cases of alleged celebrity prostitutes and their pimps prove that the situation is much more complicated than we may have realized. The case that the police are building from the arrest of two suspected pimps, identified as O and F, at an upscale hotel in Central Jakarta is a case in point. The police call it a human-trafficking case, while people in the street see it simply as a regular case of high-class prostitution that was brought to light to entertain people tired of the conflict among the nation’s political elite. In the wee hours one night, officers posing as wealthy clients booked two call girls, identified only as NM and PR, for a rendezvous. As the story later unfolded, police said their actual targets were the pimps. People began to sense something funny: The officers were extremely friendly with the pimps. Up to now, police have kept a tight lid on the pimps’ identities, while the women’s were immediately leaked to the public after they were taken to a social rehabilitation center in East Jakarta, like prey for the hungry infotainment reporters.  The women’s names, which were initially a source of speculation on social media, were confirmed after a lawyer claiming to represent Nikita Mirsani spoke out and Nikita herself held a press conference to tell her version of the story. PR, who is said to be a 2014 Indonesian beauty pageant finalist, has opted to keep a low profile. This differential treatment in favor of the pimps has given the police a bad name. Police vehemently stick to their guns that the case was purely a human-trafficking case and that they were treating the pimps as the perpetrators and the women as “victims”. So why on earth didn’t they put the women under protection, instead of exposing them to the media’s prying eyes? That is where the complication begins. The government claims that prostitution is illegal, but the police, the backbone of law enforcement, have time and again showed us that’s not entirely true. The simple question is why the police have only applied the Human-Trafficking Law and targeted only the pimps as the ones who “exploit the women for financial gain” — an assumption that has met with widespread skepticism. Reza Indragiri Amriel, a forensic psychologist, says that Nikita and PR were consenting adults and do not qualify for “victim” status according to the definition stipulated in the 2007 Human-Trafficking Law. “The law […] states that a victim is one who endures physical, mental, sexual, economic or social suffering as a result of human trafficking,” Reza said as quoted by kompas.com. “I don’t think NM fits the definition. I think like many other women, NM willingly worked as a prostitute.” The “victim” status conferred on NM and PR also baffles Yenti Garnasih, an expert on money laundering, because the women and their clients had agreed on the amount of money to be paid for the sexual services, as police revealed. The pimps’ lawyers also claimed that it was NM and PR who wanted to work under O and F’s management. The use of the Human-Trafficking Law as the sole legal basis has provoked suspicion that the police mean to protect the women’s clients. As the women charge between Rp 50 million and Rp 65 million for each three-hour session, it is assumed that many of their clients must be exceptionally rich and powerful men, such as politicians, government bureaucrats and business people. Usually, the authorities prosecute prostitution cases under the Criminal Code (KUHP), Article 296 of which states that “Anyone who willingly makes or facilitates indecent acts with others, and makes it a habit and profession, is subject to a maximum of 16 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of Rp 15,000.” If the raid was intended as part of efforts to combat human trafficking and prostitution, the police should also use Jakarta Bylaw No. 8/2007, which was drafted as the implementation guideline to the KUHP. It appears that the KUHP, a Dutch colonial legacy that has yet to be amended, prescribes that only a person running a venue of prostitution — not the prostitutes or their clients — are liable to prosecution. That’s why every region reserves the authority to draft its own implementational bylaws regarding prostitution. The 2007 Jakarta bylaw prescribes criminal prosecution for “people who make, persuade and facilitate others to become commercial sex workers and/or subscribe to sex workers’ services”. Offenders are liable to a minimum 20 days’ and maximum 90 days’ imprisonment, as well as a fine of at least Rp 500,000 and Rp 30 million at the most. Were the police serious about combating prostitution, they could also use the Information and Electronic Transaction Law, a stretchable law that has been used to charge people who misuse the internet to slander others. And what about the Pornography Law?  The latest case promises to be another mindboggling legal morass, as with an earlier case against pimp Robby Abbas. Robby was convicted of running a prostitution syndicate involving celebrities and other high-class call girls, but only he was ever charged. The cases bear a similarity: The undercover stings were conducted at a time when public attention was on political dramas of national proportion. Robby, along with celebrity Amel Alvi, was arrested at the height of the conflict between the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the National Police, while O, F, NM and PR were stung in the wake of the Freeport scandal. If it’s a case of coincidence, then it may be a case of one too many. ●

Labora standoff makes mockery of our law enforcement Pandaya ; A staff writer at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 15 Februari 2015

                                                                                                                                     

                                                

His case may have been eclipsed by the embarrassing conflict pitting the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) against the National Police over graft charges leveled against one of its suspiciously rich generals, Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan. But the legal scandal over the release and the failure to reincarcerate Labora Sitorus, a police chief brigadier convicted of laundering Rp 1.5 trillion in West Papua, is just too enormous to be covered up. Labora, 54, now lives as a free man at his mansion in Sorong — almost a year after wardens allowed him to leave the prison for medical treatment and six months after his name was put on the list of most-wanted fugitives. The whole episode of his fooling the long arm of the law is a perfect comedy about how Indonesian law enforcers do their job in a country long sneered at as a “corruption haven”. In early 2013, the Sorong District Court sentenced Labora to two years in prison and fined him Rp 50 million for illegal logging and hoarding fuel. The local High Court rejected his appeal and added a further six years to his term. In September last year, the Supreme Court in Jakarta also found him guilty of money laundering, lengthened his term to 15 years and inflated his fine to Rp 5 billion. Yet since the verdict, Labora has served barely any time at all, the prison chief warden permitting him to undergo medical treatment at the Navy Hospital in Sorong in March 2014. Prosecutors were shocked, or pretended to be shocked, to be told that Labora was no longer in prison: Sorong chief warden Maliki Hasan released Labora because the convict’s detention period had expired on Oct. 24 with the Supreme Court yet to announce its verdict. Then Labora was declared a fugitive. The subsequent surprise came when it turned out that Labora had not gone anywhere. In fact he remained at his 40-hectare home that also houses a timber-processing plant run by umbrella firm PT Rotua, which employs hundreds of people. His generosity has earned him comparisons to Robin Hood. On Monday, an estimated 1,000 employees and local residents rallied at the Sorong Legislative Council in his defense, demanding that President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo form a team to investigate the “conspiracy” behind Labora’s case. He is interestingly frank about his case. He gives interviews to all media, to make public his claim that he shared his financial fortunes with his backers, including senior police officers in Papua and Jakarta. Last week, he accused the police, the prosecutor’s office and the correctional institution of “public deception” by declaring him a fugitive while the fact was that they knew he had not gone anywhere. He insisted that he had done nothing wrong and refused to go back to jail. He said he had been “victimized” by senior police officers in Sorong and Jakarta. “The Indonesian government uses the law of the jungle,” he complained. As for the letter of clearance, he maintained it was delivered to his home by prison officials and that if it was unlawful, it was the chief warden who ought to be punished. He promised to spill the beans to the court, provided that he was covered by the Witness and Victim Protection Agency. When Labora’s whereabouts became known and the public asked why he was not promptly arrested as a fugitive, police and prosecutors simply passed the buck between themselves.  West Papua Police chief Brig. Gen. Paulus Waterpauw and Attorney General M. Prasetyo in Jakarta have repeatedly called on Labora to voluntarily surrender because the legal process over his case had been completed. Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna H. Laoly, meanwhile, sensed something fishy about the Sorong chief warden’s clearance for Labora and has promised an investigation. Waterpauw, who pledged 630 officers to recapture Labora six months ago, has repeatedly said that the police were refraining from using force because Labora was fiercely defended by hundreds of his workers willing to sacrifice their lives for their boss. “If you were in my shoes, would you risk bloodshed?” he asked. Labora has revealed that his superiors often treated him like an ATM. From one of his accounts, he claimed that he once gave Raja Ampat police precinct chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Taufik Irfan Rp 600 million in cash to be transferred to Papua Police chief Insp. Gen. Tito Karnavian. Tito has denied the accusation. In one media interview, he accused police officers of seizing his timber and auctioning it for Rp 24.7 billion, leaving him only Rp 6.5 billion.  Labora openly challenges state authority. It is a shame that the government is unable to quickly and transparently settle the issue. Besides sending Labora back to prison, the authorities should also investigate senior officers and other bureaucrats who may have collaborated with him. Waterpauw’s and other officials’ concerns about bloodshed laughable. Where are all the crowd-control skills and equipment bought with taxpayers’ money? The government’s soft stand on Labora is but one of the growing signs of the Jokowi regime’s weak commitment to stopping the rot. ●

Curriculum blues : Struggling for solid ground Pandaya  ;   A Jakarta Post staff writer

JAKARTA POST,  14 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

Culture and Elementary and Secondary Education Minister Anies Baswedan has, in the end, put on hold the highly controversial 2013 curriculum on the grounds that it was created without an in-depth study of its urgency, conception and substance. The curriculum was rushed through by his predecessor, then education and culture minister Mohammad Nuh, in his final year in office, and has been tried out as a pilot project in 6,221 schools across the archipelago since 2013. Nuh claimed that the drafting of the curriculum began in 2010, but it was not made public until 2012 before being tested on the 6,000-plus elementary, junior and high schools that had adequate resources. The canceled curriculum was meant to replace the 2006 curriculum, but apparently the ministry had yet to conduct the research necessary to convince the public that the seven-year-old curriculum needed refinement. The lack of public consultation and the hasty drafting process have resulted in a short-lived curriculum. Had Nuh done it properly, it could have been his legacy, as might well have been his intention. The ill-prepared curriculum has caused confusion in its implementation. The training period was nothing but too short; many teachers were left untrained; the books were hastily written and logistical supplies to the regions were a nightmare. Anies’ bold move has won public support although it has, unavoidably, caused problems in the pilot-project schools. It has also angered the contractors with book-printing contracts worth some Rp 5 trillion. And the government is yet to decide what to do with the millions of books already printed. But in view of the long-term educational development intended to produce a “golden generation” by 2045, all the sacrifice is worth it. The government’s curriculum-revision team should have a free hand and enough time to perfect it through research, ample public consultation and intensive tryouts. The government has required that schools that have used the 2013 curriculum for less than three semesters go back to the 2006 curriculum, and those who have used it longer than three months continue with it before a final decision is made. Already, the enforcement of two curricula is provoking fresh debate on whether the government will go ahead with national exams next year. The 2013 curriculum needs overhauling. As the Indonesian Teachers Union (PGRI) points out, the curriculum has fundamental flaws that the government has to rework to make it implementable in schools. PGRI chairman Sulistyo said the mind-frame with which the curriculum was created was “difficult to comprehend”. The recommended teaching methods were impracticable, teachers’ training programs ineffective and the prescribed appraisal system highly burdensome to teachers. The lack of competence on the part of the teachers, coupled with the late delivery of the badly needed books in many schools, especially those in far-flung regions, have made it impossible to implement the hastily-devised curriculum. The curriculum is still in the early stages of implementation in pilot projects and it needs more time for an objective review. Among the most criticized content is the fusion of closely related subjects, which may result in teachers losing their jobs, over-emphasis on morality, religious lessons that do not support plurality and longer school hours feared to deny students a social life. Critics say the curriculum prescribes too many subjects, forcing the students to spend four hours longer at school per week. Besides, the substance lacks character building qualities — something commonly blamed for notorious youth delinquency, such as student brawls. For its advocates, the 2013 curriculum is suitable for the long term as part of efforts to create the so-called golden generation by 2045, because it trains students to become creative, critical and analytical. The problem is that it was enforced too soon and prepared poorly. For the laypeople, the latest curriculum debacle is testament to the old, tired adage that a new education minister means a new curriculum. Indonesia is forever struggling to build a solid foundation for its education system. The education system is designed according to the political interests of the ruling regime. During the 32 years of the authoritarian rule of Soeharto, for example, the state ideology Pancasila was a requisite subject. In the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono era, when religious conservatism thrived, lessons of religious morality took over from Pancasila, which Soeharto abused to keep his political grip strong. While our education is lagging behind other more prosperous Asian countries, Indonesia remains busy refining its curriculum. Parents complain they have to spend a lot of money buying their children textbooks treated as hot commodity. In the cities, parents have to spend a lot more money for their children to take extra or private lessons. It is high time the Jokowi administration initiates a curriculum that can last beyond his term in office. Perhaps the best thing Anies can do is to combine the best elements of the past curricula with the one he is envisioning. ●

Non-cash transactions would end ‘cash-and-carry’ corruption

Non-cash transactions would end ‘cash-and-carry’ corruption Pandaya  ; A medical doctor from the University of Indonesia (UI), A health advocate and an independent researcher; She was the Global Cancer Ambassador for Indonesia from the American Cancer Society and a country representative for the UN General Assembly on non-communicable diseases in 2011

JAKARTA POST, 24 Agustus 2014

                                                

Too many state officials, politicians, private lobbyists and businesspeople have been caught red-handed engaged iun corrupt transactions, oblivious of the secret presence of Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) agents. The tragicomedy about corruption in Indonesia is that even though lots of people have been apprehended in the act, other crooks keep making the same mistakes. Every other day after news breaks about state officials and their cohorts being hauled up for bribery, TV footage will show the stacks of banknotes — usually US and Singapore dollars and of course rupiah — that were seized from the crooks. In 2012, Dharnawati, a representative of private company PT Alam Jaya Papua, was caught handing over Rp 1.5 billion (US$128,498) in cash stuffed in a large cardboard box made to ship durian fruit to Manpower and Transmigration Ministry officials as a gratuity for awarding a Rp 73 billion project in Papua. When arresting former Upstream Oil and Gas Regulatory Special Task Force (SKKMigas) chief Rudi Rubiandini last year, the KPK also seized $690,000 in cash from his residence that he had allegedly received from a company seeking to curry favor. The list goes on. But the moral of the long story made short is that cash remains the most preferred “legal tender” in most of the corrupt transactions in Indonesia — a primitive “cash-and carry” robbery of public funds in a country where major transactions involve cash. Crooks love to settle payments in cash because it is safer than bank transfers, which can be easily traced by the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) that can pass the information to the KPK. The PPATK, which works hand-in-hand with the anti-graft body, has warned that the free use of cash also gives rise to money laundering, as the source of the funds is more difficult to trace. Obviously, only the dumb will use the electronic-transfer method to collect their ill-gotten money. The PPATK has proposed that — until the country passes a law on business transactions — Bank Indonesia issue a decree limiting cash transactions to Rp 100 million. Any transactions exceeding Rp 100 million should be conducted through bank transfers. More developed countries, including neighboring Singapore, have curbed the use and regulated the circulation of cash as a way to prevent the money from being used to fund illicit activities such as bribery, money laundering, gratuity, kickback and terrorism. Corruption in high places remains rampant in Indonesia despite the arrest and prosecution of high profile figures because the leeway remains wide open. Among the large loopholes is the unregulated use of cash for virtually all major transactions. This situation, which goes against the rigorous measures the government takes to combat corruption, has prompted ever louder calls for the state to introduce laws that limit the use of cash in business transactions. For unknown reasons the Yudhoyono administration has largely ignored these calls, but fortunately president-elect and Jakarta Governor Joko Widodo has begun promoting less-cash business transactions. In fact Jokowi, as the governor is better known, already made Jakarta the first province to pass legislation making it mandatory for official business transactions to be conducted through the banking system, a move that had been recommended by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) as a means of improving governance transparency. The regulation on the use of cash and circulation of foreign currency by way of a tighter enhanced due diligence is also expected to reduce the amount of counterfeit money, a common problem in societies where people rely heavily on cash. The less-cash policy is also expected to boost economic activity. Along with the increased flow of funds into the banking system, it will be used in the capital market and for financing the real sector – not to mention the savings from government expenditure on printing banknotes. A major hurdle facing the effort to make Indonesia a less-cash society is that a majority of the country’s population, especially those living in rural areas, have yet to open bank accounts and every transaction has to be conducted in cash. Even the fabulously wealthy coffee and cacao farmers in the outlying regions of Sumatra and Sulawesi still use their trucks to carry what could be billions of rupiah in cash — and not all of them yet have bank accounts. Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine that opening a savings account crosses the minds of people surviving on bare subsistence. According to Telematika Sharing Vision Research Institute, 68 percent of the 247 million Indonesian citizens did not have a bank account last year, while 80.4 percent of the population aged older than 15 years did not have an account with a formal financial institution. But the good news is that the number of people using banking facilities such as e-money, mobile banking, credit cards and Internet banking was rising sharply, according to the institute. In 2013, the number of people subscribing to credit cards, Internet banking and mobile banking reached 14.6, 5.7 and 16.5 million respectively. “Many people need [banking] services but the banking system has yet to create adequate means of reaching people in typically remote regions where a pensioner going to collect his or her money has to spend Rp 100,000 in boat fares to takes them to another islet,” Telematika Sharing Vision chairman Dimitri Mahayana said in a media statement. The next government will have to have the courage to take a bold move and introduce legislation that will promote non-cash transactions as a way of combating corruption. Experience has taught us that any bill aimed at strengthening the anti-graft campaign will meet fierce resistance at the House of Representatives. ●

In search of a less politicized recruitment system Pandaya   ;  A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Post

                                                JAKARTA POST,  09 Februari 2014                

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

Last month’s Constitutional Court ruling which limited the House of Representatives’ authority in the selection of Supreme Court justices raised high hopes for less political gaming in the recruitment of state officials and an improved government bureaucracy. The ruling is basically an amendment to the 2004 Law on the Judicial Commission. The law gave the commission the authority to select a list of justice candidates to be proposed to the House from which legislators could make their choices.  The commission would select three candidates for each vacant justice position. So to fill three vacancies, the commission should come up with nine nominees for the House. The Constitutional Court’s ruling requires that the commission propose one candidate for each vacant position and for the House to simply accept or reject the candidate. The much-lauded ruling, made in favor of a judicial review filed by three candidates who failed the selection process at the House last year, was the Constitutional Court’s first major ruling since former court chief justice Akil Mochtar was arrested for graft. It quickly won public support because it would empower the commission, which has been dismissed as a paper tiger because despite being an oversight body it does not have the authority to take legal measures against recalcitrant judges.  However, the ruling received a negative response from lawmakers as it reduces their role in picking state officials, a political privilege it has enjoyed since the reformasi (reformation) era when the legislature obtained formidable power.  So their bizarre rejection of all the Judicial Commission’s three justice candidates on Tuesday has been widely interpreted as a signal of the House’s displeasure at the court’s ruling. It sparked fears of conflict among the court, the commission and the House that could stall the recruitment of justices.  Until 1985, the recruitment of justices was a simple procedure. Candidates were proposed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court for the president to endorse without lawmakers’ involvement.  In the course of time political power shifted from the president to the House and legislators had a major say in the recruitment of state officials.  So powerful are the lawmakers now that they have the final say in the leadership selection of vital institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), the Broadcasting Commission, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Bank Indonesia, the National Police, the military and even the Judicial Commission itself.  Obviously, as representatives of political parties, legislators have a high degree of conflict of interest, especially these days when so many of them are arraigned in the dock for corruption.  The Constitutional Court ruling is expected to pave the way for the selection of senior state officials with minimum intervention from lawmakers.  Not only do the legislators have conflicts of interest and have trampled on the principle of an independent justice system, their role has also given rise to suspicions about rampant money politics.  The House’s rejection of the justice candidates — Suhardjono of the Makassar High Court; Maria Anna Samiyati, deputy at the Palu High Court in Central Sulawesi and Sunarto, a member of the Supreme Court’s monitoring unit — without adequate transparent reasoning has made the public expectation of an improved recruitment system appear unrealistic. Pieter Zulkifli, chairman of House Commission III, which oversees judicial selection at the legislature, said: “Those attending the selection process last week would agree that the candidates the Judicial Commission proposed to us were very disappointing. Moreover, they had proposed the three before and we had rejected them.” The judicial commissioners countered that although none of the candidates was perfect, it took six months and Rp 3 billion (US$ 246,000) in tax payers’ money to select them and they had a good grasp of their jobs and — most importantly — had the highest integrity among all the 60 nominees they had short-listed. “The selection process at the House was simply too simplistic in having concluded that the [three] candidates were unqualified,” said Judicial Commission chief Suparman Marzuki.  Now the Judicial Commission has to go back to square one and has to review the long list of applicants it had already short-listed.  Although we should neither blindly believe everything that Suparman claims about his candidates, we would hope that to ensure transparency the House will publish the standards and qualifications they require from state official candidates for the public to scrutinize. The obviously brewing rivalries among the House, the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission are deleterious especially to the recruitment of competent justices of unwavering integrity. A more acceptable recruitment method should be designed to break the impasse. ●

Proliferating guns and gangland-style shootings

Proliferating guns and gangland-style shootings Pandaya ;   A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Post JAKARTA POST, 18 Agustus 2013

A recent stunning surge in gangland shootings should serve as a wake-up call for the authorities about the danger of uncontrolled proliferation of firearms in Indonesia. 

The media has reported that in less than a month, a flurry of shooting incidents in Yogyakarta, Banten, Papua, Central Sulawesi and Lampung provinces have killed at least four people and injured another five. Above all, the unusually high frequency has increasingly created a sense of insecurity among the public. 

The most dramatic surge was recorded in Yogyakarta with 11 shooting incidents in only two days, Aug. 9 and 10. The highest profile victim was a local prison warden. He was critically injured after two strangers fired at him while he was chilling out at his official residence. 

In other incidents, the trigger happy culprits targeted cars in people’s garages in Yogyakarta, an ancient sultanate which prides itself as a peaceful city. The police have yet to make any arrests and managed to identify the suspect only as a “chubby guy riding a motorbike wearing a black jacket”. 

On Friday, two unidentified men riding a motorbike shot and killed First Adj. Insp. Kus Hendratna and Chief Brig. Ahmad Maulana in Tangerang, Banten, in the same general area where an unknown assailant shot and killed First Adj. Insp. Dwianto from a South Jakarta police precinct on Aug. 7. 

The incident followed a similar drive-by shooting that seriously injured Second Adj. Insp. Patah Saktiyono from the Central Jakarta precinct. 

Shootings targeting the police in such restive areas as Central Sulawesi and Papua, has raised concerns about escalating terror activity and so has the Aug. 5 attack on a detention house in Baturaja, South Sumatra. 

The dramatic rise in shooting incidents over the past month followed persistent reports of terror attacks on police, arrogant individuals intimidating people over minor traffic incidents with guns and highway men threatening their victims with firearms.

The rise in cases of gun violence is astounding because in fact Indonesia has stringent laws on firearms. The 1951 Law on State of Emergency, which is considered the umbrella of lower ordinances, provides strict rules on firearms and carries a maximum penalty of death for offenders. 

Even the possession and use of toy guns like air soft gun, which has often been used in urban street crimes and the more powerful air rifles widely used for bird hunting, have been strictly regulated in the 1984 Police Chief decree. 

To cut a long story short, Indonesia already has good laws on gun control but they are not properly enforced. This explains the reason for the overwhelming proliferation of firearms even while stringent laws are in place. 

We want to hear that a politician, soldier, policeman, lawyer, judge, businessman or criminal will be punished accordingly for misusing their guns. We are clueless about what the Indonesian Military (TNI) leadership has done to a “cowboy” Army officer who intimidated a motorcyclist with a handgun after a minor traffic offense in Palmerah, Central Jakarta, which went viral on YouTube in May last year. 

It is a common suspicion that gun violence is on the rise because the licenses are easy to obtain. Besides, corrupt military personnel are known to have been involved in illicit gun trade as uncovered in last year’s trial of suspected terrorists holding military training in Aceh.

The weak intelligence of the police has also been attributed to the thriving home-made firearms business known to have been used in communal clashes in Central Sulawesi and in countless cases of street crimes in many cities. 

Nowadays, people can easily buy toy guns in major traditional markets in Jakarta, where you can get a plastic handgun for a mere Rp 50,000 or Rp 2 million for a more sophisticated one that an untrained eye will not be able to tell if it is the real thing or a fake if a criminal were to point it at you.

And if you want to get one but have no idea where to buy it, don’t worry — it is offered online, too. All you need is the money and then call the numbers.

Air soft guns, also known as “replicas” began to flood the local market in 1999, shortly after the massive rioting which precluded the fall of Soeharto and its regulations were included in a 2004 decree on military-standard firearms control. 

The police have only began conducting raids on the market in Jakarta last week, amid a barrage of media reports on the widespread misuse of firearms. It is hoped that the raids will not stop as soon as the media glare dims. 

The slack gun control also sparks fear of escalating not only street thuggery but also terrorism, which Indonesia is struggling to combat. As we know, acts of terror remains a clear and present danger even though the anti-terror Densus 88 squad has sternly delivered a telling blow to their network.

Incidents such as retaliatory attacks on state apparatuses by terrorists or random attacks such as what happened in Yogyakarta could worsen unless the authorities act swiftly to put gun possession in check. 

The government knows only too well of the ramifications of the unchecked firearms upsurge and it is high time that public sense of security is restored. ● 

Oh man, shall we call the New Order back?

Oh man, shall we call the New Order back? Pandaya  ;  A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 07 April 2013

“Hey guys, how’s life today? It was better in my era, wasn’t it?” The Javanese phrases that accompany a color portrait of the smiling strongman Soeharto is emblazoned on posters of all sizes and put up on public vans, becak (pedicabs) and public places in his ancestral province of Yogyakarta.  The poster has a simple artistic design, but the late five-star general’s legendary smile and the message conveyed are both captivating, probably even to Soeharto critics. It is propaganda, but the choice of words can hardly fail to make viewers smile. Soeharto’s propagandists and fans mean to revoke the memory of the glory of his 32 years of iron-fisted rule when development and harmony had to be defended at all costs. Forget about widespread rights abuses, authoritarian rule and state corruption; instead ask what made the Soeharto regime “better” than those of his predecessors, from B.J. Habibie, Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono?  Chances are that most people would answer something along the lines that under Soeharto, basic commodities were affordable, sectarian conflict was properly managed and communal violence was rare.  Apparently, the self-righteous smile was just one of Soeharto’s tactics to polish his image as the “Father of Development” who deserved a place in history.  A new monument park in Kemusuk, a remote village in Godean district, just west of Yogyakarta where Soeharto was born, perfectly illustrates all his admirers’ and relatives’ efforts to present the heroic side of the dictator, who died in 2008, 10 years after his downfall. The benefactor is business tycoon Probosutedjo, Soeharto’s half brother who fiercely believes that people unfairly portray the general as a corrupt dictator while they forget his great service to the country and that he did “more than any hero has done”.  Probosutedjo, who was convicted of corruption in a reforestation project in 2005, (in)famously said that only “foolish Indonesians would believe that Soeharto was a dictator”. Built on 1,000 square meters of family land, the Soeharto memorial stands out for its shiny new tiles, high-quality teak framing and a 3.5-meter bronze statue of Soeharto in his supreme military commander uniform.  He stands right in front of a typical Javanese house that opened to the public on March 1 to coincide with the 64th anniversary of the historic March 1, 1949 General Offensive against the Dutch troops. He was the field commander. The next thing that Probosutedjo wants visitors to see is Soeharto as a pious Muslim, as depicted in a life-size electronic image near the entrance of the display room. This particular profiling seems to disprove the perception that Soeharto was anti-Muslim, which resulted from his relentless crackdown on political Islam.  Inside is a range of video footage, documentaries and photos – all presented to show Soeharto as a commanding soldier, the Father of Development, a statesman, a populist leader, an affectionate father and in his early years as a humble peasant’s son.  And don’t even think of seeing anything remotely concerning the ramifications of his authoritarian rule.  Particularly nostalgic is a documentary about Soeharto meeting with farmers and him harvesting paddy and lifting a bunch of ripe stalks high for photographers to snap. President Yudhoyono has been seen trying to copy this great general’s style, but with dismal results. Probosutedjo was not entirely wrong when he said that what Soeharto did for this country was so great that he deserved a positive note in history.  What is important is fairness in writing it.  The great general may have had a hand in the various past human rights abuses against his political foes, and corruption may have been rampant among his family and cronies, but who can deny the great things he did to revive Indonesia from virtual bankruptcy when he took power from his flamboyant, ultra-nationalist predecessor Sukarno? One can make an endless list of great services he did as a statesman. Aided by Western-educated technocrats, Soeharto began to pick up the pieces, smartly devising five-year development plans (Repelita). Then he broke the plans down to annual programs in every sector of development. And the policy was made a mandatory subject in schools.  These days, we do not see any of the subsequent democratically elected presidents care to make such systematic, detailed plans of which everybody can monitor and assess the outcome!   His commitment to upholding Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution and the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) was unwavering. Things such as a regency adopting sharia-inspired bylaws or any moves toward secession were hardly ever heard of, and if they were, they were harshly dealt with.  His principle as a leader at the time was well reflected in one of his statements quoted by Habibie, “Indonesian people’s demands are simple. What’s most important is that you can meet their basic needs, with their security and future guaranteed — that’s it, they will stay calm. So what’s the use of revolution?” Back then, the press was firmly muzzled, democracy was nonexistent and human rights were regularly abused. But prices were affordable and security was in place.  Now at a time when corruption is only worsening, security is lousy and living costs are forever climbing, who knows, perhaps public approval of Soeharto being nominated as national hero is also ascending.  In 2011, Indo Barometer found in a survey — conducted in conjunction with the 13th anniversary of the reform movement and the eighth month of SBY’s second term administration — that Soeharto was the most popular president that Indonesia ever had. Also, most respondents viewed Soeharto’s New Order regime as better than Sukarno’s Old Order and Reform Order.  There is even a Soeharto fan club called “Paguyuban Rindu Soeharto (Longing for Soeharto)”, which is on Facebook, too. So, how’s life treatin’ you under SBY, guys? ●