Bebas Sebebas Bebasnya

Penahanan aktivis HAM oleh pemerintah China adalah bentuk ketakutan yang sangat berlebihan dan tidak beralasan sama sekali. Nampaknya phobia terhadap mereka yang menyuarakan hak asasi manusia masih berlaku di sana.

Bagaimana dengan kita di sini (Indonesia) ?
1. Bebas mengeluarkan pendapat
2. Bebas berkumpul dan berserikat
3. Bebas sebebas-bebasnya
4. Sebebas-bebasnya bebas
5. Bebas dan bebas
6. Semaunya bebas
7. Bebas semaunya, dan
8. Dan sebebasnya
9. … (silahkan ditambah sesuai selera) 🙂

5 tanggapan untuk “Bebas Sebebas Bebasnya

  1. The Government understood better idea of referendum in Papua For Wholeness Indonesia
    Larger Smaller Reset

    REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAYAPURA – Central Government and the Government of Papua and West Papua province were asked to quickly, discreetly and with a sincere heart for the people of Papua, assesses, explore and respond positively to demand a referendum which delivered most of the people of Papua recently by integrity of the land of Papua in the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (Homeland).

    It was announced by Rector of the School of Philosophy Theology (STFT) “Eastern Morning” Abepura, Papua, Pastor Dr Neles Tebay told AFP in Jayapura, Friday responding to a political phenomenon in Papua with the birth of some of the Papuan people demand to hold a referendum, which if not taken wise and with a sincere heart will be detrimental to the integrity of the motherland of Papua in Indonesia’s lap,

    Urbanianum University alumnus, who studied Roman cultural issues Melanesian indigenous tribes and missiology this Church acknowledges that, in two peaceful demonstrations, on June 18 and July 8 and then, thousands of Papuans request a referendum.

    “The demand was voiced by popular referendum in Papua is to be seen as wise and with a sincere heart to Papua by Indonesia. Papuan People are demanding a referendum on the reform era, not the era of Soeharto regime. At the time of this reform is very well respected and democratic values are respected in Indonesia, “said the son of the tribe of Papua New Original Mee, Mountains region of Papua it.

    In a democratic state of Indonesia, the existence of different opinions and aspirations, including demands of the referendum, it is something natural. Government can explain that every citizen of Indonesia (WNI) is given space to express their opinions.

    Therefore the demands of the Papuans may disclose the referendum because they also enjoy this democratic climate. Even the government can proudly show to the international community that democracy is true not only in Jakarta, but throughout Indonesia, including Papua. Of the demands of this referendum is proof of the existence of democracy and the expression of these.

    “But the government was wrong when the demands of the referendum was considered trivial and allowed to just disappear or be wind. On the contrary, it challenged the Government to explore the factors that cause the emergence of the demands of the referendum was for the sake of strengthening the integrity of Homeland milestones and for the welfare of Papuans Homeland in the frame, “he asserted.

    Neles Tebay reminded that all components of the nation and the country of Indonesia to learn from the history of the separation of East Timor of Indonesia to the motherland’s lap very bitter experience was not repeated in the land of Papua, which cracked the potential of natural resources far richer than the soil of East Timor.

    “In my opinion, this arises because the demands of the referendum on Act No. 21 of 2001 concerning the Special Autonomous Province of Papua for not fully and consistently implemented by central and local governments. Rakyat Papua, demanding a referendum after they evaluate Implemetansi Special Autonomy Law by the Great Council (Mubes) held on June 9 to 10, 2001 in Jayapura, “said Neles Tebay.

    According to the assessment while the majority of the people of Papua, the Government is not serious in implementing the Special Autonomy Law on Papua. Ketidakseriusan This is shown through various policies that conflict with the Papua Special Autonomy Law.

    There is a strong enough impression that the Government forced through a Presidential Directive No1 provincial division in 2003. Papuans reject government proposals about cultural symbols through Government Regulation No. 77 Year 2007 on the prohibition of cultural flag raising.

    Similarly, the Government is more listened to the group Barisan Merah Putih (BMP) of the Parliament of Papua and the MRP-related 11 additional seats in the Parliament of Papua. The government rejected the aspirations of the Papuans as submitted through a representative cultural institutions through SK.14/MRP/2009 about the proposed native Papuans as regent and deputy regent in Papua. The government also imposes legal dualism between Law No. 21 Year 2001 regarding the Papua Special Autonomy and Law No. 32 Year 2004.

    Papuan people do not consider that the Government also published a number of Government Regulation (PP) needed for the implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. In addition there is no realization of the division of Natural Resources (SDA) of Papua between Papua and Jakarta, as mandated by Article 34 of the Papua Special Autonomy Law.

    Provincial Government did not immediately set a provincial regulation (Perdasi) and a special area regulation (Perdasus). Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has not been established. There is no special policy to favor, protection, and empowerment of the indigenous people of Papua (Article 4 paragraph 2). Add again the Government has never done an evaluation on the implementation of special autonomy law for nine years.

    All consequences of this government ketidakseriusan borne by the people of Papua. Despite trillions of rupiah was soluble, the majority of Papuans still live below the poverty line. Nine-year implementation of special autonomy law has not increased significantly Papuan people’s welfare.

    In fact, because the influx of migrants from other provinces provision in Indonesia, the Papuan people who are local natives increasingly become a minority. Papua people even began to feel marginalized in the land patrimony. They do not feel the protection, favor, and the empowerment of the government in the State of Indonesia.

    Violations of Human Rights conducted since 1963 until now has not been diinvesitigasi though, the Papua Special Autonomy Law requires it. The victims of human rights violations tolerated. Not yet felt the justice of the Papuans. Therefore, for Papuans, the government failed to implement the Papua Special Autonomy Law. Because it does not feel the benefit then the people of Papua Special Autonomy Law in a symbolic return to the owner ie the government through Parliament of Papua and demanded a referendum.

    “The demands of the referendum was suggested that the fundamental problems faced by the people of Papua has not been answered and their fundamental rights have not been met because the government’s failure to implement the Special Autonomy Law on Papua,” he said.

    Problems currently facing the Indonesian people in Papua, which is very crucial, Father Neles affirm, we need to realize that the demands of the referendum did not emerge from a vacuum because there must be the cause. The requirements of this referendum and its cause can be likened to the smoke and fire. Smoke can arise because there is a fire that produced it. Similarly, the demands of the referendum comes as no source or cause.

    To eliminate the demands of the referendum from the Land of Papua, the factors that led to the cause of this demand needs to be found first. So the government together with the Papuans must reach agreement on any issues that cause a demand referendum in Papua and then collectively find a solution.

    “This joint agreement can be achieved only through dialogue between Papuans and the government. Then both parties must open themselves to dialogue,” he said.

    Dialogue, continued Father Neles, not to be understood as an arena of debate. Papuan People do not want to argue with the government to determine who won and lost in the dialogue.

    Dialogue is also not intended as a place to court. And the people of Papua and the government did not accuse each other, pointing, and blame each other in dialogue.

    People of Papua and the government does not need to look at each other as adversaries but as partners of dialogue to find a solution to the conflict in Papua. Both parties act as problem solver who collectively identify problems and determine solutions.

    She stated view that both the Government and people of Papua has a strong will to engage in dialogue to achieve mutual understanding on the cause of the demands of the referendum and the solution.

    “But while these two sides do not yet have the same understanding of the concept and format of the dialogue. So have any number of preliminary discussions to common perception. If this perception has been achieved, the Indonesian government and Papuans could have stepped forward to engage in dialogue,” said former Vicar General (vicar general) that the Diocese of Jayapura.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:


You are commenting using your account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Google

You are commenting using your Google account. Logout /  Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout /  Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout /  Ubah )

Connecting to %s