page contents

Thursday, July 27, 2006

The Law on Governing Aceh (LoGA) violates the Helsinki MoU

"GoI and GAM will not undertake any action inconsistent with the letter or spirit of this Memorandum of Understanding."(The Key and Last Paragraph of the Helsinki MoU).
The Law on Aceh Government (LoGA), which the Parliament of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR-RI) enacted on 11 July 2006 in Jakarta, should have been not only a law product but must have related as well to the commitment of GoI and GAM to a peaceful, comprehensive, sustainable solution to the conflict in Aceh, with dignity for all, as stipulated in the very first paragraph of the Helsinki MoU. The hope for a lasting peace in Aceh will depend on the Law on Governing Aceh (MoU) that complies fully with the MoU. If the said LoGA complies fully with the Helsinki MoU, God Willing, peace, justice and good governance will certainly hold in Aceh. On the contrary, a law that deviates, in letter or in spirit with the Helsinki MoU will threaten peace that is clearly taking root today in Acheh, and will not produce good governance and justice, but will perpetuate the status quo of corruption and mismanagement.
Critically and legally analyzed, one will find in the LoGA that was enacted in the plenary session of the DPR-RI on 11 July 2006; a number of basic principles, contents and points (articles, phrases, and letters) which are not only in contravention of the Helsinki MoU but in some cases in contradiction with one another, creating anomalies and confusion in its implementation later. Examples of such violations and contradictions are given hereunder:
1. The exclusion, in the Reference and Consideration of the LoGA, of the Helsinki MoU as a philosophical and political basis of the LoGA to create a lasting peace in Aceh; that the creation of the LoGA is indeed for the purpose of making it possible to implement the MoU.
2. The exclusion of geological and political boundaries of Aceh, that clearly stated in the Artcile 1.1.4 of the Helsinki MoU, being corresponding to the map of Acheh dated 1 July 1956; it is stipulated in the LoGA (Article 3)as in the coordinate of 20 - 60 north-latitude and 950 – 980 south-latitude.
3. Under the LoGA, the government of the Republic of Indonesia will still be able to intervene in the governing of Aceh by the Government of Aceh through the formation specially designated areas in Aceh (Article 4 of the LoGA and point 1.1.2 (a) of Helsinki MoU); The limitation of the powers of the Central Government in Aceh to the 6 points mentioned in this article of the MoU has been ignored.
4. The inclusion of several authorities held by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia in addition to the 6 authorities stipulated in the Helsinki MoU (Article 7 (2) of the LoGA and point 1.1.2 (a) of Helsinki MoU).
5. The changing of the word "consent" in the MoU to "consideration" in the LoGA on the policies taken by the Central Government and Parliament with regards Acheh (Article 8 of the LoGA and points 1.1.2 (b), (c) and (d) of the Helsinki MoU); This is one of the fatal modifications as far as compliance of the MoU is concerned.
6. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia will still be able to intervene in the governing of Acheh and to interfere in the authorities of the Aceh Government by imposing the "national norms, standard, and procedures" of control. Such regulations and control set the stage for the proverbial "freeing the head but holding the tail". (Article 11 of the LoGA and point 1.1.2 (a) of the Helsinki MoU). This article of the LoGA would place too broad authority on the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to control the authorities of Aceh government as stipulated in the subsequent articles of the LoGA.
7. The management of natural resources as stipulated in the Helsinki MoU should be in full control of the Aceh Government and not just on an authority rendered to the Aceh Government that could be withdrawn later at the will of the Central Government as stipulated in the LoGA. (Article 156 of the LoGA);
8. The management of gas and oil resources is stipulated in the Helsinki MoU to be under the full authority of the Government of Aceh and not to be jointly managed by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and Aceh as stipulated in the Article 160 of the LoGA;
9. The role of TNI under the LoGA is not defined in accordance with the stipulation of the MoU as being for external defense but blurred with the term 'state defense'. This is a clear and dangerous violation, it being the core principle of the peace process. Any possible interference in the civilian life in Aceh by the military will undoubtedly create tension in the population that has been living in deep trauma of military oppression (Article 202 of the LoGA and point 4.11 of the Helsinki MoU).
10. The stationing of TNI troops at their bases (no longer at subdistrict, district, combined-districts regiments and provincial headquarters) only for the purpose of external defense, is not stipulated in the LoGA (Aticle 202 and point 4.11 of the Helsinki MoU);
11. It is clearly defined in the MoU that civilian offenses by the military will be referred to civilian courts. This stipulation has been omitted in the LoGA. (Article 203 of LoGA and point 1.4.5 of Helsinki MoU);
12. The position of the Wali Nanggroe is defined only as a traditional and cultural institution, which is against the spirit of the stipulation of the MoU (Article 96 of the LoGA and point 1.1.7 of the Helsinki MoU);
13. The human rights court defined in the LoGA is even less authoritative than stipulated in the Law no. 26/2000 for the whole of Indonesia; in the LoGA, retroactivity is not allowed, as it covers only offenses after the signing of this law. Such stipulation is clearly military inspired in order to free the serious crimes against humanity perpetrated by the military during the conflict in Aceh (Article 227 of the LoGA and point 2.2 of the Helsinki MoU);
14. The LoGA does not stipulate any guarantee for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that is in accordance to the International Conventions of the United Nations as clearly stipulated in the Helsinki MoU (point 2.1 of the Helsinki MoU);
15. The old terminologies such as "province" of the Special autonomy Status system that have been clearly excluded in the Helsinki MoU are being re-introduced in the LoGA. Such usage is in contradiction with the stipulation of the LoGA itself that the name of Aceh will be determined by the local parliament in 2009, and meanwhile any reference to Aceh should use the word Aceh only without any other epithet.
16. The status of the Qanun that will be the local law in Aceh enacted by the local parliament is vaguely defined, and always accompanied on every clause and article by the phrase "based on the law in force and the constitution" of the Republic of Indonesia, giving the Indonesian Government the power to abrogate it at will if it feels that a Qanun law is against any Indonesian law, without the necessity of referring the matter to the Supreme Court. Such stipulation is a step backward compared even to the rejected "Special Autonomy Status" stipulation under the Law No.18/20001.
Other than those examples mentioned above, there are many more which are less important violations that rendered the LoGA even less autonomic for Aceh than under then provided by Laws No. 18/2001 on Special Autonomy of Aceh, No. 32/2004 on Regional Government and No 26/2000 on Human Rights Court.
It is understood that the GAM has signed the Helsinki MoU in good faith, believing the assurance of the Government of Indonesia's side that the Party in power that it represents (GOLKAR) is in majority control of the Parliament and that any proposal it made would be accepted by Parliament. In fact it would have appeared indeed to be so; the violations of the MoU were already there the LoGA Bill (RUU-PA) before being presented by the Government to Parliament. In at least one case, it is the Government that overruled the wish of Parliament.
The Parliament wanted to give full controlof the oil and gas resources to Aceh, but it is the Government that opposed this, stipulating instead a joint control. It is not the question of "democractic _expression" of the Parliament that is the problem, but non-compliance by the Government itself. If the government of Indonesia remains unwilling to revise or amends these violations of the MoU by the the LoGA in order to agree fully with the stipulations of the Helsinki MoU, it is then become a matter of necessity for the people of Aceh to take a firm decision to reject the UU-PA (LoGA).
Furthermore, the effort to refer this matter to the Dispute Settlement mechanism as stipulated under the Mou, for GAM and GoI to renegotiate the solution under the mediation of the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) and the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI), in order to find a good way out in order to safeguard the peace process, must be supported by the entire people of Aceh and the international community. ============================
Nasruddin Abubakar Presidium Council of

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

History of modern Islamic banking

The first modern experiment with Islamic banking was undertaken in Egypt under cover, without projecting an Islamic image, for fear of being seen as a manifestation of Islamic fundamentalism which was anathema to the political regime. The pioneering effort, led by Ahmad El Najjar, took the form of a savings bank based on profit-sharing in the Egyptian town of Mit Ghamr in 1963. This experiment lasted until 1967 (Ready 1981), by which time there were nine such banks in the country.
Study more about islamic banking and management to whom may interested in syariah banking (Islamic Banking) which is spread out all over the world, this banking are booming in Asia, Middle East and it all here

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Story of da Past - Where R U Came From -

Were Are We Came From? – Africa – Struggle for Existence Among the various groups of primitive people that Africa is home to the African Bushmen have inhabited the Dark Continent for at least 20.000 years. Basically hunter, the Kalahari deserts is their home ground.
Were Are We Came From? – India – Match of Unequal Days after Tsunami of December 2004, a muscular, naked man on one of tiny island of Andamans, threatened a helicopter hovering above with drawn bow and arrow. For millions of people who watched him on TV, the threat perhaps looked comical. But for this indigenous man of North sentinel Island, however, and for hundreds of other man, women and children hiding from civilization in deep jungles and remote islands around the world, hostility to other humans is necessary for survival itself.
Were Are We Came From? - Arctic – Hunter of the Arctic Two groups of people live in the Arctic – the Eskimos (Inupiat group) and the scientist, thought the later are later arrivals. New – age technology has found its place in the lives many Arctic people, but without the tradition knowledge of subsistence, life in Arctic is near impossible. The Inupiat are a group of Eskimo in Arctic Alaska, living mainly on Point Barrow.
Where Are We Came From? – Native American – Victim of Genocide With an estimate population of six million people, Native Americans make up two per cent of the US population. A minority of US Native Americans live on Indian reservations. In Canada, they are known as First Nations and make up approximately three per cent of the Canadian population.

(UNORC) New Vacany... Start 12 July..

Office of the United Nations Recovery Coordinator for Aceh and Nias Job code title: Office Helper Duration: 6 months Duty Station: Banda Aceh Organization: UNORC Closing date: 19 July 2006 Background: The Office of the United Nations Recovery Coordinator for Aceh and Nias (UNORC) was established in September 2005 to support the Government of Indonesia. As the Government has taken a strong lead in the post-emergency phase with the establishment of the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency for Aceh and Nias (BRR), it is imperative that UNORC takes responsibility for facilitating strong coordination among the UN Agencies, the international NGO community, and bilateral donors in full and timely support of the Government’s reconstruction and recovery efforts. Staffed by personnel from the UN Secretariat and various UN Agencies, UNORC serves as the main point of contact between the UN system, BRR and Provincial and District Governments. UNORC aims to facilitate a unified United Nations system approach, to put into place structures for coordination at all levels, to minimize gaps in the response and provide linkages and strategic policy that transcend all sectors. UNORC is also deeply committed to incorporate the principle of equity into the recovery efforts, with a particular focus on protecting and advocating on behalf of the vulnerable. UNORC works with many partners and continues to strengthen its field presence to overcome pressing issues in Aceh and Nias. Duties and Responsibilities: · Ensure the office regularly cleaned (inside/outside) every day · Prepare drinks for office guest and staff members; · Prepare meeting refreshment and cleaning the table · Arrive to the office 30 minute earlier than other staff member · Performs other duties as required. Qualification requirements: · Local Acehnese is preferable · Nice personality; · Diligent and trustworthy Interested candidates should send there applications and CV’s to the address below quoting the position title. UNORC Jl. Jendral Sudirman No. 15 Geuceu Iniem Banda Aceh e-mail:

Sunday, July 09, 2006

ACEH: Activists launch first local political party

James Balowski, Jakarta On March 16, left-wing Acehnese political activists publicly launched the Acehnese Peoples Party Preparatory Committee (KP-PRA), which they hope will provide the basis for establishing the first local political party. The launch — held at a restaurant in the provincial capital of Banda Aceh — was attended by around 600 KP-PRA supporters. Also present were representatives of Acehnese mass organisations and Juha Christensen from the Aceh Monitoring Mission. The launch heard greetings from a number of Acehnese and Indonesian organisations as well as solidarity messages from political parties in Malaysia, Bolivia, Venezuela and Germany. According to the March 17 website, KP-PRA chairperson Thamrin Ananda said that the group has already established representative offices in 11 regencies across Aceh, including in Banda Aceh, Greater Aceh, Sigli, Bireun, North Aceh, Lhokseumawe, Central Aceh, West Aceh, Nagan Raya and South Aceh. The KP-PRA is aiming to establish a presence in 12 regencies in order to fulfil the administrative requirements to establish a new political party. According to the March 16 Aceh Kita daily, Ananda said that the idea of forming KP-PRA was a response to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) in Helsinki on August 15, and the a decision reached at the Acehnese Popular Democratic Resistance Front (FPDRA) congress in February to encourage its activists to form a local Acehnese party. It is still unclear however if the draft law on a government for Aceh currently being debated by the House of Representatives will allow the formation of local parties. Speaking with, Ananda said that if after the draft law on a government for Aceh is ratified, “local parties are accommodated in accordance with the Helsinki MoU, then next August we will proclaim the KP-PRA as a local party in Aceh”. Ananda went on to explain that if it turns out that local parties cannot be formed, the KP-PRA will affiliate with one of the existing national political parties that has the same vision and program. He emphasised that such a party would have to be one seeking to create “a government that is clean, democratic, popular and free from foreign intervention”. On March 21, Ananda told Green Left Weekly that one of the other reasons PRA supporters had chosen to first launch a preparatory committee was to give an opportunity to other groups and individuals to join and participate in the KP-PRA's congress in August — so that they can be actively involved in deciding the party's program. Ananda said that there has been a “very positive response from ordinary Acehnese to the initiative", in particular from students, teachers and nurses’ groups. He said that KP-PRA’s main support was among the small farmers who make up the majority of the population and who were most affected by the 30-year armed conflict between Indonesia and GAM. Ananda told GLW that, although there are still problems with bureaucratic obstacles, since the signing of the MoU there has been a dramatic decline in the level of repression and an opening up of democratic space. When asked about the threat of militia groups and the February 17 attack on the offices of the Aceh Referendum Information Centre, he said that while the government has failed to disband or disarm the right-wing militias, their activities have been largely restricted to Central Aceh. “Certainly, militia groups still exist but they are not very visible and largely inactive and their activities are in no way as bad as during the period of martial law and civil emergency when they could count on the open backing of the military and police.” Ananda also explained that the massive influx of aid money for reconstruction has created a scramble among local capitalists to link up with foreign capital in competition with Indonesian capital from outside of Aceh. “This is one of the main reasons sections of the Jakarta elite supported the peace process, to promote their own business activities in Aceh. As a result, this massive inflow of money has done nothing to improve the standard of living of the majority of Acehnese people. That is why the Acehnese people need a local political party such as KP-PRA as a concrete vehicle to defend the people's future.” From Green Left Weekly, March 29, 2006.