Posted by: DS | March 23, 2011

Pukulan Pertama Wikileaks

FARIED Harianto mendadak sibuk sepanjang pekan lalu. Kepala Kejaksaan Tinggi Kalimantan Timur itu terbang ke Jakarta untuk meneliti kembali berkas perkara yang pernah ditanganinya 12 tahun silam.

Sebagai jaksa penyidik dan penuntut umum perkara korupsi proyek Jakarta Outer Ring Road, dia mendapat perintah meneliti ulang dokumen dan berkas perkara itu. “Seluruh file lama saya buka kembali,” kata Faried kepada Tempo, Rabu pekan lalu.

Perkara korupsi yang merugikan negara Rp 1 triliun itu disidik sejak awal 1999. Dua proyek jalan tol itu dikelola PT -Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada, yang sebagian sahamnya milik Siti Hardijanti Rukmana, dan PT Marga Nurindo Bhakti, milik Djoko Ramiadji, putra pengusaha kosmetik Mooryati Soedibyo.

Djoko, Tjokorda Raka Sukawati (mantan Direktur Utama PT Hutama Karya), dan Thamrin Tanjung (mantan Direktur Marga Nurindo) ditetapkan sebagai tersangka. Mereka dituduh salah menggunakan dana hasil penerbitan surat utang senilai Rp 1,048 triliun plus US$ 471 juta.

Djoko akhirnya bebas karena Kejaksaan Agung menghentikan penyidikan. Tjokorda dihukum satu tahun penjara dengan masa percobaan dua tahun. Thamrin dibui dua tahun.

Faried membuka satu demi satu dokumen perkara. Setiap keterangan tersangka dan saksi dibaca ulang. Tapi yang dicari tak kunjung ditemukan. “Tidak ada saksi atau tersangka yang menyebut nama Taufiq Kiemas,” ujarnya.

Jaksa Agung Muda Bidang Pengawasan Marwan Effendy juga bergerak. Dia membuka lagi dokumen register perkara yang pernah masuk Kejaksaan Agung. Ia mencari nama yang sama, Taufiq Kiemas. “Tapi tidak ditemukan perkara yang menyangkut nama Pak Taufiq,” katanya.

Kesibukan tambahan para jaksa itu datang setelah terbit laporan dua koran Australia: The Age dan Sydney Morning Herald, 11 Maret lalu. Memperoleh dokumen bocoran kawat-kawat diplomatik Kedutaan Besar Amerika Serikat di Jakarta dari WikiLeaks, dua koran itu menulis sejumlah isu sensitif bagi Jakarta.

The Age bahkan memajang judul provokatif: “Yudhoyono ‘Abused Power’: -Cables accuse Indonesian President of corruption”. Sedangkan Sydney Morning Herald membikin judul “Corruption Allegations Against Yudhoyono”. Nama Taufiq disebut dalam laporan itu.

Bocoran kawat itu menyatakan pada Desember 2004 (ketika itu duta besar-nya B Lynn Pascoe), Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono memerintahkan Hendarman Su-pandji, Jaksa Agung Muda Tindak Pidana Khusus, menghentikan penyelidikan perkara korupsi yang melibatkan Taufiq. Ditulis, Taufiq memperoleh uang dari proyek Jakarta Outer Ring Road, proyek rel ganda Merak-Banyuwangi, proyek jalan trans-Kalimantan, dan proyek jalan trans-Papua.

Dalam bocoran kawat, diplomat Amerika dikutip mengatakan memperoleh informasi dari Tiopan Bernhard Sila-lahi, kini anggota Dewan Pertimbangan Presiden. Ia disebutkan memberi informasi bahwa permintaan penghentian kasus yang melibatkan Taufiq langsung datang dari Yudhoyono.

T.B. Silalahi membantah keras isi dokumen itu. “Itu tidak benar,” katanya. Yudhoyono tak kalah kaget. “Presiden tidak senang dengan berita penuh kebohongan yang dimuat Sydney Morning Herald dan The Age,” ujar Daniel Sparringa, anggota staf khusus Presiden. Taufiq Kiemas menolak menjawab, sedangkan Megawati Soekarnoputri mengatakan, “Saya tenang saja.”

Sumber Tempo mengatakan tuduhan adanya intervensi dalam kasus Taufiq Kiemas terlihat janggal. Sebab, pada 2004, hubungan Yudhoyono dengan Taufiq belum normal. “Masih ada nuansa persaingan setelah pemilu,” ujar seorang jaksa. “Tidak mungkin Presiden meminta menghentikan.”

Walau kebenaran informasi WikiLeaks tentang intervensi Presiden ke Kejaksaan Agung pada kasus Taufiq terlihat lemah, itu bukan berarti Istana tak pernah melakukannya. Seorang jaksa menyebutkan Istana berusaha menghentikan penyidikan kasus korupsi penggunaan anggaran di Kedutaan Besar Republik Indonesia di Thailand, yang merugikan negara Rp 1,8 miliar, pada akhir Januari lalu. Padahal, dua bulan sebelumnya, Kejaksaan Agung telah menetapkan Duta Besar Mohammad Hatta, Wakil Duta Besar Djumantoro Purbo, dan bendahara kedutaan Suhaeni sebagai tersangka.

Menurut sumber Tempo, order penghentian penyidikan perkara itu datang dari Istana. Sebab, ayah Djumantoro merupakan kolega dekat keluarga Sarwo Edhie, mertua Yudhoyono. “Ada permintaan khusus dari Istana kepada Hendarman Supandji untuk menghentikan kasus itu,” katanya.

Semula, menurut seorang penyidik, Kejaksaan hanya akan meloloskan Djumantoro. Dua tersangka lain tetap maju ke pengadilan. Namun pilihan ini menjadi sulit karena besarnya peran Djumantoro. Sebagai kuasa pemegang anggaran, ia tidak mungkin dibebaskan sendirian. “Akhirnya, surat penghentian perkara dikeluarkan untuk ketiga tersangka.”

Hendarman Supandji belum bisa dimintai komentar. Tempo menyambangi kediamannya di Jalan Masjid 2, Bendungan Hilir, Jakarta Pusat, Jumat pekan lalu. “Bapak sedang ke luar kota,” ujar Andi, ajudan Hendarman.

Noor Rachmad, juru bicara Kejaksaan Agung, memastikan tidak ada intervensi dalam terbitnya surat perintah penghentian penyidikan kasus tersebut. Menurut dia, keputusan itu keluar karena dugaan penyimpangan tidak terbukti dalam pengembangan penyidikan. “Surat perintah penghentian perkara itu sepenuhnya berdasarkan fakta yuridis,” katanya.

l l l

KAWAT perwakilan Amerika Serikat yang dikirim ke Washington pasti bukan sekadar bualan diplomat negara itu. Berbagai informasi sebetulnya dikumpulkan oleh para diplomat Amerika dari beragam sumber, resmi ataupun tidak. Menurut guru besar hukum internasional, Hikmahanto Juwana, pengumpulan informasi merupakan salah satu tugas diplomat di negara ia ditempatkan.

Dalam bocoran kawat yang kemudian dipublikasikan dua koran Australia, informasi panas lain adalah hubungan Istana dengan pengusaha Tomy Winata. Di situ tertulis Tomy mencoba mendekati Ani Yudhoyono dengan menggunakan bantuan seorang pejabat senior. Diplomat Amerika mengatakan memperoleh informasi itu dari seseorang bernama -Yahya Asagaf, intel senior di Badan Intelijen Negara.

T.B. Silalahi ditulis kedua harian itu sebagai penghubung antara Yudhoyono dan Tomy Winata. Mengutip keterangan diplomat, WikiLeaks menulis T.B. Silalahi dipasang sebagai “jalur masuk dana dari Tomy ke Yudhoyono”.

Sumber Tempo membenarkan peran Silalahi dalam membuka jalan masuk Tomy ke lingkaran Yudhoyono. Sejak Yudhoyono terpilih menjadi presiden pada 2004, upaya membuka jalan terus dilakukan Silalahi. “Namun tidak langsung berhasil, karena Yudhoyono menilai Tomy dekat dengan Megawati,” katanya. “Baru menjelang akhir masa jabatan pertama Yudhoyono, Tomy mulai sedikit bisa merapat.”

Dia menjelaskan hubungan T.B. Sila-lahi dengan Tomy amat dekat. Kedekatan itu pertama kali terjalin ketika Sila-lahi menjadi Ketua Yayasan Eka Paksi milik TNI Angkatan Darat, yang banyak melakukan kerja sama dengan Grup Artha Graha milik Tomy. Silalahi, yang dihubungi Jumat pekan lalu, menolak berkomentar. “Saya sudah membantah informasi WikiLeaks,” ujarnya. “Tolong jangan diperpanjang lagi.”

Tomy membantah semua tudingan WikiLeaks yang diarahkan kepadanya. Menurut dia, hubungan dengan Presiden hanyalah hubungan warga negara dengan pemimpin pemerintahan. “Saya hanya anak bangsa biasa,” kata Tomy. Soal kedekatan dengan Silalahi, Tomy mengaku hanya hubungan kerja biasa.

Masih banyak bocoran kawat perwakilan Amerika Serikat di Indonesia yang dipegang WikiLeaks. Pembocoran kawat ini memang telah didengung-dengungkan sejak akhir tahun lalu. Menurut WikiLeaks, ada 3.059 kawat diplomatik yang berasal dari Kedutaan Besar di Jakarta dan Konsulat Jenderal di Surabaya.

Menghadapi bocoran pertama yang langsung menohok Istana, Yudhoyono mencurahkan isi hatinya dalam rapat tertutup di Istana Negara, Jumat dua pekan lalu. Dengan emosi tertahan, menurut sumber Tempo, kepala negara menguraikan satu per satu lima tudingan yang muncul akibat bocoran WikiLeaks. “Yudhoyono secara terperinci menjawab semua tuduhan itu.”

Soal tuduhan intervensi dalam sengketa hukum di kepengurusan Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa, Yudhoyono mengatakan bingung. WikiLeaks menyebutkan Presiden meminta Menteri-Sekretaris Negara Sudi Silalahi menekan hakim agar tidak memenangkan Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa kubu Abdurrahman Wahid dalam sengketa ke-pengurusan partai itu, pada 2006. Sumber yang sama mengatakan Presiden menyebutkan justru Abdurrahman Wahid dan putrinya, Yenny Wahid, yang datang ke Cikeas meminta bantuan.

Kepada Tempo, Yenny mengatakan tidak ingat peristiwa itu. “Saya lupa,” ujarnya. Adapun Sudi membantah pernah melakukan intervensi. “Naudzubillahi min dzalik, tidak pernah saya menelepon hakim, apalagi pengadilan,” katanya.

Dari informasi WikiLeaks, menurut sumber lain, Yudhoyono hanya membenarkan satu hal: memerintahkan Badan Intelijen Negara mengawasi Yusril Ihza Mahendra. Pada pemerintahan Yudhoyono, Yusril menjabat Menteri-Sekretaris Negara. Dalam rapat Jumat malam itu, kata sang sumber, Yudhoyono menceritakan, Yusril perlu diawasi karena sering memberi laporan berbeda.

Setelah pertemuan malam itu, Yu-dhoyono praktis tak banyak berkomentar. Baru Senin pekan lalu, ia berbicara terbuka soal bocoran WikiLeaks. Yu-dhoyono mengatakan tidak ingin memperluas lagi persoalan itu. “Saya pandang sudah cukup,” katanya. “Tidak perlu lagi terus-menerus ikut dalam kegaduhan ini.”

Source: Majalah Tempo Online

Baca juga: Membongkar Gurita Cikeas

Kafil Yamin — More than a decade after the late strongman Suharto stepped down from power, many Indonesians are asking this question as legislators trade insults and activists resort to name-calling in anti-government protests, not to mention likening them to animals or vampires in these rallies.

And unfortunately, say observers, they are answering their own query with ‘yes’, and looking longingly at the past regime that curtailed human rights.

A recent survey by the Indonesia Survey Institution, known by its Indonesian acronym LSI, revealed that Indonesians thought ‘reformasi’ or the movement to bring this South-east Asian country of 243 million people from dictatorship to a democracy had failed.

Moreover, most of the respondents indicated that they missed Suharto, who had ruled Indonesia with an iron hand for some 30 years before he was forced to resign in 1998.

“While the people were aware of Suharto’s mistakes, they see him as a man who have given a lot of good things to the people,” commented LSI Director Denny Januar Aly.

Social worker Sen Tjiaw Gustafsson echoed other Indonesians in saying that democracy itself seems to be under siege, with “decent people” who are “sensible and intelligent” fast getting disgusted with the state of the country’s politics.

For sure, much of that sentiment can be traced to the country’s “noisy democracy”, which many Indonesians say has also turned far too nasty for their taste.

This is despite the fact that in regional circles, Indonesia’s transition to democracy is often cited as showing success — more than neighbours like the Philippines, which is headed for national elections in two months or Thailand, whose government is plagued by questions of legitimacy.

This week alone, Indonesians watched aghast while a heated debate in the House that was being televised live degenerated into chaos as lawmakers yelled at each other. One legislator even called his political opponent ‘bangsat’ (bastard) while the presiding chairman was drowned by colleagues all talking at the same time.

This was after authorities banned animals from public demonstrations, ostensibly because of concerns over the beasts’ welfare. But then the order came on the heels of a widely publicised appearance of a water buffalo in a demonstration more than month ago, with “SiBuYa” spraypainted on its side.

No one missed the connection between the spraypainted name and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is more popularly called by his initials, ‘SBY’, and who was re-elected to a second term in July 2009. Indeed, the president himself expressed dismay, saying that the protesters were implying that he was “big, lazy, and stupid”, which he said were the characteristics of the buffalo.

That could invite arguments from neighbouring countries, where the water buffalo is revered as a hardworking beast and the farmer’s faithful friend. But Indonesian authorities may not be in the mood to pay them any heed.

When ‘SiBuYa’ tried to make a reappearance at a protest last month, authorities made sure it did not make it to its destination. The truck transporting the animal, who had been renamed ‘SiLebay’ or someone who overreacts and had the president’s picture adorning its rump, was stopped dead in its tracks and made to turn around.

“If it were criticism, I can take it,” Ani Yudhoyono, the president’s wife, has told a local TV station. “But is there any wife who could stand seeing her husband so humiliated, slandered, and treated like a demon?” “One early morning I woke up and found my eyes shed tears, just to remember those humiliation and see my husband working so hard,” she added. “I tell you, that is not criticism. That is foul.” Freedom-of-speech advocates have since been in a fit over the authorities’ move and the Yudhoyonos’ reaction, but activists are surprisingly finding lukewarm support from the public.

Worker Astri Wenas, for instance, is among those who say they are sick of protests. Said Astri: “I don’t trust demonstrators. I know, everybody knows, they get paid, all of them. No one goes for demonstrations without being paid.” Some observers also say that a few anti-government protests may be contributing to the Indonesians’ growing disillusionment with democracy.

After all, they say, favourite protest target Yudhoyono was once considered a reformist in the Suharto military and still commands respect from many Indonesians.

Vice President Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indraswati, whose faces wound up on masks worn by two goats at yet another demonstration, are also known for being champions of a liberal economy and are credited – along with Yudhoyono – for helping Indonesia weather the present financial crisis.

Boediono and Sri Mulyani, along with the president, were recently dragged into a bank bailout scandal that is now being scrutinised at the House of Representatives.

Cries labelling Boediono and Sri Mulyani in particular as “thieves” peppered the air Tuesday during a rally outside the legislature. Mulyani also suffered the embarrassment of having one of his pictures blown up, captioned “Bloodsucker”, and paraded around by rallyists.

Observers say that having such political figures demeaned by protesters does not exactly boost public confidence in politicians and the country’s political system.

Rightly or wrongly, they say, ordinary citizens may not like being reminded that the Yudhoyono government – on which they have latched their hopes for a better Indonesia — has not been free of scandals, and has been dogged by several corruption cases of late.

As it is, many Indonesians already perceive politicians as incapable of doing anything about corruption cases.

Said online media MauBaca.Com journalist Mada Gandi, after witnessing yet another verbal House brawl: “They are unintelligent people. And to cover up their ignorance, they behave like superiors.”

University of Indonesia graduate student Yonita Saras grumbled that while she could not imagine such things taking place during the Suharto era, “this is not what we want to see as well”.

Political communications professor Asep Saeful Muhtadi of the Bandung State Islamic University, for his part, remarked that Indonesia’s current politicians are damaging democracy – or at least the people’s perception of it – with their behaviour.

“Now, democracy in their (public’s) mind is merely an opportunity for all to grab power,” he said. “So anybody, groups – big and small – are jockeying for power. Power for what? For making fortune. That’s what’s (being) thought of now as real politics.”

Even the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) would rather see legislators let corruption cases be, and has called for the suspension of the House special commission on the bank bailout scandal. “We see for ourselves that the people are sick of watching the legislators’ bad behaviour, so the people will not believe any decision the commission made,” said ICW investigator Febri Diansyah. “Let the law handle it.”

“The people know that is not a genuine effort to find the truth,” he also said, referring to the House debates on the bank case, “but a manoeuvre for covering their own ignominy.”

Source: IPS News

Posted by: DS | February 25, 2010

Warna-warni ‘Islamisme’

Tempointeraktif — Belakangan ini kata “Islamisme” makin sering digunakan. Selain di buku atau jurnal ilmiah, juga di penerbitan populer seperti koran. Kata ini merujuk kepada fenomena di mana Islam dipandang sebagai ideologi, bukan hanya sebagai agama. Selain untuk merujuk kepada ekspresi sosial-politik Islam, kata itu digunakan untuk menunjukkan penerapan prinsip-prinsip Islam, misalnya dalam bidang ekonomi dan sains.

“Islamisme” bahkan makin menggeser “fundamentalisme”. Ini positif. Pertama, “fundamentalisme” berasal dari kasus konkret penolakan kaum Kristen Evangelis di Amerika Serikat, pada awal abad ke-20, terhadap dimasukkannya teori sains mutakhir, seperti Teori Darwin, ke dalam kurikulum sekolah. Dari segi ini, penerapan “fundamentalisme” untuk Islam jelas tidak cocok.

Selain itu, “fundamentalisme” sering jadi keranjang sampah untuk menyebut semua paham atau gerakan Islam yang dianggap menentang modernitas, yang pemaknaannya sudah lama didominasi Barat. Maka, misalnya, jika sistem politik yang dominan di satu negara adalah demokrasi, siapa yang menentangnya berarti “fundamentalis”. Karena sebab-sebab di atas, “Islamisme” mengandung makna lebih asli. Kata itu juga lebih bernuansa dalam menggambarkan keragaman umat Islam.

Sayangnya, belakangan “Islamisme” pun sudah jadi keranjang sampah. “Islamis” diidentikkan dengan ekstremis, kalau bukan teroris, yang bersedia melakukan kekerasan atas nama Islam.

Dus, makna “Islamisme” perlu direhabilitasi. Variasi internalnya harus ditegaskan kembali. Dengan begitu, kita dimungkinkan untuk menisbatkan sesuatu secara lebih adil kepada seorang atau sekelompok muslim. Sebab, menyebut semua “Islamis” adalah ekstremis atau teroris jelas salah kaprah, hanya akan memperumit masalah, bahkan berbahaya.

‘Islamisme’ awal

Cara mudah pertama mencirikan “Islamis” adalah dengan menunjuk siapa yang bukan mereka. Di Indonesia, kita mengenal istilah “muslim KTP” atau “muslim abangan”, yang dipopulerkan oleh antropolog Clifford Geertz. Mereka jelas bukan Islamis. Mereka muslim nominal. Tapi Muslim non-Islamis lebih luas dari itu. Saya punya banyak kawan yang dengan bangga menyebut diri “muslim sekuler”. Sebagian dari mereka salat lima waktu atau kurang dari lima, bahkan pergi haji, sebagian lainnya tidak. Tapi mereka sepakat dalam satu hal: Islam tidak boleh jadi ideologi yang didesakkan ke ruang publik.

Nah, semua muslim di luar kelompok-kelompok di atas adalah “Islamis”. Tapi dalam kelompok ini pun terdapat variasi. Dari genealoginya, variasi ini mulai tampak ketika dunia Islam diharuskan memberi tanggapan terhadap makin terasanya dominasi Barat atas dunia Islam, yang secara fisik disimbolkan dengan masuknya Napoleon ke Mesir pada akhir abad ke-18.

Tanggapan dominan pertama muncul dalam bentuk Wahhabisme. Paham ini belakangan menjadi paham resmi Arab Saudi, yang kemudian, berkat dana minyak, disebarkan ke seluruh dunia. Para pendukungnya menekankan pentingnya tauhid, yang salah satu eksesnya adalah pemurnian Islam dari apa yang mereka sebut syirik. Karena fanatisme tinggi para pendukungnya, pada titik tertentu mereka menerapkan takfir (peng-kafir-an) atas kaum muslim lain.

Mereka juga menyebut diri Salafi. Alasannya, mereka berseru untuk kembali ke Islam yang awal (al-salaf al-shalih). Tradisi Islam yang tumbuh setelah masa awal ini harus ditolak. Juga pengaruh apa pun yang datang dari luar Islam. Inilah sebab anti-intelektualisme mereka: filsafat diharamkan karena berasal dari Yunani, tasawuf dari Persia, dan seterusnya.

Tetapi para pembaru abad ke-19, seperti Jamal al-Din al-Afghani dan Muhammad Abduh, juga mengklaim diri Salafi. Namun, berbeda dari kaum Wahhabi, mereka tidak menolak tradisi Islam atau apa pun yang bersumber dari luar Islam. Mereka hanya berseru agar kita bersikap kritis terhadap semuanya.

Memasuki abad ke-20, krisis yang melanda dunia Islam makin parah dengan makin intensifnya kolonialisme dan dibubarkannya kekhalifahan Utsmani pada 1924. Semua ini mempengaruhi pemikiran dan gerakan kaum Islamis. Perang-perang melawan kolonialisme makin sering menggunakan jargon jihad, misalnya, sekalipun hal itu dilakukan untuk tujuan nasionalis.

Islam dan kekerasan

Dalam konteks inilah Hasan al-Banna membentuk Ikhwan al-Muslimin (IM) di Mesir pada 1929. IM menekankan kesalehan pribadi dan pentingnya persaudaraan. Masa krusial IM berlangsung pada pertengahan abad ke-20, ketika represi pemerintahan Mesir terhadap mereka mengharuskan IM terpecah dua. Sayap radikalnya, dipelopori Sayyid Quthb, menyatakan perang terhadap rezim sekuler Mesir, yang mereka sebut jahiliyah. Sayap lawannya lebih berseru ke arah perubahan gradual, tidak dengan cara merebut kekuasaan secara kekerasan. Hingga kini, IM menjadi prototipe organisasi Islamis paling banyak dicontoh di dunia, dengan kedua sayapnya.

Dua hal penting harus dicatat di sini sehubungan dengan meningkatnya kekerasan kalangan “Islamis”. Pertama, ketika direpresi pemerintah Mesir, sejumlah aktivis garis keras IM hijrah ke Arab Saudi. Karena lebih terampil dan terdidik dibanding kaum muslim di Arab Saudi, mereka menjadi otak di balik pembentukan banyak perguruan tinggi di Arab Saudi, tempat orang semacam Usamah bin Ladin belakangan menuntut ilmu. Dalam ruang-ruang inilah terjadi penjumbuhan antara paham IM yang radikal dan Wahhabisme. Inilah cikal-bakal gerakan “Salafis-Jihadis”, sayap gerakan Salafis kontemporer yang membolehkan penggunaan cara-cara kekerasan bahkan terhadap muslim yang dianggap bersekutu dengan musuh.

Kedua, terjalin hubungan saling menguntungkan di antara para aktivis di atas dengan pemerintah Arab Saudi. Sekalipun gerah dengan hedonisme kerajaan, para aktivis di atas diuntungkan karena mereka dilindungi dan diberi dana untuk menyebarkan paham ke seluruh dunia. Pada akhir 1970-an dan awal 1980-an, hubungan ini memperoleh momentum baru dengan terjadinya Revolusi Iran (1979) dan invasi Uni Soviet ke Afganistan (1981). “Energi jihad” pun disalurkan dalam kerangka ini: (1) dengan melipatgandakan bantuan Saudi untuk membendung Revolusi Iran ke dunia Islam; dan (2) dengan mengirim para mujahidin ke Afganistan.

Yang amat krusial adalah butir kedua di atas. Perang Afganistan menjadi momen di mana kalangan Salafis-Jihadis dari seluruh dunia berkumpul, dilatih menembakkan senjata dan merakit bom oleh intelijen Pakistan dan AS, serta didanai Saudi, yang bersekutu untuk memenangi Perang Dingin. Semangat jihad mereka pun meningkat ketika mereka merasa bahwa mundurnya tentara Soviet disebabkan oleh hebatnya perlawanan mereka. Mereka adalah Frankenstein yang diciptakan tapi lalu memakan korban tuannya sendiri di AS, Arab Saudi, dan Pakistan. Konteks inilah yang harus dipahami ketika kita membaca tindakan Al-Qaidah atau bekas pejuang Afganistan belakangan ini, yang sebagiannya menyebarkan teror atas nama Islam.

Indonesia

Beragam variasi Islamis di atas dapat ditemukan di Indonesia, dengan corak lokal tertentu. Wahhabisme amat terasa pengaruhnya pada gerakan Padri di Padang. Belakangan, dengan mengusung nama gerakan Salafi, ekspresi Salafisme-Wahhabisme juga kita temukan pada kelompok-kelompok tertentu yang merasa wajib memelihara jenggot dan yang sejenisnya.

Gerakan tajdid jelas pengaruhnya pada Muhammadiyah, sekalipun sisi puritanismenya mengingatkan kita pada Wahhabisme. Model Salafisme Afghani dan Abduh jelas tampak, misalnya, pada pemikiran pembaruan Nurcholish Madjid, yang menempatkan tradisi Islam pada posisi amat penting dan apresiatif terhadap peradaban Barat. Melupakan sayap Salafisme ini adalah kerugian besar. Itu hanya menandakan ketundukan kepada keinginan kaum Wahhabi, yang mengklaim bahwa merekalah satu-satunya wakil Salafisme dalam Islam kontemporer.

Sayap MI yang tidak radikal jelas mempengaruhi gerakan tarbiyah, yang pada era 1990-an berkembang menjadi Kesatuan Aksi Mahasiswa Muslim Indonesia (KAMMI) dan, di era reformasi, menjadi tulang punggung Partai Keadilan (PK) dan Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS). Keputusan untuk membentuk partai politik menandakan bahwa para aktivis gerakan ini ingin mempengaruhi kebijakan politik dengan cara-cara damai dan demokratis.

Mereka yang tergolong Salafis-Jihadis, kita tahu, juga ada. Sebagiannya, umumnya dalam jajaran kepemimpinan, adalah “alumnus” Perang Afganistan. Mereka kadang berbeda pendapat dalam soal apakah kaum muslim bisa dijadikan korban teror mereka. Dibanding kalangan Islamis lainnya, jumlah kelompok terakhir di atas sangat kecil. Sayang, tak diperlukan banyak orang untuk melakukan aksi dengan korban yang besar seperti yang mereka lakukan. Sayang juga, merekalah yang disukai headline koran di mana-mana.*

Ihsan Ali-Fauzi, Koordinator Pusat Studi Agama dan Demokrasi (PUSAD) Yayasan Paramadina

Posted by: DS | February 21, 2010

Terrorists made in Australia

The ingredients for Sydney’s terrorist conspiracy seemed so ordinary: a couple of small businessmen, an uncle and his nephew, a kid who fished from a ferry wharf.


Malcolm Brown, Rick Feneley and Jacqueline Maley report. Even in the days ASIO was watching him, he liked to fish. Even while his phone was tapped and he was recorded saying: ”I will kill John Howard.”

That call was made on August 27, 2005. Howard was prime minister and the young man under surveillance, at 21, was a familiar face among the anglers on the ferry wharf at Abbotsford on Sydney Harbour. This is where he had spent much of his teens, down the road from his father’s home. On Friday and Saturday nights, from age 16, he would go fishing with his local shopkeeper, Tony.

Tony, now 55, describes himself as a Catholic Chinese from Papua New Guinea. As he told the Herald this week, Abbotsford ”is not a Muslim suburb”. It is multicultural, but his friend was among few Muslims. From a family of eight boys and four girls, he was a ”good kid”. They would fish together for about five years. Until the police came.

”We’d catch some bream, but [he] was good at catching calamari,” Tony recalled. ”He would give it away to the Italians, the Vietnamese.”

The second last time Tony saw his mate as a free man, his appearance had changed. He was wearing a traditional robe and growing a beard. ”It was not a very successful beard. He wasn’t a very hairy guy. I laughed at him – ‘You’re wearing a dress!’ – and he laughed too.” The young man was not offended. Tony saw nothing that suggested a sudden turn to extremism.

This week, the young fisherman, now 25, was among five men sentenced in the Supreme Court in Sydney for their roles in a terrorism conspiracy. After a 10-month trial, Australia’s longest terrorism case, they were whipped away with heavy police escort to serve very long jail sentences – a maximum 130 years between them – leaving a total of 12 children and wives or former wives to fend for themselves.

They cannot be named in Victoria for legal reasons. Another four men had already pleaded guilty, and two of them were released from jail last year.

Tony had gone to court as a character witness for his friend. He was horrified by his sentence – 23 years with a non-parole period of 17 years and three months – although it was the lightest given to the final five conspirators.

”I think he was a naive young man, probably taken in by these older guys,” Tony said. Like his mate’s sister, he believes a grave injustice has been done. They refuse to believe he ever intended to hurt anybody, let alone Howard. That phone call may have been youthful bluster, says the sister.

In fact, the trial judge, Anthony Whealy, found insufficient evidence to conclude any of the conspirators intended to kill anyone. His sentences – the heaviest was 28 years – have provoked anger among many Muslims. But one community leader suggested Muslims could be split into four camps on the case: those who believed, like Sheikh Taj el-Din al Hilaly, that the five men were convicted for their thoughts, not their actions; extremists who, while normally Hilaly’s rivals, supported this line and hoped it would stir anger and radicalise more people; those who believed the court’s finding must be accepted and that Australia’s security is paramount; and a ”silent” group who went further, believing – though not declaring – that the five got what they deserved.

Some worried most about the radicalising of more young men like the angler. What moved him to gather the ingredients for explosives? What moved his associates to assemble a terrifying arsenal of weapons, ammunition and chemicals for bombs? Justice Whealy said their conspiracy took on a life and a menace of its own which tended to exceed the contribution of the individuals. Even if none intended to kill, the end result, in all probability, would have been an outrage, massive destruction of property and possible loss of innocent lives.

Australia had welcomed these men and their families. What turned them against Australia?

Convict 1, from Bankstown, was branded by the prosecution as the ”puppet master” of the Sydney conspirators. He was born in Lebanon 44 years ago, came to Australia at 11 and went on to Bankstown High, where he completed year 10. He has 11 siblings, all in Australia. He was a metal fabrication apprentice with the Water Board. He then did mechanical engineering and completed a rigging and crane driver course. He went into a family business, working with structural steel on building sites. He married at 22 and had six children. He started his own drafting business.

But Convict 1 became radicalised. He collected extremist material which told him that if Muslim lands were being attacked – in this case Iraq and Afghanistan – he had a duty to respond.

On June 27, 2005, police raided his home and found 12 firearms and 11,755 rounds of ammunition for automatic or semi-automatic weapons. He also co-wrote an order for lab equipment to assist in bomb-making, helped set up a coded communications system and possessed recipes for explosives. He got 28 years with a minimum of 21.

Convict 2, 36, was born in Lebanon in March 1973 and came to Australia at three years of age. He was the youngest of five sons and he had five sisters. He was educated at Punchbowl Primary and Bankstown High, where he started but did not finish year 11. His employment record was ”sporadic”. From Wiley Park, he married nine years ago and had a son. The Koran forbids the killing of innocent people, but a document found in his garage defined the innocent only as Muslims who believed in violent jihad. During his interview with police in 2005, he said: ”Your democracy full of hypocrisy, we worship Allah; sharia law is going to rule the land … Go and learn it because you are going to be ruled by it … The nature of this democracy rubbish, it is all bullshit, and you tell John Howard this.”

In 2007, two years after his arrest, his wife and son moved to Jordan. Jailed for 27 years, or a minimum of 20, he may never see them again.

Convict 3, nephew of Convict 2, was born in Australia on February 23, 1977. He had an older brother, two younger brothers and a younger sister. His parents were divorced when he was 12 and his mother was left to bring up the children. He did not get on well at school but completed his Higher School Certificate at Condell Park High. He became a mechanic’s apprentice at Greenacre but did not get his final papers because of a back injury. From 1995, when he was 18, he developed a strong interest in the Koran. By 1999 he was attending the Mussalah prayer hall at Lakemba twice a day and came under the influence of his uncle. Convict 3 went into security but he lost his right to work in the industry or carry a gun because of scrutiny from the Australian Federal Police and ASIO.

In October 2001, he attended a Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist training camp in Pakistan. He returned in February 2002. Justice Whealy said this ”predisposed him towards hatred and intolerance towards those people who were, as he saw it, persecuting Muslims overseas”.

He married in August 2002 and has a son. ASIO and police raided him in October 2003. It did not stop him. In intercepted telephone conversations he talked about Bosnia, Iraq, Chechnya and problems with the Kurds, all in the context of jihad. Justice Whealy found he bought hydrogen peroxide, prepared for the manufacture of a detonator suitable for an explosive device and had instruction material on bomb detonation. His wife and child visit him each week in jail, where he will serve at least 19 years and six months. His maximum sentence is 26 years.

Convict 4 was born on August 24, 1969, the youngest of 12 in a poverty-stricken Bangladeshi family. He migrated to Australia, at 20, with some education but no vocational skills. He gave up business computing studies after two weeks because of his poor English. He studied English at Bondi Junction.

He became disenchanted with the alcohol and drug culture he was exposed to, and sought in Islam a more disciplined life. He worked as a cleaner at the InterContinental hotel, then learned fish-filleting and opened a business at Lakemba. He married a woman who converted to Islam. They have four children. He named his eldest son Jihad, meaning ”struggle”. Leaving his own business, he worked at a halal butcher’s shop in Lakemba. He struggled to provide for his family. By 2004-05, he had met Convicts 1, 2 and 3 and was praying regularly at the Mussalah prayer room.

In his evidence at the trial – as the only defendant to take the stand – he said he did not believe those who participated in the invasion of Afghanistan were innocent. In 2004-05, when the conspiracy started, he regarded Australia as ”the enemy”. He expressed admiration for Osama bin Laden. Justice Whealy found he was involved in acquiring laboratory equipment for making explosives, and ordered quantities of battery acid, distilled water, acetone and methylated spirits. After his arrest, his wife and children visited him once a week. But the visits dwindled and finally his wife divorced him. He was jailed for 26 years, with a minimum 19 years and six months.

Convict 5, the young angler from Abbotsford, was born in Australia on July 22, 1984, a middle child among 12 children. Until about age 11 he lived on the small family farm at Austral, in Sydney’s south-west. But his parents divorced and, from his early teens, he spent much of his time with his father at Abbotsford. His father was strict. He had received rough treatment from an older brother and said he had been abused and neglected as a child. Several brothers acquired criminal records. He did not get on well at school, developed a drug habit and was expelled in year 9 because of conflict with teachers. He completed the equivalent of the School Certificate at TAFE.

He set up his own business, building and repairing computers. But he was under pressure to get away from friends who were abusing drugs and alcohol. An elder brother, who had been in jail, took him to the mosque and insisted he pray five times a day. He met his brother’s friends, some of whom would become his co-offenders. He was on the phone to Convict 2 when he said, ”I will kill John Howard.” During a police search of his home, he said: ”Youse are going to be put into a fire by Allah!” Allah would put a curse on the wives and children of unbelievers and send diseases. ”Youse can all rot slowly,” he said.

Justice Whealy said Convict 5 willingly joined the conspiracy, though at a later stage and he left it in 2005, a few weeks before the first arrests.

Convict 5′s sister is a year younger than her brother, and very close. Outside court, she said: ”My brother did not do nothing … The only extremists are ASIO. Justice will be served by God. The truth will come out on judgment day.” Challenged later on the evidence – the guns, the bomb-making materials, the manuals – she told the Herald: ”I don’t know! Probably for something else. I don’t know. Maybe the chemicals for painting. Maybe they go hunting. Who knows? That’s none of my business. That’s regardless of my brother. I don’t know about the others. I have to care for my brother.”

His fishing mate, Tony, did offer some insight into why he might have felt alienated. ”I saw police harassing [him]. Between 11 and 12 one night, when we’re fishing, the police cars come up. The police ask him to step aside, and they frisk him.” Why? ”Because his name is [name deleted].”

Many Muslims feel under siege this week; that Islam has been prosecuted and its adherents persecuted. Uthman Badar, from the Australian arm of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a group banned in some countries for its extremism, said anti-terrorism laws here had lowered the burden of proof. People were being prosecuted merely for their ideas.

”Here we have a case where there is no direct evidence, no established intent to kill, and no specific target … many of the ‘extreme’ views, as mentioned in the sentencing remarks, are basic Islamic views which Muslims generally hold; views like Muslims being obliged to defend themselves and jihad being the way to do this. Criminalising these views is to criminalise criticism of Western foreign policy in Muslim lands, and this is the crux of the matter. The anti-terror laws were designed to silence Muslims through fear and intimidation.”

Samir Dandan, from the Lebanese Muslim Association, says many Muslims believe they receive harsher treatment than non-Muslim Australians. He cites Mohamed Haneef, the Indian-born doctor who in 2007 was wrongly accused of assisting terrorists, and the notorious gang rapist Bilal Skaf, who is serving 36 years for leading multiple attacks on women. Dandan emphasises that Muslims abhor gang rape.

Convict 5′s sister also alludes to Skaf: ”You look at an Australian doing a rape and getting three years, but when it comes to a Muslim or Arab …”

One Muslim community leader is distressed by such a comparison. And he considers people naive if they believe Hilaly, who claims he can confirm ”100 per cent” that the five men are innocent. But this leader does not want to put his name to his comments, knowing it would draw a backlash from his community at such a sensitive time.

”We see a lot of anger out there,” says Keysar Trad, founding chairman of the Islamic Friendship Association. Anger, he says, at the violence against Muslim countries; anger that Muslims are too readily blamed for troubles. He worries that this week’s severe sentences will drive that anger underground – to be exploited by extremists.

On the odd occasion, hotheads have approached Trad, Hilaly and other imams, but ”our immediate response is that violence is unacceptable under Islamic teaching”. Would they report them to police? ”Would a priest refer someone who comes to him to the police if he feels he has talked that person out of committing a crime?”

Jamal Rifi, a Belmore family doctor and human rights award winner, says young Muslims must not be ”receptive to brainwashing techniques”.

”That’s why we do a lot of proactive things,” Rifi told the Herald. He noted a meeting in the past fortnight with the NSW police counter-terrorism unit. He lauded an ”ideological change” among police – a willingness to work with Muslims. ”We are seen as part of the solution rather than just part of the problem.”

For a crime with no victims and no known targets, it has caused a lot of suffering – not least for the families of the jailed men. Many had relied on them as the sole breadwinners. After their arrests, some Centrelink payments and bank accounts were frozen. There were death threats. Eggs were thrown at houses. “People drive by screaming at us and swearing,” the sister-in-law of one of the men said at the time. “They beep their horn and tell us to our back to our country.” But she said: ”This is my home.”

Sheikh Khalil Chami, of the Islamic Welfare Centre in Lakemba, was a regular visitor to the men’s cells. During these meetings, they were ordered to speak only in English. He believes they were radicalised in Sydney. ”They are planning here. They adopt everything from here,” he said. ”It is our fault … we don’t prepare them for Australia. We don’t give them anywhere to meet, and someone else comes in and picks them.”

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Posted by: DS | February 10, 2010

Indonesian generals banned by the US

Lilian Budianto — The number of Indonesian generals banned by the United States due to implication in human rights violations has decreased since the revocation of the US arms embargo in 2005, says an envoy.

“Our military-to-military cooperation is greatly improved and we are convinced that the number [of banned generals] has gone down,” Indonesia’s deputy chief of mission for the United States Salman Al Farisi told The Jakarta Post on Monday.

Farisi declined to mention the number of banned generals and how many had been restored, saying that “Jakarta has been negotiating the issue with the United States at many forums and they have responded well.”

The United States imposed an arms embargo on Indonesia in the 1990s over poor human rights records in the volatile provinces of Papua, Aceh and the then East Timor.

The embargo was waived in 2005, but a number of “notorious” generals implicated in rights violations were still banned from traveling to the United States.

The ban sparked protests by lawmakers when the then secretary-general of the Defense Ministry Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, whom civil groups accuse of human rights abuses during the 1998 Jakarta riots as well as in East Timor, failed to get a visa to the United States for the G20 trip with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono last year.

Maj. Gen. Pramono Edi Wibowo, commander of the Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus), elements of which were involved in the kidnapping of activists, also failed to obtain a visa on the same trip, but Indonesian Military (TNI) chief Gen. Djoko Santoso denied the banning of Pramono.

Farisi said Indonesia had a strong political currency, with the rise of its democratic profile, and would use it to “buy things from the United States”.

Indonesia and the United States will launch a comprehensive partnership that covers a wide range of cooperation, including military, during a visit by US President Barack Obama and family to Jakarta in the third week of March.

When asked whether the negotiations on the comprehensive partnership included the revocation of the ban on the Indonesian generals, Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said: “Let’s wait and see once [the agreement draft] has been finalized and launched.”

Source: the Jakarta Post

Posted by: DS | February 4, 2010

Militant groups ready to defend controversial law

The Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) said they would defend the controversial blasphemy law, calling the move to scrap the 45-year-old law as an attempt to “liberalize” and destroy Islam.

The two radical groups have met with Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali to lend their support to the government to fight against the plan of human rights groups to have the law reviewed by the Constitutional Court.

The review is backed by promoters of pluralism, including recipient of the Magsasay Award and Muhammadiyah patron Ahmad Syafii Maarif and the late Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, widely respected in the Nahdlatul Ulama.

FPI lawyer Munarman said the judicial review request had no legal standing because the NGOs are not religious organizations.

The individuals joining the petition were not those whose Constitutional rights had been denied, and therefore had no right to file a judicial review, he said on the group’s website.

HTI spokesman Ismail Yusanto called on Muslims to support the government to defend Islam from any assaults, including the judicial review of the blasphemy law.

The group had appointed the Muslim Lawyers Team, or TPM, as its representative in the hearing at the Constitutional Court, scheduled to commence on Thursday.

They had filed a request at the court to be given a say in the hearing. “The MK has not responded to our request yet,” Mahendradatta of TPM told The Jakarta Post.

The TPM, which also represent a group called the Peace Alliance Against Blasphemy of Islam (ADA API), accused the petitioners of using the slogan of freedom of religion as a cover to discredit religions.

“They are actually seeking ‘freedom to insult religions’,” Mahendradatta said.

He said Hizbut Tahrir members and other Muslim groups will attend the hearings to show their support for the government.

“Thousands of Muslims are apprehensive about the review. They may be curious and want to attend the hearings,” claimed Mahendradtta, who was also a defense lawyer for the Bali bombers.

Uli Parulian Sihombing, a lawyer for the review petitioners, deplored the meeting between the religious minister and the militant groups. “A minister should not conduct such a meeting. The worst thing is, we are also informed that the meeting used state funds,” he told the Post.

Suryadharma Ali said his ministry and the Law and Human Rights Ministry have made preparations to counter the arguments of the rights activists.

He blasted the judicial review request as “irrational”, saying that it would only hurt the existing six officially recognized religions — Islam, Catholicism, Protestanism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism — and create disharmony.

The minister said freedom of religion as guaranteed in the Constitution should be practiced in accordance with the existing regulations, which he said were made to protect other people’s rights to freedom of religion.

The minister took the view that the emergence of religious sects was a form of blasphemy against existing religions.

The government, he said as quoted by Antara, had the responsibility to do whatever it could do to maintain religious harmony.

Source: The Jakarta Post

Posted by: DS | February 1, 2010

PERANG MENCARI TUMBAL

Majalah Tempo — Inilah minggu-minggu terakhir Panitia Khusus Bank Century. Kursi Menteri Keuangan Sri Mulyani dan Wakil Presiden Boediono jadi incaran. PDI Perjuangan berhati-hati. Golkar dan Demokrat yang berhadap-hadapan.

PERTARUNGAN yang ditunggu itu tak terjadi. Padahal, Selasa malam pekan lalu, sejumlah politikus sudah siap berjibaku. Rapat internal Panitia Khusus Hak Angket Bank Century malam itu berakhir datar. Rencana untuk membahas kesimpulan sementara atas penyelidikan Panitia batal. Kesimpulan yang dinanti-nanti itu tak jadi dirilis.

Adalah Ketua Panitia Khusus, politikus Partai Golkar Idrus Marham, yang sepekan sebelumnya bersemangat mengumumkan rencana Panitia merilis kesimpulan sementara. Publik, kata dia, perlu mendapatkan informasi apa saja temuan Panitia dari pemeriksaan puluhan saksi dan ahli, selama dua bulan terakhir. Gagasan ini didukung oleh politikus Fraksi Partai Hanura, Akbar Faizal. ”Kesimpulan sementara Panitia Khusus akan dilaporkan dalam Sidang Paripurna Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat,” katanya menambahkan.

Selain menambah tensi politik, ada niat terselubung sebenarnya: pemetaan kubu lawan dan kawan. ”Kita perlu tahu ke mana arah penyelidikan Panitia ini, supaya kita tidak saling curiga,” kata Ketua Dewan Pembina Partai Golkar, Akbar Tandjung, dua pekan lalu. Dengan mengetahui tafsir masing-masing fraksi atas fakta temuan Panitia Khusus, Akbar berharap publik bisa meraba-raba bagaimana Pansus akan berakhir.

Selasa malam pekan lalu, banyak orang kecewa. ”Malam itu, usul membuat kesimpulan sementara hanya muncul dari Fraksi Hanura,” kata politikus Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, M. Romahurmuzy. Fraksi Golkar, yang semula getol mendesak penetapan rekomendasi sementara, mendadak jinak. Fraksi-fraksi lain diam seribu bahasa.

Malam itu Panitia Khusus hanya mendengarkan paparan tim ahli mereka tentang temuan data dan fakta kasus ini. Pada akhir rapat, semua bersepakat temuan Pansus ini masih prematur untuk disimpulkan. ”Apalagi ada data dan dokumen yang belum diberikan Menteri Keuangan dan Bank Indonesia,” kata politikus Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, Eva Kusuma Sundari.

Pertarungan malam itu pun batal. Padahal Fraksi Partai Demokrat sudah pasang kuda-kuda. Sejak awal mereka tidak sepakat Pansus mengambil kesimpulan sementara. Yang menarik, dukungan untuk sikap itu justru datang dari kubu oposisi. Selain Fraksi Banteng, Fraksi Partai Gerindra menyetujui. ”Kalau belum-belum sudah merilis kesimpulan, kesannya kurang elok,” kata Ahmad Muzani, politikus fraksi itu di Panitia Khusus. ”Nanti kami dikira mengirim sinyal untuk minta negosiasi,” katanya.

Negosiasi memang jadi perbincangan banyak orang di Senayan. Seorang politikus mengakui, ”Panggung politik Panitia Khusus sudah berakhir. Saatnya negosiasi di balik layar.” Peta politik pun bergeser. Yang berhadap-hadapan di tengah arena tinggal Partai Demokrat versus Partai Golkar, PDI Perjuangan, dan Partai Keadilan Sejahtera. Fraksi-fraksi yang lain menyingkir dan menanti di pinggiran.

”Kami akan menunggu bagaimana hasil deal mereka,” kata satu politikus anggota Panitia Khusus dari partai kecil. ”Percuma kalau sekarang ikut-ikutan berteriak, toh nanti hasilnya bisa berbelok ke kanan atau ke kiri,” katanya bersungut-sungut.

Kabar bahwa akan ada negosiasi untuk mengakhiri Pansus Century sebenarnya sudah kencang beredar sejak tiga pekan lalu. Semua berawal dari kabar pertemuan antara Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan Ketua Umum Partai Golkar Aburizal Bakrie, awal Januari. Keduanya, konon, berkomitmen menyelesaikan kisruh Century dengan mengorbankan Menteri Keuangan Sri Mulyani Indrawati. Meski sudah dibantah, kesan bahwa partai-partai siap bernegosiasi untuk mengakhiri Panitia Khusus Century tak bisa terhindarkan.

”Tujuan partai ya kekuasaan,” kata sumber Tempo di Panitia Khusus. Karena kursi kabinet sudah habis dibagi, kini tinggal kursi pejabat eselon satu di kementerian dan komisaris badan usaha milik negara yang jadi incaran. ”Masak semua mau dimakan Demokrat dan SBY?” katanya. Untuk menguatkan posisi tawar, berbagai pendekatan kini gencar dilakukan politikus Golkar dan Demokrat untuk menarik fraksi lain masuk ke gerbong mereka masing-masing.

Secara garis besar, ada tiga kelompok partai di Senayan saat ini. Kelompok pertama memastikan tidak ada yang salah dari kebijakan bailout Bank Century. Mereka beranggapan Sri Mulyani dan Wakil Presiden Boediono bersih dari tuduhan penyelewengan kewenangan. ”Tidak ada indikasi pidana, kesalahan administratif, dan korupsi,” kata Benny K. Harman, politikus Partai Demokrat, pentolan kubu ini. ”Justru yang kami temukan adalah proses pengambilan keputusan pada saat krisis, yang amat transparan, akuntabel, dan partisipatif.”

Kelompok kedua menilai ada indikasi pelanggaran administrasi dan pidana yang dilakukan Sri Mulyani dan Boediono, tapi mereka yakin pelanggaran tidak bermotif korupsi atau konflik kepentingan. ”Kasarnya, mereka dikadalin anak buahnya sendiri,” kata politikus Fraksi PPP, M. Romahurmuzy. Karena tidak punya motif korupsi—menurut kubu ini—kedua teknokrat tidak layak dijatuhkan.

Kelompok terakhir adalah kubu garis keras. Mereka yang berada di kelompok ini meyakini Sri Mulyani dan Boediono bersalah dalam penyelamatan Bank Century. Sri Mulyani diyakini bersalah karena menyetujui perubahan status Bank Century menjadi bank gagal berdampak sistemik, sedangkan kriteria berdampak sistemik—menurut kubu ini—tidak jelas.

Keputusan Sri itulah yang jadi dasar pengucuran dana Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan Rp 6,7 triliun untuk Century. Terlebih dana triliunan itu ditengarai bocor ke mana-mana, termasuk dirampok pemiliknya sendiri, Robert Tantular. ”Bank ini dirampok, kemudian kerugiannya ditutup dengan uang negara,” kata Akbar Faizal, politikus Fraksi Hanura, salah satu penyokong kubu ini.

Boediono dinilai bersalah karena mengubah peraturan Bank Indonesia tentang kriteria penerima Fasilitas Pendanaan Jangka Pendek (FPJP) untuk menolong Bank Century. Dia juga dianggap berdosa karena tidak melakukan penelaahan menyeluruh (due diligence) pada Bank Century sebelum semua fasilitas pendanaan—dari FPJP sampai penyertaan modal sementara— digelontorkan. ”Boediono terlibat dan ikut meneken perubahan aturan, padahal Direktur Pengawasan Bank Indonesia sudah mengingatkan Bank Century tidak layak menerima bantuan,” kata politikus PDIP, Hendrawan Supratikno.

Di DPR saat ini ada yang sudah ambil posisi, ada pula yang memilih belum bersikap. Ahmad Farhan Hamid, politikus senior dari Fraksi Partai Amanat Nasional, memastikan partainya akan masuk ke gerbong Partai Demokrat di kelompok pertama. ”Kami di kubu realistis,” katanya. Farhan adalah pendukung utama Ketua Umum PAN Hatta Rajasa.

Partai Keadilan Sejahtera lain lagi posisinya. Mereka masuk ke kelompok ketiga. Posisi ini makin jelas ketika Rabu pekan lalu fraksi ini merilis kesimpulan sementaranya. Politikus Fraksi PKS, Andi Rahmat, menyebut ada empat lembaga negara yang harus bertanggung jawab atas proses bailout Century. ”Komite Koordinasi, Komite Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan (KSSK), Bank Indonesia, dan Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan,” kata Andi. Tidak hanya itu, PKS juga menemukan 18 indikasi pelanggaran pidana.

Partai Islam lainnya, Fraksi Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, ada di tengah. Dalam kesimpulan akhirnya kelak, fraksi ini hanya akan menunjuk lembaga yang bertanggung jawab. Mereka tidak terang-terangan menyudutkan pejabat tertentu, entah itu Sri Mulyani entah Boediono. ”Itu wilayah penegak hukum,” kata politikus Fraksi PPP di Panitia Khusus, M. Romahurmuzy. ”Kami bukan hakim yang memutus perkara.”

Sikap tiga fraksi terbesar: Partai Demokrat, Golkar, dan PDI Perjuangan, terbelah. Demokrat ada di kelompok pertama. PDI Perjuangan, sebagai partai oposisi, ada di kelompok ketiga.

Partai Golkar? Di atas kertas, partai ini termasuk koalisi pendukung pemerintah, tapi untuk kasus Century, Beringin bermain di dua kaki. Elite partainya di Dewan Pimpinan Pusat berkali-kali menegaskan dukungannya pada pemerintah, sementara pasukan mereka di legislatif terus menyerang kebijakan penanganan Century.

Lalu Mara Satriawangsa, juru bicara Ketua Umum Golkar Aburizal Bakrie, membantah partainya memainkan politik dua wajah. ”Sikap Golkar tidak berubah, tetap menolak ada pemakzulan dan tidak menyerang orang per orang,” kata Lalu, Jumat pekan lalu.

Sehari sebelumnya, Fraksi Golkar merilis temuan sementara mereka. Bambang Soesatyo, ”jawara” Golkar di Panitia Khusus Century, menegaskan bahwa kesimpulan Golkar tidak berbeda dari temuan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan. ”Ada pelanggaran hukum, ada rekayasa, dan terjadi penyalahgunaan wewenang dan jabatan sehingga berpotensi menimbulkan kerugian negara,” kata Bambang. ”Sekurang-kurangnya ada 58 kesalahan.”

Adapun yang bersalah, ”Dalam pemberian fasilitas pendanaan jangka pendek dan bailout, ya Komite Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan,” kata Azis Syamsuddin, politikus Golkar lain di Panitia Khusus. Anggota Komite yang dimaksud hanya dua orang: Sri Mulyani dan Boediono.

Dengan peta ini, tidak sulit menebak bagaimana Panitia Khusus Century akan berakhir. Pertarungan pertama kubu pro dan anti-bailout akan terjadi dalam rapat final penentuan rekomendasi Panitia Khusus. Di sini kubu Demokrat diprediksi akan bertekuk lutut. Suara koalisi pemerintah—minus Golkar dan PKS—kalah. Mereka hanya punya 14 suara dari total 30 suara anggota Panitia Khusus. ”Kami tahu itu, karena itu kami akan minta minderheids nota. Keberatan kami harus dicatat,” kata politikus Partai Demokrat, Benny K. Harman.

Pertarungan berikutnya bakal terjadi di Sidang Paripurna Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat. Sidang akan memutuskan menerima atau menolak rekomendasi Panitia Khusus. Di sini, lagi-lagi, kubu Demokrat bakal kesulitan. Tanpa Golkar dan PKS, suara mereka tak cukup banyak untuk menghadang laju gerakan kubu garis keras. Mereka hanya punya 259 suara dari total 560 suara anggota Dewan.

Pentingnya suara Golkar dan PKS bagi koalisi amat disadari oleh petinggi kedua fraksi itu. Karena itulah, sepanjang pekan lalu, sinyal-sinyal negosiasi dikirimkan. Golkar, menurut sumber Tempo, ingin dugaan pelanggaran pidana pajak yang dituduhkan Kementerian Keuangan kepada sejumlah perusahaan milik Bakrie senilai Rp 2 triliun ”diselesaikan baik-baik”. Jika Demokrat bersedia memenuhi permintaan itu, Golkar akan mundur dan memperlunak posisinya.

Demokrat sendiri membaca sinyal itu. Pekan lalu Achsanul Qosasi, politikus Demokrat di Komisi Keuangan yang juga anggota Panitia Khusus Century, menggagas pembentukan panitia kerja untuk menelusuri dugaan pelanggaran pidana pajak sejumlah perusahaan. ”Pertengahan pekan ini panitia sudah terbentuk,” katanya. Panitia kerja itu akan memanggil pemimpin perusahaan-perusahaan yang melanggar aturan pajak dan mendesak mereka memenuhi kewajibannya.

Meski Achsanul membantah pembentukan panitia kerja penyelewengan pajak itu ada kaitannya dengan perkembangan di Panitia Khusus Century, aroma perseteruan kencang tercium. Juru bicara Aburizal yang juga Wakil Sekjen Partai Golkar, Lalu Mara, menyesalkan perkembangan ini. ”Kasus pajak kok dipolitisasi?” katanya. Dia menekankan bahwa semua perusahaan Bakrie adalah perusahaan terbuka dengan manajemen profesional. ”Berbahaya kalau isu mikroekonomi seperti perselisihan pajak dibawa ke ranah politik,” katanya.

Melihat gelagat perang bubat Demokrat vs Golkar, PDI Perjuangan kini malah mundur teratur. ”Kami tidak mau terjebak permainan ini,” kata satu politikus Fraksi Banteng. ”Kami berfokus pada pengungkapan kasus Century saja,” katanya.

Uniknya, Partai Demokrat tetap percaya diri. Mereka merasa punya kartu truf. Untuk memakzulkan Boediono, parlemen harus meloloskan hak menyatakan pendapat, yang pembahasannya wajib dihadiri 75 persen anggota Dewan. ”Fraksi kami sendiri sudah 26 persen,” kata Benny Harman. ”Kami sendirian saja bisa memblok mereka,” katanya. Soal Sri Mulyani, Demokrat juga keras hati. ”Kalau ada rekomendasi menteri dicopot, itu namanya mosi tak percaya oleh parlemen,” kata Benny. ”Itu tidak dikenal dalam sistem presidensial.”

Source: Majalah Tempo

Posted by: DS | February 1, 2010

Activists: Shariah Targets ‘Common People’ Only

Banda Aceh — Two human rights activists said on Sunday that the implementation of Shariah law in Aceh was unfair and discriminatory, as it only applied to the common people, while government officials and wealthy people were never sentenced to public lashings.

The comments follow the public caning of a farmer, Syahrul, 40, in Jantho, Aceh Besar, on Friday, after being found guilty of gambling.

Three of Syahrul’s more daring associates managed to escape from the Jantho Prosecution Office prison 15 minutes before execution of the sentence.

“This gave the impression that implementation of Shariah in Aceh is a laughable game. Especially as only the common people are sentenced to lashing,” said TAF Haikal, a civil rights activist.

“As an Acehnese, I will be ashamed if this situation continues, because Islamic Shariah is great, noble and universal. But in Aceh, it has been reduced to unethical misconduct,” he said.

Haikal, a former general secretary of the Aceh NGO Forum, said the perception of injustice comes from the fact that only the common people had been publicly lashed, while convicted officials had not.

“We know of officials that have been arrested for khalwat [unchaperoned romantic or sexual tryst between an unmarried couple], but none of them were caned,” he said.

“Even more curious, a Shariah policeman was arrested by the public for khalwat last year, but there has been no trial.”

He also questioned the caning of Syahrul whose betting bids were Rp 1,000 each, while, “covert gambling operations with millions of rupiah at stake remain untouched by Shariah police raids.”

Evi Narti Zain, executive director of the Aceh human rights NGO coalition, also questioned why the four men arrested for playing dominoes in Indrapuri subdistrict on Dec. 28, deserved to be lashed six times.

“The Rp 1,000 stake might have been just for fun. Afterwards, the money might have been used to buy themselves a meal. These things should be considered in the Shariah court,” she told the Globe.

Evi said that the case further illustrated the victimization of the lower classes and the absence of justice in the enforcement of Shariah, which was “ discriminatory, especially against women.”

“It’s not the Shariah law itself that’s at fault here, but the implementation of the law is wrong.”

Since the law was put into effect in Aceh in 2001, she said, it had focused on the same issues, “raids against women wearing tight clothing or not covering their head, arrest of people going on a date, common people playing games of chance.”

“Meanwhile, there are other aspects relating to public service that do not comply with Islamic law,” Evi said.

Teungku Faisal Ali, secretary general of the Aceh Ulema Association, admitted in a separate interview that Shariah had remained at a standstill due to a lack of seriousness on the part of the government to implement it as suggested by the Koran and the hadiths [the sayings of Prophet Muhammad].

“In the last three years, the use of Shariah has taken a step backward because the legal structure is inadequate and the government is not serious in fully applying the law,” he said.

Faisal, who also chairs the Aceh branch of Nahdlatul Ulama, said that as a result, the public had come to think of the law as discriminatory and unfair.

“Shariah recognizes no discrimination, because Islam is a blessing for the universe and its occupants. Islam is fair and indiscriminate in the upholding of justice. Those who are guilty should be punished, though in Islam those who repent can also be forgiven,” he said. “Islam holds mankind in high esteem, especially women, because it is a great and noble religion.”

The use of Shariah was granted during Abdurrahman Wahid’s administration, more as an attempt to resolve the conflict between the Free Aceh Movement and the national security forces.

Source: The Jakarta Globe

Posted by: DS | February 1, 2010

Superioritas yang Tiba-tiba Kempis

Tempo — Diakui atau tidak, kamera-kamera televisi yang dipasang pada dinding ruang pemeriksaan Panitia Khusus Hak Angket Bank Century telah memberikan seserpih pencerahan dalam kehidupan politik kita. Lampu-lampu sorot, kamera, mikrofon, membuat proses itu seperti pertunjukan teater yang bisa dinikmati penonton televisi di rumah. Santai, sambil mengunyah pisang goreng.

Itulah reality show baru yang–apa boleh buat–mungkin akan berujung pada pengakuan: kita telah memilih wakil yang salah di Senayan. Dan kemungkinan ini akan jadi kenyataan bila pola investigasi Panitia dipertahankan seperti selama ini.

Pertama, lenyapnya tata krama seorang tuan rumah ketika menerima tamu yang akan memberikan testimoni: Wakil Presiden Boediono, Menteri Keuangan Sri Mulyani, bekas wakil presiden Jusuf Kalla. Kedua, penyelidikan yang mereka lakukan tak ubahnya suatu “interogasi”. Padahal hak angket adalah hak konstitusional DPR untuk melakukan penyelidikan atas dugaan skandal.

Tatkala para penonton sibuk membeda-bedakan “kebenaran politik” dari “kebenaran” di layar kaca, disengaja atau tidak, perlahan-lahan sebuah kontrol tak langsung terhadap politik elite parlemen berlangsung. Mandat hasil pemilihan memang di tangan wakil rakyat itu, namun hubungan seorang terpilih dengan konstituennya tidak dapat berhenti di titik ketika mereka disumpah sebagai anggota DPR.

Para konstituen terus menyimpan dalam ingatan: betapa penerima mandat itu gemar menunjukkan superioritas dirinya–seraya menempatkan diri layaknya jaksa penyidik menghadapi tersangka. Ingat apa yang terjadi tatkala mereka memeriksa seorang Raden Pardede, Sekretaris Komite Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan. Tak mendapatkan jawaban yang sesuai dengan keinginan, mereka mengunci Raden, yang tampak gugup.

Raden gelagapan. Setap kali Raden hendak bicara, “sang jaksa” memotong kalimatnya cepat-cepat. Akibatnya, Raden yang bergelar doktor ini tak bisa menjawab secara jelas soal tindak lanjut surat Bank Indonesia yang bersifat rahasia namun seakan dengan mudah dicampuri oleh KSSK itu. Sesungguhnya banyak gaya bertanya bisa dikembangkan. Menggali bahan tidak tepat dilakukan dengan cara menghardik serta memaksa narasumber menjawab “ya” atau “tidak”.

Namun para penonton televisi juga tak bisa melupakan ketika arah angin tiba-tiba berubah. Rasa superioritas mereka sekonyong-konyong kempis ketika seorang koordinator nasabah Bank Century mengungkapkan uneg-uneg, membentak, menuding-nuding wakil ketua Gayus Lumbuun dan anggota Maruarar Sirait. Sang nasabah menampik ajakan Maruarar berjabatan tangan. Menenteng sebuah map berwarna merah, tidak seorang pun sanggup mencegah dia melanjutkan amarahnya. “Kami sudah bosan dengan kebohongan yang ada. Maling! Maling semua! Ada apa dengan BI dan Robert Tantular,” serunya.

Sebagian orang mengartikan ini “karma” atas perlakuan mereka terhadap para pejabat. Namun sebagian lagi menganggap rasa superioritas anggota Panitia Khusus, yang selama ini mencorong, telah hilang. Mungkinkah ini semacam toleransi terhadap korban? Yang jelas, pemahaman orang bisa beragam, termasuk munculnya rasa inferioritas ketika mereka menghadapi sosok yang tegas, tidak mengenal kompromi.

Panitia Khusus adalah panggung politik. Tapi sekarang kita tahu ia lebih mendekati bentuk sebuah reality show yang tak selalu bisa ditebak akhirnya. Dari layar kaca, kita–konstituen mereka yang “bertingkah” itu–menyaksikan semuanya, dengan pedih.

Source: Tempo Interaktif

Posted by: DS | January 30, 2010

Study: Indonesian military behind illegal logging

Stephen Coates — The Indonesian military is deeply involved in the trade in illegally felled timber that is destroying vast tracts of pristine forest near the Malaysian border, researchers said Friday.

Their findings come days after the government revealed plans to ask foreign governments to contribute to a billion-dollar “green investment fund” to help it cut greenhouse gas emissions through sustainable infrastructure projects.

Environmentalists argue that the government could go a long way towards meeting its target of cutting emissions by 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 simply by stopping unchecked illegal logging.

But the new study by the Center for East Asia Cooperation Studies (CEACoS) at the University of Indonesia has revealed how difficult this could be, given the military’s involvement in the illicit trade.

CEACoS executive director Tirta N. Mursitama, the head researcher in the project, said the military acted as a coordinator, investor, facilitator and middleman for the illegal loggers.

“Military personnel from low ranked soldiers to territorial commanders were involved in the practice of illegal logging in the border areas,” he told AFP.

“The military personnel acted as coordinators, investors and people who deliberately failed to monitor the flow of logging transport.”

The study covered the period between 1999 and 2006 in East Kalimantan, on the Indonesian side of Borneo where forests are being stripped for timber and palm oil plantations faster than anywhere else in the world.

Deforestation in places like Sumatra, Papua and Borneo is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change, scientists believe.

As much as 20 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions are estimated to come from forest destruction.

Mursitama said some high-ranking military officers received kickbacks from subordinates involved in illegal logging, while others fostered close relationships with the “cukong”, or godfathers of the business.

Other levels of involvement included direct investment in logging companies and taking bribes for arranging logging permits from the forestry ministry.

A military spokesman said he had not seen the study and could not comment, but promised to “follow up” on its findings.

Rear Admiral T.H. Soesetyo, from the Directorate General of Defense Strategy at the Defense Ministry, acknowledged to The Jakarta Post that some officers supplemented their meagre incomes with blackmarket timber.

“Life at the border areas can be difficult for soldiers,” he said.

Few Indonesian military personnel have ever been punished for their involvement in illegal logging.

US-based Human Rights Watch said last month that between 2003 and 2006, mismanagement and corruption in the timber industry cost Indonesia two billion dollars a year in lost revenue.

The forestry ministry claims it is cracking down on illegal logging as part of the drive to cut carbon emissions, and has produced figures indicating it expects the trade to all but disappear by 2020.

But environmentalists have scoffed at the predictions, dismissing them as a “green-wash campaign” to mask the government’s inaction.

Indonesia announced earlier this week it is hoping to draw hundreds of millions of dollars from developed countries such as Australia, Britain, Japan and the United States to fund “green infrastructure” schemes.

Jakarta says it needs the money to help it meet its emissions targets.

Source: AFP

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.