Artikel ku di Indonesia

http://www.forum-politisi.org/berita/article.php?id=832&title=Koalisi%20di%20Malaysia

Labels: DAP, indonesia, pakatan rakyat, Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 4/30/2009 03:15:00 am ... 0 blast off

 

 

POLLING STATIONS IN ACEH OPEN SMOOTHLY WITH VERY MINOR VIOLATIONS

Press Release

A systematic observation conducted by e-CARD showed that the opening process in polling stations in Aceh went smoothly. The majority of volunteers (74.4%) did not find any problems in the opening process. However, the opening procedure of polling stations took longer than expected. Almost half of the polling stations (47.3%) began voting between 8.00 and 9.00 am. In 19.6% of the polling stations, the first voter entered the polling station after 9:00 am. This was because of the village level election officials’ mandated procedures related to preparing four different ballot papers (DPR, DPD, DPRA, and DPRK). As a consequence, the time allocated for voting was shortened to only three to four hours.

Only a small number of violations were reported. In Banda Aceh, Meuraxa sub-district, Punge
Jurong village, several party witnesses were not allowed to enter polling station number four during the vote count. In West Aceh district, Bubon sub-district, Beurawang Village, polling station number one, a volunteer observed that a village level election official was partisan and directed voters to vote for a particular political party.

Concerns about unprepared logistics were not found in the field. Ninety-three percent (93.6%) of
polling stations had received all election materials before the opening. The majority of polling
stations (90.2%) had voting booths that guaranteed the secrecy of the vote. Ninety percent (90.2%) of polling stations showed the empty ballot boxes to the political party witnesses before being sealed. Eighty-eight percent (88.1%) of polling stations displayed the final voters list. However, only 60.4% of the polling stations displayed the final candidates list.

Participation of political party witnesses to safeguard the election process was very high. From the data received, 83.3% of polling stations had more than one party witness.

The above findings are based on the data received from a Sample Based Observation (SBO) in 438 polling stations in 23 districts/ cities in Aceh. These polling stations were randomly selected using a statistical methodology (cluster random sampling) that is internationally accepted and always proven accurate, including in several local elections in Indonesia, particularly in the 2006 Aceh gubernatorial election. The margin of error in this SBO is +/- 2 percent with a confidence level of 95%. This activity is conducted by e-CARD with technical assistance from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).

More findings related to the voting and counting process will be publicized in a press conference on April 10 at 15.00 in Hermes Hotel, Banda Aceh.

For further information please contact:
Elly Sufriadi/ Executive Director e-CARD (+62 812 6879028)
www.jurdil.org

Labels: Elections Commission, indonesia

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 4/20/2009 04:07:00 pm ... 0 blast off

 

 

THE VOTING PROCESS IN ACEH WAS PEACEFUL AND CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS

Me observing on the polling day

Press Release

Based on e-CARD volunteers’ observation, there were very minor irregularities or problems during the voting and vote counting process in the majority of polling stations (74.1%). Meanwhile, a further 19.5% of volunteers said that there were irregularities or problems, but that they were not significant enough to influence the final results. Only 2.9% of volunteers said that there were many irregularities that would influence the election results in that polling station. These findings are from e-CARD’s Sample Based Observation (SBO) that was
conducted on April 9, 2009.

Only a small number of volunteers (6.1%) observed someone trying to influence voters to vote for a particular party or candidate. Almost all voting at the polling stations was conducted peacefully.

Only 4% of polling stations allowed unregistered citizens to vote, while the majority (95.6%) did not. Almost all polling stations (94.3%) applied indelible ink consistently to all voters. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of volunteers also observed that the quality of indelible ink used was, indeed, not easily erased.

The majority of vote counting in polling stations (93.8%) were witnessed by party witnesses. Party witnesses were able to clearly view the entire vote counting process (97.4%). Despite observing from outside the polling stations, most e-CARD observers (96.7%) were still able to observe the vote counting process clearly. As a result, during vote counting, decisions related to valid and invalid marks on ballots still followed regulations in almost all polling stations (95,6%).

Most of the village level election officials (84.5%) understood the vote counting process and how to fill-out the counting, despite the number of forms and their complicated nature. To note, e-CARD volunteers also observed in several polling stations that the vote count began with DPRA ballots first, instead of following the regulated procedure to begin with the DPR, DPD, DPRA, then DPRK. In 89.6% of polling stations, vote results that were written on C1 forms were identical with the results written on C2 forms for the DPRA. At the end, in almost all polling stations, 94.8% of party witnesses present at the polling stations signed the vote count certification form for DPRA. Most volunteers (90.6%) did not file complaints on the count result in their polling stations.

The above findings are based on the data received from a Sample Based Observation (SBO) in 473 polling stations in 23 districts/ cities in Aceh. These polling stations were randomly selected using a statistical methodology (cluster random sampling) that is internationally accepted and always proven accurate, including in several local elections in Indonesia, particularly in the 2006 Aceh gubernatorial election. The margin of error in this SBO is +/- 2 percent with a confidence level of 95%. This activity is conducted by e-CARD with technical assistance from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).

Untuk informasi lebih lanjut silahkan hubungi:
Elly Sufriadi/ Executive Director e-CARD (+62 812 69879029)
www.jurdil.org

Labels: indonesia

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 4/20/2009 03:28:00 pm ... 0 blast off

 

 

Koalisi Penentu Kekuatan

Kain rentang kempen PKB tidak dibenarkan memaparkan Gus Dur dan cuba menampilkan pemimpin pecahannya, Muhaimin Iskandar

Ketua Badan Pemenangan Pemilu Legislatif PDI-P, Tjahjo Kumolo

Selepas pemilihan umum Indonesia yang diadakan lima tahun sekali, masanya kini tiba untuk percaturan untuk sebarang penggabungan dari konteks menentukan ketua Negara (sebut: Presiden).

Semasa kempen pilihan umum Mac lalu, banyak pihak yang sudah membicarakan mengenai koalisi yang mahu dibentuk samada ianya berbentuk koalisi besar, mahupun koalisi kecil.

Koalisi besar didefinisikan sebagai gabungan antara parti terbesar dan parti paling berpengaruh di parlimen. Parti-parti itu di dalam koalisi itu nanti memiliki majoriti besar da hanya menghadapi sedikit pembangkang di parlimen. Koalisi kecil pula bermatlamat untuk kemenangan minimal yang secara pengiraannya memiliki peluang yang lebih kecil untuk menguasai majoriti parlimen (Rainer Adam 2007).

Sudah tentu dalam konteks ini, ramai yang lebih berminat untuk melihat koalisi besar yang dipercaturkan kerana ini yang akan menentukan kekuatan pentadbiran Negara, bukannya kerusi parlimen.

Di dalam keadaan yang berlaku di Indonesia, apa yang pasti Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla tidak akan digandingkan lagi. Malah, Kalla dari Partai Golkar sudah amat berkeyakinan bahawa dia mampu untuk bertanding bagi kerusi Presiden Indonesia sehingga 2014. Koalisi sebelum ini tidak mendatangkan sebarang pemasalahan bagi kedua pihak. Cuma Kalla merasakan dia berada dalam jurusan yang betul; langkah demi langkah dari jawatan menteri ke jawatan Wakil Presiden hingga tiba masanya untuk sampai ke puncak kuasa.

Golkar juga sejak kempen pilihan umum itu lagi sudah membincangkan perlawanan Golkar menentang Partai Demokrat untuk calon presiden. Di antara strategi tekanan yang dimainkan Golkar ialah dengan penerbitan buku berjudul ’99 Alasan Mengapa JK Pantas Menjadi Presiden’. Buu tersebut akan diterbitkan setelah mantan Menteri Koordinator Kesejahteraan Rakyat secara rasminya menjadi calon Golkar.

Setakat ini, Partai Kebangsaan Bangsa (PKB) sudah menyatakan keputusan mereka secara terbuka untuk mendokong Partai Demokrat. Bagi Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) pula tidak tetap pendiriannya dan mundar mandir samada untuk bekerjasama dengan Golkar ataupun Demokrat.

Memandangkan Golkar dan Demokrat tidak berkemungkinan berkoalisi, maka Partai Demokratik Indonesia Perjuangan (PDI-P) pimpinan Mengawati Soekarnoputri mendapat kaedah koalisi yang mungkin memenangkannya. Lagi pun, menurut quick count Jusuf Kalla tidak mendapat undi seperti yang diharapkan. Maka, ini member peluang kepada Megawati untuk menjadi Presiden dan digandingkan dengan Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono dari Partai Golkar.


Mengikut hasil quick count yang dibuat oleh beberapa badan bebas, Partai Demokrat mendapat suara terbanyak. Namun, semuanya masih belum pasti.

Koalisi di Malaysia

Koalisi di Malaysia pula tidak seteruk Indonesia. Pemfokusan boleh dibuat dengan teliti dan strategi meleset dapat dikurangkan sebanyak mungkin.

Di pihak parti pemerintahan mereka pula sudah mula menadakan perbincangan yang sama. Bermula dengan tsunami politik 8 Mac dengan kekalahan bersejarah Barisan Nasional (BN), mereka mula mencadangkan agar UMNO bergabung dengan PAS bagi memperkuatkan dokongan dan membela nasib golongan Melayu di Negara ini.

Namun, Mursyidul Amnya, Tuan Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat tidak bersetuju dengan menyatakan usaha tersebut pernah gagal sebelum ini dan tidak mahu mengulangi kesilapan yang sama.

Keluarnya SUPP dari BN membawa spekulasi bahawa parti yang mempunyai dua anggota di parlimen itu akan menyertai Pakatan Rakyat. Ianya tidak berlaku.

Atas kesedaran pengundi bahawa parti politik perkauman tidak lagi relevan, MCA dan MIC pula dicadangkan agar bergabung bersama Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP). DAP pula sudah menandatangani kedudukannya di bawah Pakatan Rakyat. Di dalam politik perjanjian sedemikian biasa diubah bila-bila masa sahaja.

Maka, sekiranya ianya berlaku, Umno akan bergabung bagi memperkuatkan bangsa mereka. Jadi, apa yang akan berlaku kepada Parti Keadilan Rakyat?

Ada yang memberi cadangan agar Parti Keadilan Rakyat (keADILan) bergabung dengan Parti Gerakan Rakyat (Gerakan). Adakah ini formula terbaik politik Malaysia?

Koalisi keADILan – Gerakan akan membawa lebih memudaratkan, lebih mudarat jika dibandingkan dengan gabungan DAP-MCA-MIC atau pun PAS – Umno sungguhpun koalisi itu amat nipis untuk menjadi kenyataan.

Atas sifat ideologi di atas kertasnya, Gerakan sebuah parti politik pelbagai kaum yang bersifat liberal. Tapi apa yang nyata, Gerakan ialah sebuah parti politik yang mementingkan kepentingan sendiri dan amat hipokrit dalam pelaksanaannya.

Di dalam konteks liberalisme, sepatutnya Gerakan mendokong prinsip kebebasan dan keadilan. Tetapi ternyata mereka tidak ubah sifatnya seperti Umno, MCA dan MIC iaitu parti politik yang hanya bersifat individualistik serta tidak berprinsip.

Sekiranya benar Gerakan mendokong liberalisme, mengapakah mereka sebahagian daripada penggubal akta-akta draconian selama 50 tahun pemerintahan mereka?

Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, Akta Hasutan, Akta Fitnah, Akta Universiti, Akta Percetakan dan banyak lagi akta yang langsung tidak mendokong liberalism dan kebebasan manusiawi.

Kita lihat pula kenyataan Gerakan baru-baru ini apabila keADILan mahu mengadakan pilihan raya kecil di Penanti bagi menggantikan Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN)nya yang meletak jawatan.

Pengerusi Gerakan Pulau Pinang, Datuk Dr. Teng Hock Nan sewenang-wenangnya menuduh keADILan mewujudkan gelombang sokongan kepada parti itu.

Tanpa berpegang kepada prinsip demokrasi, Teng juga mendakwa pilihan raya kecil yang akan datang ini dirancang dan dicipta dengan motif tertentu iaitu untuk meraih populariti dan sokongan rakyat.

Lihat satu lagi contoh betapa sikap Gerakan yang langsung tidak mendokong prinsip demokrasi sebenar. Presidennya, Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon yang ditolak oleh pengundi boleh dengan rasa tidak malu dan segan menerima perlantikan Perdana Menteri menjawat jawatan menteri.

Ketua Pemudanya pula Lim Si Ping pula dengan rasa tidak malu menganggap bahawa Presidennya “Super Minister”. Bagaimana seorang pemimpin yang sudah memegang tampuk kuasa sebagai ketua menteri selama 18tahun boleh digelar sebegitu rupa dan kalah dalam pilihan raya.

Kerana tidak berprinsip, Gerakan juga gagal mengeluarkan sebarang kenyataan mengenai kenyataan Ketua Bahagian Umno Bukit Bendera, Ahmad Ismail mengenai isu kaum cina sebagai pendatang semasa pilihan raya kecil Permatang Pauh Ogos lalu?

Perlantikan jawatan menteri mengikut ‘pintu belakang’ ini secara jelas tidak mengikut amalan demokrasi tulen. Sekiranya Gerakan benar-benar berideologikan liberal, mereka sepatutnya menolak tawaran tersebut, bekerja dengan kuat dalam memperkasakan prinsip hak asasi manusia dan mengakui kelemahan.

Gerakan sepatutnya bekerja dengan hati yang ikhlas dalam membantu membangunkan Pulau Pinang. Dengan kedudukannya sebagai ahli gabungan BN, mereka sepatutnya memberi keyakinan kepada Kerajaan Pusat untuk meneruskan projek yang direncanakan, bukannya membekukan alokasi dana projek pembangunan di Pulau Pinang.

Sekiranya ramai yang menganggap koalisi ahli komponen BN tidak mungkin berlaku kerana dasar perkauman yang diamalkan, maka Gerakan yang hipokrit bakal menjadi duri dalam daging di dalam Pakatan Rakyat nanti. Gerakan tidak akan menyumbang apa-apa kepada pembangunan politik akan mengikut tradisinya, parti itu akan menjadi ‘pak turut’ asalkan dapat menyuap nasi kepada pemimpin-pemimpinnya.

Labels: indonesia

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 4/18/2009 01:14:00 am ... 0 blast off

 

 

Beyond the crossroads

From The Economist print edition

The election may be a shambles, but democracy is thriving

UNDER Suharto, the dictator who ruled for 32 years until 1998, Indonesian parliamentary elections were not so much rigged as scripted. But the pointless campaigns were lively, colourful affairs, giving an impressive imitation of the forms of democracy. Now that Indonesia enjoys the substance, too, political parties can give full vent to the voters’ enthusiasm. The campaign for the parliamentary election on April 9th, the third since Suharto’s downfall, has been a carnival of democratic competition: flag-waving, horn-honking processions; television-advertising blitzes; mass rallies with a few speeches, gifts of free T-shirts, 20,000 rupiah ($2) notes and, most important, singing and dancing.

The poll itself is an exercise whose scale and logistical complexity are second only to those of a general election in India. Across more than 900 inhabited islands, 171m people have registered to vote. They have 38 national parties to choose from, and an estimated 800,000 candidates for the national parliament, known as the DPR, and lower-level provincial and other legislatures. And this is only the start of what may be a three-stage process. Parties, or coalitions of parties, that win at least 112 seats in the 560-member DPR, or 25% of the popular vote, may nominate candidates for the powerful presidency, to be elected in July. If no candidate wins more than 50% of the vote then, there will be a run-off in September.

Indonesia’s national motto is “Unity in Diversity”, and there is a surprising degree of consensus about the likely outcome of all this: the re-election of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who in 2004 became Indonesia’s first directly elected president, for a second five-year term. But even if the consensus is accurate, there is great uncertainty about the shape of the coalition he will lead, which depends in part on the results of the parliamentary vote.

Opinion polls (see chart) suggest many voters have yet to make up their minds but that the new DPR will probably be dominated by three parties: the president’s Democratic Party (PD), which basks in the glow of his own popularity and is expected to double its share of votes to more than 20%; Golkar, which was once a vehicle for Suharto’s re-election but which serves in the PD’s coalition and is led by Josuf Kalla, the vice-president; and the main opposition, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle, or PDI-P, which is the heir to the nationalist movement of independent Indonesia’s founder, Sukarno, and is led by his daughter, Megawati Sukarnoputri, whom Mr Yudhoyono replaced as president.

The next administration will be another coalition. If Mr Yudhoyono and Mr Kalla remain on the same ticket, they will be hard to beat. But Mr Kalla has said he will contest the presidency himself, forging an alliance with the PDI-P and others. If he does, which is not certain, that might leave Mr Yudhoyono’s secular PD leading a coalition of smaller parties, of which the most important are Islamist ones.

Thinking back to the political chaos, bloodshed and economic meltdown that surrounded Suharto’s departure, it is hard not to be impressed that the legitimacy of this convoluted process seems to enjoy such general support in Indonesia. Democracy has taken root and flourished. Though it is still finding its way—and there are many reasons to worry about the forthcoming election—democracy’s achievements are worth enumerating.

In a country with a history of political violence, the campaign has been largely peaceful and good-humoured, as it was in 2004. An exception has been Aceh, where a separatist insurgency ended with an agreement on local autonomy in 2005. The first local legislative elections in Aceh are being held alongside the DPR vote. Three former insurgents have been mysteriously murdered. The army accuses the former separatists’ party, Partai Aceh, of continuing to espouse independence.

Separatists in restive regions such as Papua and Maluku can still be locked up for unfurling flags, as they were after a demonstration in Papua in March; four Dutch journalists were briefly detained for covering that episode. The army is accused of abuses in Papua of the sort it once perpetrated in both Timor-Leste and Aceh. But elsewhere, claims Amien Rais, a leader of reformasi, the turbulent reform movement that toppled Suharto, Indonesia has a free press and “100% political liberty”.

The Indonesian miracle

The army is back in the barracks. Under Suharto it had dwifungsi, the “dual function” of running the country as well as defending it. It also oversaw a huge business empire, since partially dismantled, and was guaranteed enough seats in the parliament to ensure its privileges could not be chipped away. Now not only are serving soldiers barred from political office; the 410,000 members of the armed forces do not even have the vote. Six would-be candidates for the presidency are retired generals, including Mr Yudhoyono. But most Indonesians seem to expect the army to remain neutral during the elections.

Moreover, in the country with more Muslims than any other (nearly 90% of a population of about 240m), political Islam is firmly in the moderate mainstream. Indonesia has done well in rounding up Jemaah Islamiah, the al-Qaeda affiliate responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing. Some forms of Islamic orthodoxy—women wearing headscarves, for example—are more prevalent than a decade ago. And in the last DPR election, about 40% of the vote went to parties broadly defined as Islamist.

They have since played a role in promoting two regrettable pieces of legislation: one, to curb “pornography”, which though much watered down, might be used to ban such joys as traditional dancing; and one stopping Muslims belonging to the Ahmadiyah sect from proselytising. There has also been a worrying tolerance for thuggery by Islamist vigilantes. But, despite claims by some “nationalists” (as secularists like to call themselves) that extremists are taking over Indonesia by stealth, the country does not seem to be creeping towards fundamentalism.

In the early months of reformasi, dozens of Islamist parties sprang up. Most have since vanished or become part of the mainstream. To win power nationally and in local elections they have had to adopt a more secular image, or form coalitions with secular parties. Opinion polls have found dwindling support for the regulations based on sharia that some local governments have introduced.

The Prosperous Justice Party, or PKS, for example, grew out of the underground campus resistance to Suharto. H. Zulkieflimansyah, a PKS leader in the DPR, explains that religious activism was less tightly constrained than the political sort. Its precursor organisation grew into a nationwide network. In the 2004 elections it put this to good use, winning more than 7% of the vote. But he says the party, which joined the governing coalition, is between the rock of not alienating its core Islamist support and the hard place of needing to attract secular voters. The PKS, like most Islamist parties, is expected to fare worse in this election than it did in 2004.

Another largely successful reform is the radical decentralisation that has seen a big chunk of public-sector spending and power devolved to local levels. Parties that have done badly locally will now pay a price at the national level. The reformasi has also introduced a new sense of accountability, which has done a bit to rein in the still rampant corruption. So has the capture of some big fish. They include the father of Mr Yudhoyono’s daughter-in-law, one of several corruption suspects at the central bank, and so many DPR members that a judge asked if every law discussed there needs to be lubricated with cash.


Same old, same old

The persistence of pervasive corruption after the departure of the Suharto kleptocracy is only one of the clouds over Indonesia’s vibrant new democracy. Another is the continued dominance of Suharto-era figures. All the main contenders for power are survivors of that period. Even Ms Megawati, as part of the licensed opposition under Suharto, is a relic of his “New Order” regime. Blink, and reformasi looks less like the revolution it seemed to herald and more like a tactical manoeuvre to help the old Jakarta elite to cling to power. Blaming the stultifying environment of the Suharto years, optimists hope a new generation of leaders will emerge by the next elections in 2014. Indonesians, says Eva Sundari of the PDI-P, are not yet ready to elect a juvenile such as Barack Obama.

The absence of political debate in the campaign is also dispiriting. So thin is the ideological divide, for example, that the two main rival presidential candidates could be the incumbent and his deputy. Asked what Golkar stands for, Burhanuddin Napitupulu, a leading party strategist, seems flummoxed. “Prosperity and nationalism,” he eventually comes up with. Similarly, the goals of the PKS, as defined by Mr Zulkieflimansyah, are “the reform of the Islamic community”, and the aim of reform is “prosperity and justice”, roughly the PKS’s name. He pins some hopes on the party’s high position on the ballot paper. Likewise, the Golkar bigwig thinks his party has an edge because of its campaign colour, an “eye-catching” yellow.

A PD vice-chairman, Darwin Saleh, cheerfully concedes the party’s hopes rest on the president’s popularity: “paternalism will be dominant for the next ten years.” The PDI-P, as an opposition party, has a clearer platform: against privatisation and for stronger workers’ rights. But it is still less closely identified with a manifesto than an individual—Ms Megawati, whose undistinguished presidency and aloof style are handicaps.

Two other parties are simply bandwagons for the presidential ambitions of Suharto-era generals. Wiranto, a former army chief implicated in the violence that accompanied the breakaway of Timor-Leste in 1999, heads Hanura. Prabowo Subianto, the former head of a notorious special-forces unit, who went into exile after being involved in the kidnapping of political activists in 1998, heads Gerindra. Of the two, Gerindra has created the bigger splash. Financed by Mr Prabowo’s billionaire brother, it has poured money into TV advertising, and offers members an innovative freebie: one-year’s worth of premiums for life-insurance policies that would pay out about $200, a fortune to most. Its populist message may have won it 13m members but this need not translate into votes.

The absence of real policy debate provokes an understandable response: growing apathy. The percentage of voters who opt, in the Indonesian term, for golput, or the “white party”—ie, do not vote or else spoil their ballots—was widely watched in the Suharto days as a measure of tacit dissent. In 2004 the golput rate, just 5% in 1999, reached 25%, and is expected to climb further this year.

The number of Indonesians unrepresented in the new DPR will rise because of the threshold that parties have to cross before any of their candidates are allowed seats: 2.5% of the national vote. There is no second-preference system, so those votes, which may account for as much as 20-30% of the total, are in effect ignored. Defenders of the system point out the importance of thinning the numbers of parties. But that is to ignore the likely alienation of voters in provinces, such as Papua, still chafing at rule from Jakarta.

In yet another reform, voters will pick individual candidates not party lists. So it is possible that some might win the popular vote but not be elected because their parties nationally fall short of the threshold. That is one of many reasons to expect the results to produce consternation, wrangling and legal challenges.

Dictatorship was so much easier

Many Indonesians are not even sure how to cast their votes, after a planned shift from hole-punching to box-ticking was aborted (both are now allowed). Folding the bath-towel-sized ballot paper will also be tough, and voting will take so long queues will need patience. By April 1st the software to transmit the results had still not been installed, 5.7m ballot papers had been found to be invalid and many others had not reached the polling stations. Unlike India, Indonesia does not stagger its election, though some Christian districts will be allowed to delay voting a few days.

Most seriously, questions have been raised about the voters’ lists, after a scandal this year over a governor’s election in East Java, in which more than a quarter of the names on the list were found to be duplicates or bogus. The enterprising police commander who made this discovery was chivvied into retirement three months early and the investigation downgraded, giving the impression of a cover-up.

Whether or not there was an attempt to rig the election in East Java—or something similar is planned nationally—the mess highlights the weakness and ineptitude of the independent election commission. This is in part a result of a corruption scandal in 2004, which saw some commissioners go to jail. Not only did that deter potential recruits, it also meant that the commission’s budget is now on a much tighter leash.

With so many problems, there have been calls for a delay in the vote. They are unlikely to be heeded. Even the PDI-P’s Ms Sundari would be opposed. Candidates, she says, cannot afford an even longer campaign. And the move from a party-list system has created tremendous friction within the parties. They want the election over with.

The electoral stimulus

All that money the candidates have been splashing out is useful at a time when Indonesia’s economy is cooling sharply in the draught from the global downturn. Exports, dented by falling demand and collapsing prices for commodities such as coal and palm oil, were down 36% in January in value terms compared with a year earlier, according to Mari Pangestu, the trade minister. The central bank expects a decline of 25-28% for 2009 as a whole. Most economists expect GDP growth to slow to about 3% from 6.1% in 2008.

That is still a far cry from the cataclysm of 1998, when the rupiah collapsed and the economy shrank by 13.1%. The rupiah has weakened moderately in recent months, and the government has been arranging back-up swap arrangements with multilateral banks and other countries, including a $15 billion facility from China.

The government has announced its own fiscal stimulus of 73.3 trillion rupiah, about $6 billion, or 1.4% of GDP. Most of it will be in the form of tax cuts, with only 17% devoted to infrastructure and poverty relief. That is in part a reflection of the government’s lack of capacity. Though the need of better infrastructure is desperate, the government knows that promising to throw money at the problem is an inefficient way of generating economic activity.

There could have been no more graphic or terrible illustration of this than a disaster which struck on March 27th. The Situ Gintung dyke burst in the middle of a night of heavy rain. Within minutes it had tipped 2m cubic metres of water from a reservoir onto the township of Cirendeu, just outside Jakarta. More than 300 houses, a school and a college campus were deluged. Rescuers and residents picked through the mud, finding nearly 100 bodies. Residents say that cracks in the dyke, built by the Dutch in 1933, had been spotted a year ago, but nothing had been done. The disaster was worsened by the illegal building of houses under the dyke.

Many other existing dams need urgent repairs; many new ones are planned but unbuilt. This is, in part, an unwanted by-product of decentralisation: inept local authorities sit on funds for projects they cannot get started. The corruption implied by the illegal building did not extend to oiling the wheels to get the dyke fixed. Those who stayed despite knowing the dangers—some even practised evacuation drills—must have been trapped by poverty.

People do not seem to blame Mr Yudhoyono for all this or, reasonably enough, for the global slump. Judging from the polls and anecdotal evidence, he is seen as a decent man struggling to deal with a series of calamitous acts of God—the 2004 tsunami hit just after he took office. The anti-corruption drive has been popular, as have cash handouts for the poor, introduced last year to compensate for rising fuel prices. Some 19m poor families are receiving 100,000 rupiah a month.

If Mr Yudhoyono is criticised, it is as a ditherer and fudger—not the worst faults in somebody negotiating the survival of a new democracy. A bigger danger to his record, and to that democracy itself, would be a badly flawed election. It is not just for the president’s sake that it matters that Indonesia’s great electoral drama, against the odds, goes all right on the night.

Labels: indonesia

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 4/05/2009 10:35:00 pm ... 0 blast off

 

 

SPR, Dangdut dan Pemilu

Berbeza apabila kita melihat cara pilihan raya dijalankan bagi mengejar nama demokrasi. Dalam sesuatu pilihan raya, suruhanjayalah yang merupakan badan yang paling sibuk dengan tanggungjawab agar Negara dapat mencanang bahawa mereka telah menjalankan demokrasi.

Indonesia boleh dianggap sebuah Negara yang sungguh demokratik. Selepas era reformasi dengan tumbangnya rejim diktator Suharto, parti-parti politik tumbuh bagai cendawan selepas hujan. Pada pilihan raya umum mereka yang dijadualkan pada 9 April ini, Indonesia menyaksikan 38 buah parti politik bertanding kecuali Acheh yang mempunyai tambahan empat parti tempatan. Sebanyak lebih kurang 11 ribu calon yang mendaftarkan diri untuk bertanding merebut kerusi Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Indonesia (DPR-I) yang mempunyai taraf seperti parlimen, 33 kerusi Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (DPRD) bagi provinsi, 35 hingga 60 kerusi kabupaten dan selebihnya merebut kerusi Dewan Pertimbangan Daerah (DPD) bagi kecamatan dan keluhuran (desa). 50 peratus daripada mereka yang berhasrat untuk bertanding kali ini merupakan kali pertama mereka bertanding dalam pilihan raya.

Sepanjang tahun juga mereka pastikan bahawa terdapat juga pemilihan bagi peringkat-peringkat lain seperti Pemilihan Presiden yang terdiri daripada Presiden dan wakil presiden serta Anggota Kabinet, Pemilihan Kepala Daerah yang terdiri daripada Gubernur dan Bupati/Walikota dan akhirnya Pemilihan Kepala Desa bagi memilih Kepala Desa.

Dua parti politik mendakwa mereka mempunyai calon legislatif termuda. Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) mendapat pengiktirafan daripda jawatankuasa pecah rekod Indonesia mempunyai calon 23 tahun manakala PDI Perjuangan mendakwa mereka mempunyai calon berusia 17 tahun. Calon-calon yang berhasrat untuk bertanding tidak perlu membayat deposit tinggi seperti di Malaysia kerana tidak mahu menyekat suara demokrasi rakyat mereka. Bagi Malaysia, pada usia remaja 17 tahun, masih tidak tahu apa-apa tentang hak demokrasi mereka.

Di Malaysia, hanya kerusi 222 kerusi Parlimen dan 570 kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN). Itu sahaja. Bagi jawatan perwakilan yang lainnya, semuanya dilantik oleh majoriti parti yang memerintah. Sudah tentu, bagi kerusi ahli majlis, Jawatankuasa Kecil Kampung (JKKK) dilantik oleh mereka yang menang. Di Indonesia, tiada pembangkang dan sekecil-kecil parti politik yang ada, mereka mempunyai hak dan peluang yang sama untuk menduduki kerusi pewakilan rakyat.

Banyak organisasi bukan kerajaan (NGO) telah mendesak agar kita wujudkan sebuah pilihan raya yang lebih demokratik terutama dengan mempunyai senarai pemilih yang bersih, penggunaan dakwat kekal, media bebas, penghapusan undi pos kepada polis dan tentera serta tempoh kempen yang lebih panjang. Sikap ego Pengerusinya sebelum ini dan angkatannya seolah-olah mereka hamba kepada parti pemerintah. Empat hari sebelum pengundian, keputusan untuk mencalit kuku kepada yang sudah mengundi ditarik balik. Macam-macam alasan diberikan. Keputusan untuk penarikan balik dakwat kekal dibuat dalam satu sidang media dan dikepung oleh Peguam Negara dan Ketua Polis Negara. Akhirnya rumah Pengerusi Suruhajaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) disimbah cat merah.

Demokrasi di Indonesia berkembang dengan cepatnya. Selepas orde baru (reformasi), Negara itu telah menjalankan pilihan raya mereka. Pada waktu itu, keadaan pemilihan separuh bebas. Pada pilihan raya 2004, rakyat mendesak supaya semua jawatan pewakilan rakyat wajib dipertandingkan. Dan kali ini, pada tahun 2009, mereka telah mencapai tahap demokrasi matang mereka yang amat membanggakan.

Terlebih Matang

Bagi memastikan kesemua 171 juta pemilih mendapat hak mereka, mereka telah menjalankan pelbagai prosedur baru dalam pengundian. Badan suruhanjaya mereka (Komisioner Pilihan Umum, KPU) menukar cara pemilihan yang sebelum ini ditebuk dengan menggunakan peralatan tajam di nama calon dengan menandakan sahaja. Kertas undi mereka teramat besar (saiz A2) sehingga amat menyukarkan proses pengundian dan proses kiraan.

Semasa simulasi yang dijalankan oleh KPU, setiap pengundi mengambil masa purata sebanyak 37 minit untuk meletakkan kertas undi mereka ke kotak undi. Keadaan di Indonesia pula rata-rata berpendidikan rendah. Sudah tentu mereka tidak jelas dengan perubaha n yang dijalankan KPU.

Oleh kerana sifat kekhuatiran ini, terdapat juga segolongan yang mahu memboikot sahaja pilihan raya mereka kerana prosedur ‘rumit’ yang diperkenalkan.

Selain itu, setakat 27 Mac lalu, akhbar tempatan mereka sudah melaporkan sebanyak 300,000 kes yang mencurigakan. Ia termasuk kes dua nama dalam senarai pemilih. Namun, kes yang dialami di Indonesia tidak seteruk di Malaysia. Kita di Malaysia ada nama orang mati sehinggakan ada orang mati didapati keluar mengundi!

Di Indonesia, usia layak mengundi ialah 17 tahun atau berkahwin. Proses pendafatarannya secara pemencaran di mana di peringkat kampung-kampung mendaftarkan mereka dan menghantar ke peringkat pusat. Maka pengundi hantu tiada di dalam kamus mereka. Mereka amat kenal dengan pengundi yang berdaftar. Tedapat lebih kurang 1.5 juta pusat pengundian yang hanya melimitasikan kepada maksima 300 pengundi.

Mereka menggelar diri mereka Golongan Putih (Golput). Mereka menuntut agar pilihan raya Indonesia dilanjutkan agar pemilih bersedia dan jelas dengan proses pengundian.

Tempoh Pengundian Cukup

Apa yang menarik di Indonesia, tarikh pengundiannya telah ditetapkan setahun lebih awal. Parti-parti politik diberikan masa yang cukup untuk membuat persiapan dengan pendanaan dan persiapan jentera kempen.

Tarikh 9 April merupakan pengundian. Pada 12 Julai 2008 hingga 15 Mac 2009 (Sembilan bulan) dibenarkan berkempen secra kelompok. Pada tempoh 16 Mac 2009 hingga 5 April 2009 mereka dibenarkan membuat perhimpunan besar-besaran. Di tempoh ini, mereka bebas menggunakan padang-padang awam dan tempat-tempat umum termasuk stadium (terbuka dan tertutup). Di sinilah kemuncaknya bila mana setiap lapisan masyarakat, semua profesion bebas menunjukkan secara terbuka parti pilihan mereka. Mereka berdangdut, berkonsert dan sebagainya secara kreativiti masing-masing dalam meraih undi.
Mereka diberikan masa tenang selama tiga hari yakni pada 6 April hingga 9 April ini bagi member masa yang cukup untuk pengundi membuat keputusan mereka. Dengan tempoh yang panjang ini, tidak ada tekanan berlaku, tiada rusuhan.

Masalah dengan Malaysia ialah tempoh kempen singkat menyebabkan semua parti politik yang bertanding kesuntukan masa dan mahu membuat kesemuanya dalam masa yang singkat. Kehadiran polis seramai 6,000 di pilihan raya kecil Kuala Terengganu baru-baru ini pula menjadikan seperti Terengganu sudah berada dalam keadaan darurat.

Di Malaysia, kita pernah mempunyai tempoh kempen selama 44 hari pada thun 60 an dahulu. Demokrasi merosot sejak itu dan pilihan raya paling buruk ialah pada tahun 1999 bila mana tempoh kempen diberikan cuma tujuh hari sahaja.

Gabungan Pilihan Raya Bersih dan Adil (BERSIH) menuntut tempoh selama 14 hari di mana ia amat memadai dalam perkembangan demokrasi tetapi sikap ego SPR ketika itu member Sembilan hari dengan hasilnya sebuah pilihan raya kucar-kacir sehingga ada beberapa kawasan yang hanya mendapat keputusannya awal pagi keesokan harinya!

Indonesia percaya bahawa demokrasi sebenarnya bermaksud pemerintahan berasal dari rakyat,
dilaksanakan oleh rakyat, dan untuk kepentingan rakyat. Itulah yang mereka cuba laksanakan. Sekiranya dangdut merupakan cara terbaik untuk menyampaikan manifesto, itulah yang akan digunakan, tidak kira parti itu berlandaskan nasionalisme (sebut: pancasila) mahupun parti berlandaskan agama.

Ketika melawat Ibu Pejabat Partai DemokratikIndonesia Perjuangan (PDI-P)

Labels: indelible ink, indonesia, SPR, Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya Malaysia

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 3/30/2009 03:18:00 am ... 0 blast off

 

 

Deraan Majikan: Nirmala Dapat Keadilan

Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Kuala Lumpur pada 27 November telah membuat keputusan bahawa majikan mangsa dera, Yim Pek Ha (40) didapati bersalah dan dikenakan hukuman penjara 18 tahun.

Hukuman tersebut dijatuhkan ke atas Yim selepas Nirmala pada 17 Mei 2004 telah berjaya melarikan diri daripada kurungan majikannya dan membuat laporan polis.

Menurut laporan polisnya, Nirmala melaporkan bahawa beliau telah didera dengan teruk oleh majikannya Yim Pek Ha, 40 seorang suri rumahtangga.

Yim telah di didakwa mencederakan pembantu rumahnya dengan teruk secara sukarela dengan menggunakan seterika dua kali pada Januari dan April 2004.

Selain itu, Yim juga didapati bersalah mencurahkan air mendidih pada Mac 2004 dan menggunakan cawan keluli untuk memukul Nirmala pada 3pm, 17 Mei 2004.


Kesemua kesalahan tersebut berlaku di kediaman Yim di kondominium Villa Putera di Jalan Tun Ismail, Kuala Lumpur.


Sepatutnya hukuman penjara 54 tahun iaitu 18 tahun bagi setiap kesalahan, tetapi Hakim memerintahkan bahawa kesemua hukuman berjalan serentak.

Walau bagaimanapun, tertuduh dibebaskan daripada pertuduhan menyebabkan keceraan parah terhadap Nirmala dengan menggunakan cawan besi pada jam 3 petang, 17 Mei 2004.
Hakim Akhthar dalam penghakimannya berkata perlakuan Yim tidak berperikemanusiaan dan tidak boleh diterima oleh masyarakat.

“Kecederaan dilakukan berkali-kali oleh tertuduh terhadap mangsa menunjukkan tingkah laku penyeksa yang tidak boleh diterima dalam masyarakat,” ujar Hakim lagi.
Mengambil komen dari Penasihat Parlimen Parti Tindakan Demokratik (DAP) Lim Kit Siang, beliau menyifatkan tahap rakyat Malaysia sekarang lebih rendah daripada pekerja.

Sambil tergelak sinis, Lim berkata tingkahlaku beberapa menteri kabinet dengan kononnya terperanjat dengan keadaan yang berlaku terhadap Nirmala pada tahun 2004 sebagai lakonan.

Lim mendakwa menteri-menteri khususnya Menteri Dalam Negeri (Noh Omar – pada ketika itu) dan Menteri Pembangunan Wanita dan Masyarakat (Shahrizat Abdul Jalil – pada ketika itu) tidak melakukan tanggungjawab mereka dalam membendung jenayah di Malaysia.

Lim juga mengkritik Menteri Kebudayaan, Seni dan Warisan, Datuk Seri Utama Rais Yatim dalam bukunya ‘Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia’ yang menyebut antara lain bahawa “seseorang itu tidak bersalah sehingga dibuktikan” bahawa kes yang berlaku terhadap Nirmala tidak ada kena-mengena dengan prinsip yang diutarakan di dalam bukunya.


Cederakan Diri Sendiri

Semasa perbicaraan 22 Mac lalu, Yim menafikan melakukan perkara terkutuk itu. Ibu yang mempunyai empat anak memberitahu mahkamah pada waktu itu bahawa Nirmala mencederakan dirinya sendiri berkemungkinan Akhthar juga memberitahu bahawa melalui kenyataan saksi, Nirmala tidak mencederakan dirinya sendiri. Sungguhpun terdapat saksi pakar, namun Yim sendiri tidak dapat menafikan bahawa dia pernah menampar Nirmala semasa waktu bertugas.

Hakim merujuk kepada kenyataan Dr John Andrew Munro Gall, 53, dari Australia yang dipanggil mahkamah untuk memberi keterangan. Perbicaraan pada 16 April 2008 lalu menyaksikan Gall memberitahu mahkamah sesyen bahawa mangsa berkemungkinan telah mencederakan dirinya sendiri pada situasi di mana mangsa tersebut mempunyai psikologi yang tidak normal.

Beliau yang merupakan Pengarah Australian Forensic & Medico-Legal Consultants Southern Medical Services Pty Ltd yang juga saksi kedua pembela, mendakwa pendapatnya menjadi lebih kukuh apabila mendapati kesan kecederaan yang dialami Nirmala jelas membuktikan ia tidak menyokong keterangan yang diberikan kepada mahkamah.

"Seperti saya katakan, saya pernah mengendalikan kes membabitkan seorang lelaki memotong jari dan telinga sendiri, selain seorang lagi pesakit sanggup membakar jarinya bagi memuaskan dirinya.

"Jika seseorang itu normal, sudah semestinya dia akan menghalang dirinya dari dicederakan apatah lagi mencederakan dirinya," katanya.

Melihat kepada kecederaan yang dialami Nirmala, bahagian-bahagian badan yang mengalami kecederaan teruk tidak dapat dicapai tangan sendiri, Hakim terus menolak dakwaan yang mengatakan mangsa telah mencederakan dirinya sendiri.

“Nirmala telah konsisten dalam kenyataannya, sejak beliau dijumpai pengawal semasa melarikan diri,” terang Akhthar.

Latabelakang kes

Perjalanan kes deraan pembantu rumah Nirmala Bonat (19 tahun semasa kes berlaku) berlangsung selama 110 hari dalam tempoh empat setengah tahun.

Yim memulakan keterangan dengan mengatakan keburukan serta kekurangan Nirmala dalam menjalankan tugasnya di rumah yang tidak sempurna.

Sejak beliau membuat laporan polis, Nirmala ditempatkan di tempat perlindungan di Pejabat Kedutaan Besar Indonesia sehingga Januari 2008. Disebabkan proses perbicaraan yang memakan masa panjang, Nirmala telah memohon untuk pulang ke negaranya.


MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) sebuah badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) pernah mengeluarkan kenyataan pada 7 September 2007 kerana melewatkan perbicaraan. Perbicaraan kes ini telah berjalan selama 110 hari. MADPET mengesyorkan bahawa kes-kes seperti Nirmala dan melibatkan warga asing khususnya pelancong asing sepatutnya diberikan keutamaan dalam memastikan keadilan terjamin.

Akibat dari itu, terpaksa pulang ke negara asal mereka kerana tidak dapat menunggu bertahun selepas semua proses penghakiman selesai dan akhirnya, pesalah akan dibebaskan.

MADPET juga mengecam pihak kerajaan yang tidak menawarkan tempat perlindungan malah menyerahkan kepada pihak kedutaan. Bagi organisasi ini, tanggungjawab sepatutnya dipikul oleh pihak kerajaan sendiri.

Menurut Artikel 8 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, kerajaan menjamin setiap insan sama rata tanpa merujuk kepada taraf kerakyatan.

Kesemua kesalahan tersebut berlaku di kediaman Yim di kondominium Villa Putera di Jalan Tun Ismail, Kuala Lumpur.

Kes ini juga telah mencatat sejarah dalam perundangan Malaysia bilamana seorang pesalah dikenakan tiga hukuman di bawah Seksyen 326 Kanun Keseksaan bagi kesalahan atas mangsa yang sama.

Kes ini menjadi kejutan kepada seluruh rakyat Malaysia dan Indonesia apabila gambar Nirmala yang hanya bekerja selama lima bulan bersama majikannya disiarkan pada 2004 yang bersisik-sisik luka akibat didera majikan.

Kesalahan Lain ke atas Pekerja Asing

Kes-kes lain selain daripada deraan fizikal seperti yang berlaku ke atas Nirmala ialah gaji yang tidak dibayar seperti yang termaktub di dalam kontrak. Seperti lazim, pekerja-pekerja asing telah melabur demi untuk mendapat pekerjaan bagi menanggung keluarga di kampong. Ada di antara mereka juga yang meminjam wang untuk datang ke Malaysia.

Pekerja-pekerja asing sering mengadu bahawa mereka tidak disediakan dengan tempat tinggal yang memadai. Antara kes-kes yang pernah dilaporkan ialah mereka dipaksa untuk tinggal bersesak-sesakan di dalam sebuah bilik, dalam keadaan yang kotor. Keadaan sedemikian sering mengundang kepada penyakit berjangkit. Ada juga yang maut atas keadaan sedemikian.

Terdapat juga kes di mana kemalangan berlaku ke atas buruh-buruh asing ini atas persekitaran yang merbahaya. Mereka sepatutnya dibayar pampasan atas kemalangan sedemikian tetapi malangnya, berdasarkan kebanyakan kes, mereka dihantar pulan ke Negara masing-masing.

Pihak penguatkuasa pula sering menjalankan operasi penangkapan buruh-buruh asing. Tindakan sedemikian sering menggugat kehidupan mereka.
Menurut Duta Indonesia di Malaysia, Rusdihardjo, dalam jangamasa empat tahun kebelakangan ini, pejabat beliau telah menerima sebanyak 26 kes penderaan terhadap pembantu rumah.

Majikan di Malaysia juga tidak dikehendaki untuk memenuhi piawai minimum kecuali perkara-perkara yang terkandung di dalam perjanjian bersama (MOU) di antara Malaysia-Indonesia. Justeru, ramai pekerja-pekerja domestik tidak diberikan cuti oleh majikan mereka.

Agen-agen juga sering lari dari tanggungjawab apabila pekerja-pekerja domestik ini diserahkan kepada majikan masing-masing.

Sehubungan dengan kes terebut,pegawai-pegawai tinggi Indonesia dan kumpulan hak asasi manusia berterusan mendesak agar kerajaan Malaysia memperketatkan pekerja-pekerja asing yang seramai lebih kurang 1.1 juta yang kini berada di Malaysia.

Setelah diteliti konvensyen antarabangsa, Malaysia tidak meratifikasi Konvensyen Antarabangsa Hak Perlindungan Pekerja Asing dan Ahli Keluarga Mereka dari Perhimpunan Agung Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu pada 1990 dan memastikan pelaksanaan penuhnya.

Labels: indonesia, nirmala bonat

Anonymous merepek ... permalink ... 11/30/2008 12:50:00 pm ... 0 blast off