YPMP-Medan

"PERANG" SPANDUK SAWIT DI MEDAN

2012-07-01T11:19:00.000+07:00

Senin, 28 Maret 2011 | 11:26:11

Medan (28/3): Pelaksanaan Konferensi Alternatif Perigatan 100 Tahun Sawit di Indonesia pada hari kedua yang diselenggarakan 34 ornop dilaksanakan di tiga tempat, di Asrama Haji Medan, Hotel Polonia dan Hotel Tiara, Minggu dan Senin (27/28/3).

Pada tempat yang sama, di Hotel Tiara dilaksanakan pula Perayaan 100 tahun Perkebunan Sawit yang diselenggarakan oleh GAPKI.

Sekitar pukul 10.00 wib di Hotel Tiara sempat bersitegang, seperti "perang" spanduk. Pasalnya, 3 helai spanduk yang dipasang Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit (SPKS) di sebelah spanduk GAPKI terancam diturunkan oleh pihak Hotel, padahal SPKS merupakan salah satu penyelenggara Konferensi bersama Ornop lain.

Hal ini disebabkan 5 meter di samping spanduk SPKS terdapat baliho GAPKI yang bertuliskan “Sawit Sahabat Rakyat”.

Sedangkan ketiga spanduk SPKS tersebut bertuliskan:

1) 100 Tahun Negara Membiarkan Perusahaan Sawit Merampas Tanah Rakyat (SPKS, Labuhan Batu)

2) Sudah 100 tahun, perkebunan sawit hanya mampu membangun skema kemitraan dengan rakyat (SPKS Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi)

3) Sudah 100 tahun perkebunan kelapa sawit negara menghapus peran petani kelapa sawit melalui pola satu manajemen di dalam kebijakan revitalisasi perkebunan (SPKS Rokan Hulu, Riau)

Upaya penurunan spanduk SPKS disebabkan perintah dari pihak GAPKI yang tidak ingin diberitakan kebenaran tentang perkebunan sawit kepada pihak hotel. Namun upaya tersebut langsung menerima penolakan dari peserta konferensi yang sebagian besar adalah petani kelapa sawit.

Pihak Kepolisian pun yang dihubungi hotel tidak mau mencopot spanduknya, karena di lokasi tersebut tidak ada kejadian yang mengganggu ketertiban, seperti aksi atau demonstrasi.

Refleksi perkebunan ini harus diberikan informasi yang sebenarnya. Jika perusahaan perkebunan merasa risih dengan tulisan tersebut seharusnya kan bisa berkomunikasi dengan penyelenggara Konferensi Alternatif, "kami akan berikan data-datanya tentang penindasan di perkebunan sawit", demikian panitia pelaksananya kepada wartawan, Senin (28/3).

Konferensi ini menampilkan gambaran yang utuh tentang industri perkebunan sawit dengan tajuk Konferensi Alternatif terhadap Peringatan Seratus Tahun Sawit di Indonesia, dilaksanakan Sabtu – Selasa (26-29 Maret 2011) di Hotel Polonia, Asrama Haji dan Hotel Tiara Medan.

Pelaksana konferensi ini adalah Lentera, KPS, Bakumsu, ELSAM, Bitra, Walhi-SU, Sahdar, Sawit Watch, Elsaka, Hapsari, Kontras, KOTIB, Petra, PBHI, LBH Medan, KSPPM, KPA, SPKS, BPRPI, Sintesa, SPI (La Via Campesina Indonesia), Jala, Gemawan Kalbar, Walhi Kaltim, Setara Jambi, JKMA Aceh, Jikalahari Riau,YPMP, Formatsu, WABPIS, FOKKER LSM Papua, ADS, dan JPIC MSC. *en*

DIINTIMIDASI MENGADU KE LBH

2012-06-27T12:05:00.002+07:00

Diintimidasi, Mengadu Ke LBH

Articles | Medan

Written by Syafri Harahap on Friday, 20 May 2011 05:21

MEDAN (Waspada): Masyarakat Desa Sei Silau Barat, Kec. Setia Tani, Kab. Asahan tergabung dalam Kelompok Tan Karya Tani menolak perpanjangan dan perluasan Hak Guna Usaha (HGU) PTPN 3 seluas 6.463,78 hektar.

Warga menuding perluasan itu hanya bertujuan menyerobot lahan mereka seluas 1.103,78. Semula luas HGU PTPN 3 di Kebun Sei Silau hanya 5.360 hektar dan sudah berakhir. Namun, PTPN 3 mengusulkan perpanjangan dan perluasan HGU seluas 6.463,78 hektar.

“Kami keberatan dengan perluasan itu, sebab lahan yang diwariskan nenek moyang kami sejak tahun 1941, mau diambil oleh PTPN 3 dengan modus perluasan lahan,” kata seorang pemilik lahan, Kasyono, kepada wartawan di Kantor Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH) Medan, Rabu (18/5).

Perluasan lahan itu terjadi, kata dia, setelah pengukuran lahan oleh Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) Sumatera Utara. Ironisnya, pengukuran dilakukan secara keliling sehingga lahan masyarakat juga terhitung di dalamnya. “Jika perpanjangan lahan HGU hanya seluas 5.360 hektar, sebagaimana semula, maka kami tidak akan keberatan. Menjadi persoalan lahan kami juga diturut sertakan oleh PTPN 3. Jelas, kami tidak terima, “ kata Kasyono.

Bahkan, lanjut karyawan PTPN 3 Kebun Sei Silau itu, pihak PTPN juga melakukan intimidasi terhadap karyawan pemilik lahan yang masuk ke dalam pengusulan perluasan HGU tersebut. “Perusahaan juga melakukan intimidasi terhadap karyawan yang memiliki lahan,” tegasnya.

Dijelaskannya, bentuk intimidasi tersebut berupa mutasi ke daerah kebun yang letaknya sangat jauh seperti di Bagan Batu dan lainnya. Padahal, katanya, mutasi tersebut tidak disertai dengan adanya peningkatan jabatan.

“Ini kan sengaja. Mutasi hingga pemecatan akan diberikan oleh PTPN 3 jika tidak bersedia memberikan lahan terseut,” tegas Kasyono.

Didampingi tujug rekannya sesama petani dan Ketua Yayasan Pembangunan Masyarakat Pancasila (YPMP) Medan Suryanto, Kasyono mengungkapkan dirinya sudah 14 bulan tidak terima gaji dari PTPN 3 dan surat pemecatan juga tidak diberikan oleh perusahaan itu hanya karena tidak setuju memberikan lahan.

“Status saya di perusahaan sudah tidak jelas. PTPN memang bersedia mengganti lahan senilai Rp 4 juta per hektar. Inikan tidak masuk akal,” katanya.

Dia mengatakan, permasalahan tersebut sudah diadukan melalui surat ke Pemkab Asahan, DPRD Asahan, Gubernur Sumut, DPRD Sumut, BPN Sumut. “Kami sudah mengadukan permasalahan ini ke berbagai pihak, namun hasilnya masih nihil,” ungkapnya.

Bahkan, selain intimidasi, lanjutnya, tahun 2005 dan 2008, perusahaan telah melakukan kriminalisasi terhadap 13 orang pengurus kelompok Tani Karya Tani desa Sei Silau Barat. “13 orang itu dituduh menguasai lahan PTPN 3 tanpa izin dan dilaporkan ke Polres Asahan,” katanya.

Padahal, katanya, lahan yang ditanami 13 orang petani tersebut merupakan lahan yang telah lama dikuasai oleh petani. “Pengadilan Negeri Kisaran menjatuhkan hukuman 9 bulan percobaan dan saat ini ke13 orang tersebut masih mengajukan kasasi ke Mahkamah Agung dan saat ini masih keputusannya ditunggu,” ungkapnya.

Direktur LBH Medan Nuryono mengatakan, saat ini pihaknya tengah melakukan pendampingan awal terhadap korban. Dia menuding intimidasi yang dilakukan oleh PTPN 3 terhadap sejumlah karyawan merupakan pembuangan yang sangat sistematis.

Sementara itu, Humas PTPN 3 Irawadi saat dikonfirmasi wartawan melalui telepon membantah pihaknya telah melakukan penyerobotan lahan masyarakat. “Tidak benar itu, masalah itu kan sudah sampai ke Pemkab dan DPRD Asahan,” katanya.

Menurut Irawadi, lahan yang dikuasai warga selama ini merupakan milik PTPTN 3 yang sejak lama dikuasai oleh warga. “Lahan itu milik PTPN 3 yang telah lama dikuasai warga masyarakat. Jadi, kami mengajukan perpanjangan HGU sesuai dengan apa yang telah kami miliki sebelumnya,” tandasnya.

DEKLARASI NASIONAL SATU ABAD KEJAHATAN PERKEBUNAN SAWIT DI INDONESIA

2012-06-27T12:03:00.005+07:00

Rabu, 30 Maret 2011 13:41 | Ditulis oleh BAKUMSU | | |

Komersialisasi sawit di Indonesia dimulai sejak tahun 1911. Seiring berjalannya waktu, komersialisasi berkembang ke arah kapitalisasi perkebunan melalui ekspansi yang massif terutama 10 tahun terakhir ini. Ekspansi tersebut dipicu oleh tingginya permintaan pasar global Crude Palm Oil (CPO) baik untuk keperluan produk bahan makanan, aneka produk kosmetik maupun energi (agrofuel).

Ekspansi sawit mendapat dukungan lembaga keuangan internasional yang mendorong lahirnya berbagai kebijakan pemerintah dengan dalih peningkatan devisa negara, mengatasi krisis ekonomi, pengangguran dan pengentasan kemiskinan di pedesaan.
Saat ini luas perkebunan sawit mencapai 7,9 juta hektar, dengan komposisi ke pemilikan 65% dikuasai oleh korporasi dan 35% oleh non korporasi atau petani berdasi. Kekuatan korporasi dalam kerangka ekspansi, memperoleh dukungan dari 20 bank besar di dunia antara lain Bank Dunia (World Bank), Asian Development Bank(ADB) yang mengakibatkan hilangnya hak hidup masyarakat dan terjadinya kerusakan hutan, hancurnya ekosistem, krisis pangan dan air bersih, serta hancurnya budaya kolektif masyarakat adat.

Investasi korporasi hanya membawa derita bagi rakyat Indonesia, kerakusan industri ekstraktif, telah mematikan DAS, merusak hutan primer, lebih dari 5.000 DAS yang berada di Kawasan Taman Nasional mati akibat ekspansi perkebunan kelapa sawit. Banjir terus meningkat pengungsi setiap tahun semakin bertambah dan meluas. Sementara para pengusaha perkebunan kelapa sawit yang tergabung di dalam GAPKI hanya ingin merampas dan menguasai sumber-sumber agraria. Pemerintah telah melalaikan tugasnya untuk melindungi warga negaranya, yang seharusnya mendapatkan perlindungan yang maksimal.

Argumentasi bahwa ekspansi sawit akan menyerap tenaga kerja (buruh) dan mengentaskan kemiskinan di pedesaan merupakan suatu kebohongan. Asumsi hitungan pemerintah dan korporasi yang menyebutkan bahwa 20 juta hektar lahan perkebunan akan menyerap sekitar 10 juta buruh sangatlah jauh dari kenyataan. Fakta yang ditemukan di lapangan bahwa dalam 100 hektar lahan hanya menyerap sekitar 22 orang tenaga kerja sehingga dengan demikian dengan 20 juta hektar hanya menyerap 4,4 juta buruh.

Praktek Kuli Kontrak dibangkitkan kembali dalam bentuk baru yaitu Buruh Harian Lepas (BHL), dan tukang berondolan yang bekerja setiap hari tanpa jaminan kerja bahkan tanpa ikatan kerja yang jelas serta tidak memperoleh jaminan sosial sebagai pekerja meskipun sumbangan mereka sangat besar dalam upaya menunjang proses produksi perkebunan.

Korporasi sawit melahirkan konflik agraria terutama konflik lahan sebagai dampak kapitalisasi perkebunan. Konflik lahan merupakan warisan kolonial perkebunan yang hingga saat ini masih terus berlanjut melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanaman Modal dan Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2004 tentang Perkebunan, yang menjamin masa waktu 95 tahun bagi korporasi untuk menguasai lahan dengan tidak ada pembatasan yang jelas. Hal ini jelas-jelas merupakan kebangkitan kembali kebijakan jaman kolonial yaitu onderneeming ordonatie dan agrariche wet 1870 yang menjamin penguasaan lahan selama 75 tahun, padahal substansi dan kenyataan aturan kolonial ini sudah dikoreksi oleh UUPA. Akibatnya tidak hanya kondisi kolonialisme muncul kembali, petani miskin yang memperjuangkan tanah dan penghidupannya dari korporasi sawit pun tergusur, mereka malah seringkali dikriminalisasi. Hal ini disebabkan kemenangan korporasi sawit yang mengakibatkan seluruh wilayah republik ini dapat ditanami dengan tanaman perkebunan tanpa syarat yang mutlak.

Daya bertahan dan daya berkembang petani pangan di sekitar perkebunan sawit menurun dan bahkan terancam hilang. Pertanian pangan secara besar-besaran berganti menjadi perkebunan sawit. Akibat konversi dari tanaman pangan ke tanaman sawit menyebabkan luas lahan tanaman pangan berkurang secara signifikan yang mengakibatkan hancurnya kedaulatan pangan. Bahkan, rakyat nelayan juga terancam kehilangan mata pencahariannya karena hutan bakau tempat ikan berkumpul saat ini secara besar-besaran digantikan dengan perkebunan sawit.

Dalam menyikapi kejahatan korporasi kapitalisasi perkebunan sawit, kami Forum Masyarakat Sipil Indonesia yang tergabung dalam Konferensi Alternatif Satu Abad Sawit menyatakan sikap:

- Hentikan ekspansi perkebunan sawit;
- Cabut Undang Undang Nomor 18 tahun 2004 tentang Perkebunan dan Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanaman Modal;
- Mendesak pemerintah untuk mengembalikan tanah rakyat yang dirampas oleh korporasi perkebunan sawit dan menyerukan kepada rakyat untuk merebut kembali tanahnya yang dirampas oleh korporasi sawit;
- Pemerintah harus menyediakan lahan untuk pertanian pangan;
- Mendesak kepada Bank Internasional, Bank Nasional dan Bank Asing untuk menghentikan kredit kepada korporasi dalam rangka ekspansi sawit;
- Menghentikan sistem perbudakan modern yaitu buruh murah dalam bentuk Buruh Kontrak, Buruh Harial Lepas di industri perkebunan kelapa sawit.

Medan, 28 Maret 2011

Lentera, KPS, Bakumsu, ELSAM, Bitra, Walhi-SU, Sahdar, Sawit Watch, Elsaka, Hapsari, Kontras Sumut, KOTIB, Petra, PBHI, LBH Medan, KSPPM, KPA, SPKS, BPRPI, Sintesa, SPI (La Via Campesina Indonesia), Jala, Gemawan Kalbar, Walhi Kaltim, Setara Jambi, JKMA Aceh, Jikalahari Riau,YPMP, Formatsu, WABPIS, FOKKER LSM Papua, ADS, JPIC MSC dan Green Peace

JAGA WIBAWA DAN INPENDENSI PERADILAN PERKARA ADLIN LIS

2012-06-27T12:02:00.002+07:00

October 30, 2007 · Filed under

RELEASE PERS :
JAGA WIBAWA DAN INPENDENSI PERADILAN PERKARA ADLIN LIS
(Walhi Sumut-Medan : 28-10-2007)
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia Sumatera Utara (WALHI Sumut) sebagai organisasi non pemerintah yang konsern terhadap penyelematan LH, yang memiliki 45 Anggota NGO/LSM yang tersebar di Kabupaten di Sumatera Utara tetap mengawal dan meminta sikap tegas dari Pengadilan yang menyidangkan perkara perambahan hutan yang dilakukan oleh Adlin Lis,dkk. Pada tanggal 29 Oktober 2007 (besok) akan dilakukan sidang lanjutan dengan agenda pembelaan oleh Pembela Adlin Lis di PN Medan. Pada sidang sebelumnya kita mengikuti langsung dan dengan seksama bahwa Adlin Lis dituntut 10 tahun penjara oleh Jaksa Penuntut Umum di Pengadilan. Tuntutan Jaksa ini sangat tidak sesuai dan tidak sebanding dengan kerusakan hutan dan dampak lingkungan yang ditimbulkan dari tindakan eksploitasi yang di lakukan oleh perusahaan KNDI dan Inanta Timber di Kecamatan Natal Kabupaten Mandailing Natal. Kami sangat menyesalkan pada tuntutan JPU hanya mendalilkan pada 2 (dua) UU yakni UU Kehutanan dan Korupsi. Padahal dampak kerusakan lingkungan hidup seperti kerusakan daerah aliran sungai (DAS), perubahan iklim mikro, kehilangan vegetasi (pohon), kehilangan daerah resapan air dan sumber air bagi pertanian warga di sepanjang DAS tidak mendapat perhatian serius, ujar Hardi Munthe Direktur WALHI Sumut di Medan (28/10/2007). Tuntutan JPU sesungguhnya bisa lebih berat bahkan lebih dari 15 tahun jika JPU piawai dan professional dalam menerapkan sanksi pidana lingkungan hidup sebagaimana diatur dalam UU No.23 tahun 1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup. Jika UU LH ini diterapkan maka tuntutan JPU akan semakin memberatkan karena perbuatan pidana dilakukan secara sistematis oleh badan hukum dalam kasus oleh perusahaan Keangnam Development Indonesia) dan IT (Inanta Timber) dan terhadap jajaran pemberi perintah dalam perusahaan dimaksud. Untuk itu Hakim jangan hanya terpaku pada tuntutan JPU dan hakim dapat memberikan sanksi yang lebih berat dengan menerapkan UU LH, tambah Mangaliat Simarmata, SH Direktur Bantuan Hukum dan Advokasi Rakyat Sumatera Utara (BAKUMSU) bersama Hardi Munthe Tahun 2006 s/d 2007 Peradilan Hukum Kasus-Kasus Hutan dan Lingkungan Hidup di Sumatera Utara terhadap Mafia/Intelektual Terorganisir Masih Menunjukkan Rangking Paling Buruk dan Hanya Mampu Melakukan Vonis Bebas dan Pilih Tebang serta Tebang Pilih. Azas kepatutan, keadilan dan kepastian bagi rakyat nampaknya belum benar-benar dilakukan di negeri Indonesia ini. Hukum nampaknya masih diperlakukan bagi kaum lemah dan rakyat jelata tapi bagi kapitalis, borjuis dan kaum punya diut tidak tersentuh sama sekali. Pada tahun 2006 ada 56 orang Petani Simalungun yang dijerat hukum karena dituduh merambah hutan, 22 orang diantaranya divonis bersalah dan dipenjarakan oleh PN Simalungun. Kami menyerukan kepada Hakim dan Jaksa agar mampu berlaku adil dan memberikan sanksi yang seberat-beratnya kepada Adlin Lis, jangan hanya kepada rakyat kecil saja hukum diperlakukan tegas dan berat, desak Ir. Agus Marpaung dan Tri Utomo dari Perhimpunan Petani Pinggiran Kawasan Hutan(P3KH-Simalungun) yang merupakan mitra kerja WALHI Sumut. Dampak penegakan hukum yang tidak adil menimbulkan kesan kepercayaan public terhadap hukum semakin menipis. Padahal kerusakan hutan dan lingkungan yang telah menimbulkan banjir.longsor dan bencana kekeringan belum pernah ada terdakwanya. Kita berharap berbagai bencana lingkungan seperti longsor, banjir dan kekeringan dapat dipertimbangkan pengadilan (Hakim dan Jaksa) dalam memutus perkara perambahan hutan untuk memberatkan. Banjir Bahorok 2003 sampai sekarang tidak ada terdakwanya dan terkesan kita hanya menyalahkan alam dan mengesankan takdir dari Tuhan. Padahal kerusakan hutan di berbagai tempat telah menimbulkan penderitaan karena ulah manusia itu sendiri. Untuk itu Aparat Hukum harus bisa memberikan sanksi yang tegas dan berat kepada Adlin Lis, dkk untuk menunjukkan supremasi hukum dapat ditegakkan, ujar Edi Suriatno dari YPMP (Yayasan Pembangunan Masyarakat Pancasila, selaku Anggota WALHI Sumut yang berbasis di Langkat) di Medan (28/10/2007). Kasus perambahan hutan yang dilakukan oleh Adlin Lis, dkk (KNDI dan IT:red) merupakan sorotan dunia dan menjadi barometer penegakan hukum lingkungan dan ujian bagi peradilan di Indonesia khususnya di Sumatera Utara. Menurut catatan WALHI Sumut tahun 2006 s/d 2007 ada 11 kasus vonis bebas bagi pelaku perusak hutan (destructive logging). Wibawa dan citra pengadilan khususnya Hakim yang menyidangkan perkara ini sangat dipertaruhkan. Kami meminta agar Hakim tetap menjaga independesi dan tidak terpengaruh oleh pembelaan yang dilakukan oleh kuasa hukum Adlin Lis dalam persidangan kasus ini, tegas Hardi Munthe. Wibawa dan Independesi peradilan di Indonesia dapat memperbaiki citra Indonesia di dunia Internasional khususnya dalam pemberantasan pembalakan hutan dan penyelamatan hutan yang semakin menipis. Perlu diketahui Indonesia ditunjuk sebagai tuan rumah Pertemuan Internasional Perubahan Iklim Global yang akan dilakukan di Bali Desember 2007 mendatang. Pertemuan strategis ini terkait penting dengan kondisi hutan di Indonesia. Inilah menjadi ujin berat bagi Aparat Hukum, Pemerintah dan Rakyat Indonesia ketika penggancuran hutan yang dilakukan dengan modus legal dan illegal terus terjadi dimana pengawasan dan sanksi yang ketat dan tegas masih terus dipertanyakan. Untuk itu WALHI Sumut dengan tegas menyatakan Hakim dan Jaksa tidak bermain-main dan tetap independen dalam kasus Adlin Lis ini untuk menunjukkan martabat dan wibawa hukum kita ke dunia Internasional, tegas Hardi Munthe mengakhiri pernyataanya.

Human Right's in North Sumatera on 1993

2012-06-23T21:56:00.001+07:00

Human Rights in North Sumatra

THE CASE OF LOCAL TRANSMIGRANTS (TRANSLOK) FROM SEI LEPAN

On March 25-26, 1993, 198 villagers from the village of Sei Lepan were detained, accused of damaging a police station in a district north of Medan that borders on the special region of Aceh. There were reports of torture and at least two detainees were reported to have died in
custody. As of September, armed military guards were denying entry to those wishing to investigate the situation in Sei Lepan. They were also restricting villagers from leaving the area to acquire basic food and medical supplies. Many of the detainees had been released by September, but 174 people remained in custody.

The origin of these events goes ten years to a struggle by settlers to claim land ownership rights that had long been promised to them by the government. But control over the
land, instead of being granted to the settlers, was given to a private business operating in collusion with the local government and military.

The settlers were originally from villages not far from Sei Lepan. In April 1982, they were moved by a government transmigration program to the disputed site in an attempt
to curb unofficial land use in the area. Each transmigran lokal or translok was promised two hectares of workable land, a house, and a monthly stipend. In 1986, the 500 transmigrant families protested to the Ministry of Transmigration that the government had not met its
obligations, and that they were unable to cultivate the infertile soil. The Ministry responded that its responsibility ended in April 1984, when the area was transferred formally to the control of the local government.

In January 1989, after six years of unsuccessfully trying to obtain land ownership certificates and to earn a living from the soil, the transmigrants learned that their land had been slated by the district head for development by a company named P.T. Anugrah Langkat Makmur (PT.ALM). Underthe terms of the agreement, which was signed by the district head, or district head, and the president of PT. ALM on January 24, 1989, with no villagers present, the company was to be responsible for developing a commercial oil palm plantation, and for providing housing and a package of social services. After the three years, the
participants of this program would be given the profits from selling the harvest, less any outstanding debts. The harvest would have to be sold to PT. ALM. In the meantime, all participants would receive a salary for working on the plantation.

Of the 500 translok families, 135 were excluded from the official agreement because they had at some point left their homes to look for work, preventing them from receiving any benefits that might accrue from the use of the land. The plantation, which was supposed to provide
employment and eventually profit-sharing, was never able to employ more than 20 percent of the villagers, and these at reportedly substandard wages. For these reasons, the
villagers were opposed to the presence of PT. ALM in Sei Lepan from the start..

On July 3, 1989, PT. ALM began, with no prior warning, to plow under cropland and productive trees, such as rubber and coconut trees, that belonged to the transmigrants. In
September 1991, they increased the amount of land bulldozed for plantation use, despite an order from the district head to leave 1,104 hectares of the villagers’ land untouched. Around this time the villagers were invited to a meeting by PT. ALM. An attendance sheet that
was passed around and signed by the villagers was subsequently and without their knowledge affixed to a cover letter surrendering all land rights to PT. ALM, and was subsequently notarized. With this fraudulent document, PT. ALM took control of even more village land and easily secured additional bank credit.

During this period oil palms were planted not just on former farmland, but also in the yards of houses and even the grounds of village churches and mosques. As many as 135 families left Sei Lepan at that time. Of those remaining, a small percentage worked on the plantation.

On September 7, 1991, PT. ALM ordered the village head to dismantle all houses that had been left vacant by villagers who had left the area to search for employment, and warned that they should not be rebuilt. Nine days later, a delegation of villagers brought their complaints
to the headquarters of the Indonesian Farmers’ Association (Himpunan Kerukunan Tani Indonesia — HKTI) in Jakarta. HKTI requested that the National Land Bureau (Biro Pertanahan Nasional — BPN) send a team out to PT. ALM to resolve the situation. Tension mounted over the following months as villagers were not allowed to replant their own
crops and trees that had been destroyed by the company, nor were they allowed to harvest from the company’s trees. Since 1989, reports had been reaching WIM, a Medan-based
forum of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), that the villagers were once again nearly without food.

In May 1992, several incidents of attempted kidnapping by plantation security guards, interpreted by some villagers as attempts to intimidate them from speaking out against
PT. ALM, fueled resentment among the villagers. On May 11, 1992, a Sei Lepan neighborhood official, Misnan Saragih (a transmigrant himself), forced the company office to close.
On May 19-20, 1992, a company office building in the Alur Dua neighborhood and fourteen of the employee housing blocks were burned down. Five of the employees were beaten
up, according to reports from the company. Twenty-one families (108 people) of transmigrants who were also plantation employees left the area and took refuge at the
Pangkalan Brandan police station for the next nine months.

On July 2, 1992, in an effort to resolve the conflict, the district head promised to issue all land certificates to all villagers and to end the relationship between Sei Lepan and PT. ALM. This withdrawal would be based on negotiations with the company. The villagers affirmed their rejection of the presence of PT. ALM in the village, and agreed to compensate the company for the oil palms, based on an independent evaluation of their worth. Subsequent negotiations were carried out in December 1992.

By March 1993, the village was facing food shortages for the third time since 1983. They received some assistance from YPMP (Yayasan Pembangunan Masyarakat Pancasila -
Pancasila Community Development Foundation), a small NGO that had taken an interest in the case. Natsir Silalahi, its head, visited several times bringing sacks of rice. They received no assistance from the local government or PT. ALM. Seeing the oil palms going unharvested while they were going hungry, yet aware that they were not allowed to harvest the palms according to the terms of the original agreement between the district head and PT. ALM, they informed the authorities of the situation, first by sending a letter on March 11 and then through several visits. On March 14, 1993, a regional government official from the Langkat district, Drs. Sofyan Nasution, announced to the transmigrants, “We will not order you or forbid you. Do anything that you see fit as good citizens.” The apparent permission from the regional government came as a relief to the transmigrants, and they began to harvest the palms.

On March 23, 1993, after four previous, uneventful trips, a truck carrying several tons of coconuts was stopped by the police. Two villagers from Sei Lepan, Zulkifli Sitepu
and Ahmad Surbakti, were arrested together with the driver. A delegation of villagers came to the police station that day and the next, asking that the two be allowed to come home for Idul Fitri, the holiday marking the end of the Muslim fasting month. Two Christians volunteered to take their place, but they were refused.

It is still unclear what actually occurred on March 25. In the morning, according to one account, the wives of the two detainees went to the Pangkalan Brandan police station but were turned away and told that their husbands had already been moved to the Langkat district police command in Binjai. Rumors began circulating that the two had been killed and dumped in the Aceh River.

In the charge-sheet against one group of villagers, the prosecution claims that five men, including Misnan Saragih, the village official mentioned above, held a meeting on the morning of March 25 at which they decided to forcibly free the two detainees. (No witness testimony is cited to confirm that meeting). At about 3 p.m., the five went to the Pangkalan Brandan police station and asked to meet with the two men. One police officer who
testified said his colleagues refused, not mentioning this time that the detainees had already been transferred.

The sounding of a drum at 6 p.m. that evening was the signal for some 200 villagers to board three buses and head for the Pangkalan Brandan police station. (Some villagers report that they joined the group because Misnan Saragih and Misnan Jawa, another villager, had threatened to burn down the houses of anyone who did not do so.) At 8:30 p.m., the prosecution continues, the crowd moved on the station, led by two of the men urging the rest to attack and destroy it. One policeman took a megaphone and ordered the crowd to disperse and go home. He was stabbed, according to the charge-sheet against one group of detainees, and three motorcycles were damaged.

At dawn the next morning, March 26, 1993, some 100 troops from subdistrict military command (Koramil) and the military police (CPM) arrived at the police station,
joined by the Major-General of the Bukit Barisan Command, the North Sumatra regional police chief, a mobile unit of the army (BRIMOB), and the airborne unit LINUD 100/NS.
Police and soldiers then began to load the villagers into trucks, beating them with guns. The police claim to have arrested only 60 villagers, stating the rest came along for solidarity with those arrested. LBH and other NGO estimates put the number arrested at the station at 194 people.

The following day, police came to Sei Lepan and arrested 52 villagers, subsequently releasing all but four. The final total arrested was 198 villagers, including 142 men,
43 women, and 13 children. Following the arrests, 17 of those arrested had to be taken to police hospitals and one woman had a miscarriage, according to an NGO coalition
called Forum Solidaritas Untuk Masyarakat Sei Lepan. Children were separated from their parents, reportedly including two children under the age of five, and detained. Natsir Silalahi, the head of YPMP, had visited the village to celebrate the holidays on the March 25, and
on now learning he was being sought, fled the province.

At least seven of the villagers were then charged with disturbing the peace, carrying weapons, inciting the masses, and destroying property: Rajiman Silalahi alias Situngkir (35); Sanwaridi (50); Saut Hutasoit (50); Anwar Taringan (61); Marion Hutasoit; Pinondang Pangaribuan (47); and Misnan Saragih (41). At least one innocent bystander was reportedly caught up in the mass arrest: Krisman Simumora was passing by the police station on his motorcycle on the morning of March 26. He was arrested shortly after he stopped to see the crowd in front of the station. He is thought to be still in detention.

According to lawyers of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (LBH), as of September the detainees remained in several prisons, without access to legal counsel of
their choice. Police Chief Lieutenant General Banurusman said in June that some 48 villagers remain in detention, and that they could receive regular visits from family
members. In addition, he contended that the detainees did not want to be represented by LBH, and “if they don’t want [LBH], we can’t force them.”

In an article dated April 21, 1993, Police Lieutenant Colonel Leo Sukardi explained that the detainees had not been allowed to consult with lawyers because “if the suspects were assisted by legal advisors it would interfere with the results of the investigation.” The Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) pointed out that this is in direct conflict not only with international standards of justice, but with Indonesia’s own Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which states that “suspects have the right to legal assistance…for the length of and at each stage of
he investigation.”

A rationale similar to the one above is used to explain the placement of guard posts manned by military (KODIM 0203 Langkat) and plantation personnel all around Sei Lepan soon after the March 25 incident. According to a June statement by the military, checkposts restricting
entry to the area of Sei Lepan have remained in place because police investigations are still under way. H. Anif, president of PT. ALM, asserted that the posts are in place at the villagers’ request, to protect them from third parties. The posts require that all travelers into
and out of the village bring letters of permission from the proper authorities.

Eyewitness reports from a villager who had fled the area and returned on two separate dates state that by May 15, 15 more houses had been destroyed and PT. ALM was back in
the area. By July 11, the same man reported, 100 houses had been destroyed by PT. ALM, another 100 people had fled, and the company was terrorizing those who stayed,
mostly women and children. Others reported that families who had family members in detention were being evicted from their houses. Those plantation workers who had left
the village the previous year were back. Strangers were reported to be living in the houses of some of those detained. Most alarming, in April a Sei Lepan woman whose
husband was in detention was raped by seven men wearing masks, and her house was robbed. Because security was so tight in the area, villagers believe that the men, who made reference to the fact that the woman’s husband was in prison, must have been employees of the plantation or gained access to the area with the knowledge of security guards.

One villager told Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) investigators that on April 12, officials from the police, military, the district head’s office, and PT. ALM came and told
villagers “[n]o one can help you, not even LBH.” Returning from a fact-finding visit, LBH and other NGO representatives encountered the military, who instructed
them to check in with the district military commander at the house of H. Anif, the president of PT. ALM. They were questioned at length and noted that Anif, although a
civilian, gave direct orders to low-level military personnel and did much of the talking while military officers stayed quiet, despite the fact that LBH had been summoned specifically to report to the officers.

The detainees were divided into twenty-two groups, with from five to ten people per dossier. Two of the dossiers were assigned to LBH although the legal aid lawyers were
not granted access to their clients outside of the courtroom. In June, some of the detainees were charged with offenses including committing acts of violence and
carrying illegal weapons. In the charge for one dossier, reference is made to the fact that three of the thirteen suspects claim they signed their interrogation depositions
because they were afraid of being hit by the police investigators, and one suspect claims he signed the deposition without being allowed to read it first. The prosecution rejected these arguments on the grounds that

1) the fear of being hit is not the same as being tortured;

2) previous abuse by arresting officers is irrelevant to the investigation proper, and

3) investigators assert there was no intimidation and all suspects knew the contents of their interrogation depositions. Such an argument illustrates the casual
acceptance of some form of physical abuse in criminal justice, and further indicates the willingness of Indonesian courts to admit depositions obtained through coercion.

LBH responded to the charges by stating that the investigation was not valid because no lawyers were provided in accordance with Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Code; therefore the case based on the investigation is invalid (vernietigbar).

Developments Through September

In July, August, and September many of the villagers who left Sei Lepan tried to return to their homes. There are reports that their entrance was prevented by the security blockades. On September 15, a group of 58 villagers were stopped from entering, though no clear reason was given. Two days later, Anif held a meeting in the village and reportedly encouraged some of the villagers to protest violently against the return of others who had left for
reasons of safety or economic need. On the following September 20-21, hundreds of villagers attempted to return to Sei Lepan in order to speak to an investigative team from Coordinating Minister for Politics and Security, but were sent away by the military and security guards
surrounding the village. As of September 23, there were reportedly 125 villagers, mostly women, now waiting outside the gate, unable to return to their homes. The village was guarded by three military posts and two civilian defense posts.

On September 23, 24 villagers (18 women and 6 men) were released from Tanjung Pura and Binjai prisons. Eight of them joined the temporary camp of villagers waiting to return to their homes. Asia Watch has received reports that on October 23, 40 more prisoners were to be released, 17 from the Tanjungpura prison and 23 from Binjai. On September 25, Mangiring Sihombing was taken from prison to the hospital to be treated for rib injuries. A detainee
named Sukri, once feared dead, has been returned to the Binjai prison from the hospital, but his condition is worrying, and he reportedly still constantly bleeds from the nose.

CONCLUSIONS

The Sei Lapan case also involved harassment and expulsion of former detainees and their relatives from their own homes, in direct violation of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting arbitrary interference with home and family.
All villagers not in detention must be allowed to return without harassment to their houses and land in accordance with this principle. Posts guarded by armed military and
plantation personnel restrict the freedom of movement of inhabitants.

Underlying both these cases is the lack of an effective system of redress when government officials, either military or civilian, are involved in committing injustices. In the Sei Lapan case, the military, local government, and business interests colluded to deprive the transmigrants of land. The presence of local or regional military command at all meetings between villagers and PT. ALM, the close relationship between PT. ALM’s executive officer H. Anif and local military commanders, and the post-arrest intimidation of villagers by the military and plantation guards show how deeply the armed forces were involved in this case. Despite a decade of organized delegations and letters to local, regional, and national
offices, villagers were given no valid assistance and nothing but casual promises to investigate at a later date. As long as villagers cannot turn to independent and impartial courts for effective remedy in such situations, further conflicts are likely to occur.

Contact Us

2011-04-27T14:29:00.002+07:00