Refugee Review Tribunal

RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE

Research Response Number: IDN31697 Country: Date: 18 May 2007

Keywords: Indonesia – Medan – Chinese Christians – State Protection – Discrimination – Relocation

This response was prepared by the Country Research Section of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the RRT within time constraints. This response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

Questions

1. What is the updated information on treatment of Chinese Christians in Medan by the government and non-Chinese community? 2. What sort of protection does the state give Chinese Christians who are threatened or harmed by non-Chinese ? 3. Are there any laws which discriminate against Chinese Christians in Medan, for example in relation to conducting businesses such as selling pork? 4. What information is available on the possibility of relocating to from Indonesia for a Chinese Indonesian? Would a Chinese Christian be able to sell pork in the markets in Taiwan without threat and intimidation?

RESPONSE

1. What is the updated information on treatment of Chinese Christians in Medan by the government and non-Chinese community?

The large city of Medan in North is unique in Indonesia on account of its relatively large Chinese population. Twenty per cent of the estimated two million people living there are ethnic Chinese, while make up between one and four per cent of the Indonesian population as a whole. Medan has been described as “the bastion of the ethnic Chinese on Sumatra”, while also known for its sharp ethnic distinctions between native , Chinese, Indian and Malay groups (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2006, IDN101031.E – Indonesia: The largest centres of Chinese Indonesian population; reports of attacks in these areas and protection available; whether some areas of Indonesia are considered more welcoming than others to Chinese Indonesians (2004 – 2006), 29 March – Attachment 1; Gunawan, A. 2007 ‘ Keling: Economic symbiosis in Medan’s Chinese-Indian enclave’ The Post, 2 May http://www.thejakartapost.com/community/ina9.asp – Accessed 7 May 2007 – Attachment 2).

Information on the current situation of Chinese Christians in Medan and their treatment by the government and the non-Chinese community is not extensive. Chinese New Year has been celebrated as a national holiday across Indonesia since 2002, following a declaration by the then president Megawati Sukarnoputri. The Chinese news and information website, Sina.English, reported on the celebration of Chinese New Year across Indonesia in February 2007 and indicated that the it was observed by ethnic Chinese in Medan “smoothly and peacefully” (‘Chinese Indonesians celebrate lunar new year in style’ 2007, Englis.sina.com website, 18 February http://english.sina.com/life/1/2007/0218/104413.html – Accessed 7 May 2007 – Attachment 3). One recent report does point to “grievances” and tensions among religious groups in and Medan, including over the ways in which pork is sold by non-Muslims. The report also suggests that a campaign against gambling by an Islamic political party in Medan was being used as a pretence for expressing negative views about Christians and Chinese. The International Religious Freedom Report by the United States Department of State described the following events during late 2004 and into 2005:

Late in 2004, the Christian-owned leading Medan daily Sinar Indonesia Baru (SIB) ran a caricature suggesting Muslims habitually support corrupt political candidates. The “Si Suar Sair” incident, named after the cartoon character that expressed these views, led to public outrage in parts of the Muslim and Christian communities. North Sumatra police investigated the newspaper’s publisher to seek evidence on who was responsible for the caricature. The newspaper’s owners apologized for publication of the cartoon.

…North Sumatra did not experience major inter-religious violence, but some grievances arose among members of different faiths. Some non-Muslims took offense to loud and long prayer calls emanating from mosques and felt the calls invaded their privacy. Muslims complained of pork and dog meat being sold overtly by non-Muslims with signs stating “pork” or “dog” rather than the discreet “B1” and “B2” used in the past. In Medan, Muslims and Christians criticised Hindus for cremating their dead. The illegal gambling industry also caused frictions among religious communities in Medan. Supporters of an Islamist political party carried out a campaign against casinos largely run by Christian and Indonesian Chinese Buddhist mafias. Detractors described the Islamist political party’s motivation as a pretense for expressing anti-Christian and anti-Chinese sentiment rather than as a means to support enforcement of anti-gambling laws (US Department of State 2005, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, p.10, 8 November – Attachment 4).

Christian churches and their members in Medan have been targeted by violent acts. The most recent incidents are from 2003. The reports do not indicate whether these attacks specifically targeted members of the Chinese Christian community. The US State Department’s 2003 International Religious Freedom Report indicated that during the period covered by the report, 25 churches were destroyed to varying degrees across Indonesia and that a church or churches were attacked in Medan (US Department of State 2003, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 18 December – Attachment 5). From July 2000 to May 2001, five churches in Medan were reportedly destroyed during a period which again had seen many such similar incidents across Indonesia (US Department of State 2002, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 7 October – Attachment 6). In August 2001, a Medan court sentenced an Indonesian man to eleven years imprisonment for having sent fourteen parcel bombs to churches and clergyman in Medan in December 2000. The man was one of three arrested in relation to the making of the bombs. The prosecution alleged that Free Movement (GAM) separatists from neighbouring Aceh province were the group acting behind the men. This was strongly denied by GAM (‘Indonesia jails Christmas parcel bomber’ 2001, BBC News, 14 August http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia- pacific/1490247.stm – Accessed 17 October 2002 – Attachment 7).

Members of the Indonesian Methodist Church in Medan have been the subject of bombing attacks. In August 2000, a bomb explosion occurred at the residence of Reverand J Sitorus, a member of the clergy of the Gereja Methodist Indonesia or Indonesian Methodist Church. This attack was the latest of a number in Medan which targeted Protestant churches (on 20 August 2000 and 28 May 2000), as well as a restaurant (on 29 May 2000). According to The Jakarta Post:

MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): Two bombs exploded separately in an area near Jl. Bahagia in Medan Tenggara district in the early hours of Sunday morning. There were no casualties but one person was slightly injured. Several buildings, however, were damaged from the incident.

The first blast took place at about 2:45 a.m. in front of a kiosk belonging to Poltak Panjaitan.

“The loud blast shocked people and we were afraid to go outside,” a witness said. Minutes later, about 7 meters from the site of the first blast, a second bomb exploded in front of the residence of Rev. J. Sitorus, a member of the clergy at Gereja Methodist Indonesia (Indonesian Methodist Church).

The blast created a 20-centimeter crater on the ground and damaged the house’s fence. The reverend’s son, Erickson Sitorus, suffered hearing damage from the thunderous explosion. “My right ear really hurts and I cannot hear a thing. My head keeps on pounding,” Erickson told journalists later in the day.

The latest incident comes exactly one week after two similar bombs went off near a small Protestant church here on Aug. 20 just before Sunday morning mass.

The first explosion last week occurred in front of the Kemenangan Iman Indonesia (Indonesia’s Victory of Faith) Church on Jl. Bunga Kenanga on the outskirts of Padang Bulan.

After the explosion residents immediately combed the area and found a second device nearby wrapped in plastic. It went off after they threw it in a swamp. Police confirmed that last week’s two explosions were bombs, but declined to link it to a series of bomb blasts that hit the capital of North Sumatrain [in] May.

Similar

Medan Police chief Sr. Supt. Hasyim Irianto, however, said a preliminary investigation showed that the two bombs on Sunday were made from similar substances with those which exploded in Padang Bulan.

“They were homemade bombs, and it seems that they used the same materials, such as sulphur, that were found in the bombs which exploded in a Protestant church last Sunday,” Hasyim told The Jakarta Post by telephone later in the day. Hasyim, however, said police had no clues as to who was behind the bombing.

“This was certainly done by parties who want to stir chaos in Medan,” he said.

“The city has recently been rocked by brawls, strikes and bombings, but so far people have been able to unite and not be easily provoked by these incidents. So let’s fight these acts of terror,” he asserted.

Police patrols have increased around places of worship, mostly churches, to avoid further incidents. Security overall in the city has been tightened.

“In the last incident, the culprits placed the bombs in a housing complex. So we just have to work harder on this case,” he said, adding thatpolice were still investigating whether there was any connection between the last four explosions and the May bombings.

On May 28, a bomb exploded during a service at the Indonesian Protestant Church in downtown Medan, injuring 47 members of the congregation. Two other bombs were also planted at two different churches but they did not explode. One day later, an explosion destroyed a restaurant on Jl. Pemuda, injuring three pedestrians.

Many fear the incidents could lead to greater communal-religious unrest, similar to that in Maluku and (‘Medan rocked by two bomb blasts, no casualties’ 2000, The Jakarta Post, 28 August http://www.thejakartapost.com/Archives/ArchivesDet2.asp?FileID=20000828.A01 – Accessed 16 October 2002 – Attachment 8)

Large scale anti-Chinese riots occurred in Medan in 1998 and 1994. The May 1998 unrest, which saw ethnic Chinese targeted not just in Medan but across Indonesia, occurred in the context of the 1997 Asia financial crisis, which greatly affected Indonesia, and general dissatisfaction with the Suharto regime (for details on the causes of the 1998 riots and the targeting of Chinese, especially in Jakarta, see RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response IDN30246, 26 June – Attachment 9). In Medan, during three days of widespread unrest between 4-7 May 1998, a report in Asiaweek indicated that the ethnic Chinese community and its businesses were one a number of groups targeted:

Medan, Indonesia’s third-largest city after Jakarta and Surabaya, belonged to no one. Not to the authorities. Not to its 2 million residents, whose space of peace, if they were native Indonesians, had shrunk to what they could paint with their clan names or cover with Muslim prayer mats to ward off marauders. If they were Chinese, no symbols could protect them. They only felt safe in so far as they could defend themselves with their makeshift weapons. During three days of rioting, which began May 4 as a student demonstration ended, the city had been reduced to anarchy. Crowds formed, then rampaged. If troops or plainclothes police appeared, there could be a clash, or the crowd would dissolve down Medan’s streets and alleys followed by tear gas and bullets. What they did not take, they torched. “The armed forces cannot overcome this,” cried 50-year-old Ismet Halil, who lives above a row of shops first hit by the looting. “It is a national disaster.”

…The city’s descent into chaos appears to have no heroes, only villains and victims. Like fire, tragedy leapt from one group to another. The first to be hurt were Medan’s poor…. The second victim is the student movement.

…The third is the Chinese community. The mob targeted Chinese-owned businesses, such as warehouses and motorcycle dealerships. The crowd would leave some buildings untouched then hit, ferociously, at others. Lawyer and local resident Asmadinata observes that the neighborhoods struck by rioting correspond to places where the gap between classes is greatest.

On one street, a few storefronts away from where a group of soldiers were standing, men were ransacking what was left of a Chinese-owned furniture store. One stood in the middle of the road, idly tossing in the air a set of someone else’s family pictures. Some local ethnic Chinese just cannot understand why they are automatically the easiest object of attack. “We eat here, we sleep here, we even shit here – why can’t we be accepted?” asks a 48-year- old Chinese automotive goods salesman.

Talk to enough Medanese and you will find a fourth victim: the native Indonesians, called pribumis. Given the dominance Medan’s approximately 300,000 Chinese have over the city’s wealth and commerce, the mob never had to look far to find an appropriate target. Locals have a long list of complaints against the Chinese. They have not made enough of an effort to integrate. They speak Chinese to each other, something rarely done in Javanese cities. They conspire with officials to work their way around laws and regulations, striking mutually lucrative deals in exchange for privileges and protection. In short, they feed off the city’s wealth while remaining aloof and secluded.

The riots that struck Medan in 1994 began as protests against mostly Chinese factory owners who refused to abide by a nationwide rise in minimum wages. If their own laws and officials cannot deliver to pribumis greater equity, then the logic behind wresting equity by force becomes unreasonably attractive: I cannot be as rich as you, even in my own country. So I will take, because I want it, or destroy, so you, too, will suffer.

It is easy enough to list the victims. It is much tougher to identify villains. Blame the mob, sure. But in the confused, edgy atmosphere of a city convulsed by riot, all groups seemed suspicious, treacherous. The outnumbered security forces could not guarantee order, the rule of law, not even morals. So anyone could be – or could do – anything.

On the night of May 7, the atmosphere on the road between Medan and Belawan port felt inexplicably threatening. Were the youngsters loitering outside a factory just out for air? Or were they planning destruction? That man picking up a rock – what was his real intention? At one junction about 50 men with sticks and pipes filled the intersection. They said they were guarding the shops against Chinese attackers. But one revealed he traveled to Medan to buy a motorcycle cheaply. As we spoke, a man pointed at a passing vehicle. “That’s a Chinese car! Catch it! We must burn it.” The crowd surrounding our taxi soon became uncomfortable. Then a police motorcycle convoy roared past, firing bullets into the night. The crowd scattered. From April 27 to May 6, Medan police arrested over 400 people. In the end, they charged about 50 (Tesoro, J.M. 1998 (‘Medan’s Madness: How and why Indonesia’s third-largest city descended into chaos’ Asiaweek website, 22 May http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/98/0522/cs3.html – Accessed 7 May 2007 – Attachment 10).

Information on the nature of the 1994 riots in Medan, which saw the vandalism of more than 100 Chinese owned shops and businesses, is provided into two previous RRT Country Research Responses and a report from Human Rights Watch (RRT Country Research 1997, Research Response IDN12216, 12 August – Attachment 11; RRT Country Research 1995, Research Response IDN10472/10473, 23 May – Attachment 12; ‘The Anti-Chinese Element – Excerpts from: Human Rights Watch Report – Indonesia: The Medan Demonstration and Beyond’ 1994, Human Rights Watch website, Volume 16, No. 4, 16 May. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/indonesia/anti-chn.htm – Accessed 23 June 2006 – Attachment 13).

Medan’s proximity to the province of Aceh, where sharia law has been allowed to be implemented by the Indonesian government, should also be noted. RRT Country Research completed in 2006 on the situation of the Chinese in Aceh generally and in the aftermath of the 2006 tsumani, when many fled to Medan for safety, indicates a history of tolerance toward Chinese from the Muslim population (see question one of RRT Country Research, Research Response IDN17775, 7 February – Attachment 14). The presence of sharia law in Aceh does not appear to have had an especially strong influence in Medan itself above other parts of Indonesia, though there is some evidence of the implementation of sharia law at the municipal government level in Medan. The annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom for 2006 refers to Medan in its summary of the growing presence of sharia law in Aceh and across Indonesia. The report stresses that non-Muslims are exempt from the provisions of sharia law:

In August 2005, the Indonesian government concluded a comprehensive peace agreement with the insurgent group (GAM). The agreement ended a thirty year conflict that had resulted in significant human rights abuses. As of this writing, the agreement remains in place and there is optimism that a lasting peace is possible in Aceh. However, the peace agreement does not overturn Aceh’s special autonomy status, which allowed the province to establish and implement sharia law. In 2001, sharia police, locally know as Wilayatul Hisbah, were set up to enforce religious norms. Initially, these “police” were often confined to mosques and other religious institutions. Since the peace agreement was signed, however, sharia police have become more visible. There are reports of sharia police issuing fines and meting out other punishments to Muslims found gambling or consuming alcohol, unmarried couples found engaging in “immoral” behavior, or women found without headscarves. Public caning punishments are now commonplace in some towns, particularly for gambling. Non-Muslims are exempt from sharia provisions in Aceh.

A vocal and influential minority of Indonesians continues to call for implementation of sharia law throughout Indonesia. An August 2002 proposal to implement sharia at the national level was withdrawn from consideration by the National Assembly because it did not have sufficient support to pass and was opposed by the country’s two largest Muslim organizations. Efforts to revive the legislation continue and could reemerge during the current National Assembly session. In addition, there are efforts to enforce Islamic law at the municipal and regional levels. In South , Madura, and Padang, , local authorities required women to wear headscarves and men to follow traditional Islamic rituals on Fridays. Similar practices were already put in place in parts of West , including Cianjur, Tasikmalaya, and Garut. In August 2005, a court in Surabaya issued a two- year sentence to a man who offered a public prayer in Indonesian instead of Arabic, after religious leaders argued that the prayer insulted . Municipal governments in Kendari, Medan, and Palembang closed discos, massage parlors, bars, and karaoke establishments during Ramadan. Non-Muslims were exempt from the new laws (U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 2006, ‘Annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’, May – Attachment 15).

2. What sort of protection does the state give Chinese Christians who are threatened or harmed by non-Chinese Indonesians?

Chinese Christians who are harmed or threatened in any way by non-Chinese Indonesian citizens may be expected to request state protection initially from local representatives of the national police force. The role of the national police force and the general level of effectiveness of the police are summarised in the US State Department’s report on human rights practices for Indonesia, released on 6 March 2007. While it indicates an improvement in the professionalism and ethics of the police, it also points to continuing problems of corruption, bribes and their “respect for human rights and effectiveness at investigating human rights abuses”:

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus

The president appoints the national police chief, subject to DPR confirmation. The police chief reports to the president but is not a full member of the cabinet. The national police force has approximately 250,000 officers deployed throughout the 33 provinces. The police maintain a centralized hierarchy, and locally deployed forces formally report to their national headquarters rather than to local governments. The military is responsible for external defense, but also has a residual obligation to support the police in their domestic security responsibilities. In Aceh, the Shari’a police, a provincial body, is responsible for enforcing Shari’a law. During the year international NGOs noted improvement in the degree of police crime-fighting professionalism and an increased emphasis on law enforcement ethics. Overall, however, police professionalism remained low, as did their respect for human rights and effectiveness at investigating human rights abuses. Impunity and corruption remained significant problems. There were instances in which the police failed to respond to mob or vigilante violence. Police commonly extracted bribes, ranging from minor payoffs in traffic cases to large bribes in criminal investigations. From January to October, the Division of Profession and Security (Propam) reportedly investigated 5,486 police officers, including high-level officials, across the country, resulting in 240 dismissals. Other punishments varied from demotion to criminal prosecution (US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Indonesia, 6 March – Attachment 16).

Trust in the police institution by Indonesians would appear to be low. A survey of 200 respondents conducted by the Islamic and Societal Research Centre, and reported on the front page of The Jakarta Post on 16 May 2007, indicated that 16 percent cent trust the police (‘We trust clerics more than SBY’, 2007, The Jakarta Post, 16 May http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20070516.@02&irec=1 – Accessed 16 May 2007 – Attachment 17).

Few instances of police action or inaction with regard to the protection of Chinese Indonesians were found. A May 2006 report did indicate that police “maintain[ed] a strong presence to ward off possible retaliatory moves, including against Chinese-Indonesians” during rioting and vandalism in the aftermath of elections in (‘Police issue shoot- on-sight for for (sic) East Java rioters’ 2006, The Jakarta Post, 1 May – Attachment 18). Some months earlier, government security forces were described as being “indifferent” to attacks on minorities, including ethnic Chinese, by Tiarma Siboro in a news article in The Jakarta Post from October 2005. The “ostensible reason” for this indifference by police is a fear of inflaming such situations further. The occasion for this news article was the formation of the non-government Garda Kemerdekaan or Freedom Guard. The group formed in response to public concern about the increase in the number of attacks by Muslim extremists on minority groups in Indonesia (Siboro, Tiarma 2005, ‘Freedom Guard to protect minority groups from terror’, The Jakarta Post, 1 October – Attachment 19).

In 2003 the US Citizenship and Immigration Service attempted to obtain information on police protection of Chinese Christians in the capital Jakarta from a number of experts. In telephone interviews with specialists at the US Department of State and at Boston University, these experts indicated that:

…the police in Jakarta have made a significant attempt over the past two years to improve protection of Chinese Christians in Jakarta. Both referenced past incidents in Jakarta involving Chinese Christians but stated that Chinese Christians in Jakarta are not affected necessarily by current violence against Christians elsewhere in Indonesia (U.S. DOS 30 Oct 2003, Professor 30 Oct 2003).

The Boston University expert, who is a professor of anthropology, said that in the aftermath of the 2002 bombings, the police in Jakarta have been improving efforts to protect all citizens of Jakarta (Professor 30 Oct 2003). He also stated that many Chinese Christians in Indonesia “are ethnically distinguishable from non-Chinese and the subject of some popular resentments by non-Chinese, ‘native’ (pribumi) Indonesians” (Professor 14 Nov 2003). He noted that “Chinese Indonesians as a group also tend to be better off economically, and as such are the target of some discriminatory practices” but said that he does not feel that this discrimination in general would “justify blanket asylum requests” (Professor 14 Nov 2003). He did say, however, that “there have been Chinese individuals who have been the subject of special discrimination whose cases might require individual attention” (Professor 14 Nov 2003).

… The professor said that the Indonesian police have greatly improved their efforts to protect ordinary citizens and have become more assertive in their efforts to curb activities of criminal gangs who operated under the garb of Islamist activists. He feels there is “discrimination” against Christians in Jakarta, but not “systematic persecution” and that the situation has “significantly improved” over the last year partly due to improvements in the Indonesian police force. The professor indicated that the situation in the Moluccas and Sulawesi, where there has been real ethno-religious violence involving Muslims and Christians (although not typically Chinese Christians), is very different from the situation in Jakarta, and that he is not seeing systematized mistreatment of Chinese Christians in Jakarta (Professor 30 Oct 2003) (US Citizenship and Immigration Service 2003, Indonesia: Information on Attacks by Muslims Against a Chinese Christian Neighborhood in Jakarta in September 2002, and Police Protection of Chinese Christians in Jakarta, 14 November. http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/asylum/ric/documentation/IDN04001.htm – Accessed 2 December 2005 – Attachment 20).

For the period prior to 2003, questions six and seven of May 2003 Research Response IDN15918 provides information on the police protection of Chinese Indonesians following the major riots of 1998 which targeted Chinese across Indonesia (RRT Country Research 2003, Research Response IDN15918, 27 May – Attachment 21).

3. Are there any laws which discriminate against Chinese Christians in Medan, for example, in relation to conducting businesses such as selling pork?

No information was found to indicate that laws are in place in Medan which discriminate against Chinese Christians or those conducting of businesses which sell pork. As quoted in answer to question one above, in North Sumatra there do appear to be in place specific regulations or customs for the selling of pork. (No information could be found on the legal status of these regulations.) The regulations do not prohibit the selling of pork but rather seem to regulate the terms used to advertise their selling. The 2005 US Department of State report wrote that:

Muslims complained of pork and dog meat being sold overtly by non-Muslims with signs stating “pork” or “dog” rather than the discreet “B1” and “B2” used in the past (US Department of State 2005, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 8 November – Attachment 4).

A website devoted to eastern cuisine and eating habits called Eating Asia contains a personal report from August 2006 indicating that pork is readily available in Medan:

Aceh is one of a number of Indonesian provinces that have adopted Shariah law. Most Indonesians are Muslim (though there are a large number of Christians and Buddhists too, and most Balinese are Hindu), but that doesn’t mean that pork can’t be found in some Indonesian cities. In more conservative, Shariah-ruled Aceh, however, pork is not sold anywhere. Our friend told us that her pork-eating colleagues take advantage of weekend trips to Medan, a big city on Sumatra’s east coast, to stock up on ham, sausage, and bacon (‘In Padang, On the Hunt for Pork’, 2006, Eating Asia website, 3 August http://eatingasia.typepad.com/eatingasia/2006/08/on_the_hunt_for.html – Accessed 16 May 2007 – Attachment 22).

One instance was found outside of Medan of the bombing of a market selling pork and dog to the public. On 31 December 2005 in the capital of Central Sulawasi Palu, a bomb in a Christian market exploded killing seven people and injuring around fifty others. A second bomb placed near the market was also found but defused. Central Sulawesi has a recent history of religious violent conflict between Muslims and Christians since the 1990s. Fighting killed around 2000 people between 1998 and 2001 before a peace accord was negotiated. Nonetheless, sporadic acts of violence have continued to occur in this part of Indonesia (‘Eight killed in Indonesian blast’ 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 December http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/six-killed-in-indonesian- blast/2005/12/31/1135915716771.html# – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 23; ‘Indonesia sets up team to tackle Sulawesi violence’ 2006, Indahesia.com website, 4 January http://news.indahnesia.com/item/200601047/indonesia_sets_up_team_to_tackle_sulawesi_vi olence.php – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 24). A news article by Roy Tupai, posted on the independent Paras Indonesia website, offers some analysis of the Palu bomb blast, including the groups suspected of being behind the bombing of the market and the response from the state authorities

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is under increasing pressure to launch an independent inquiry into ongoing violence in Central Sulawesi province due to concerns that members of the security and intelligence forces may be part of the problem.

Calls for the creation of an independent fact-finding team have mounted after the New Year’s Eve bomb blast that killed seven people and injured 56 others at a Christian market that sold pork and dog meat on the outskirts of the provincial capital Palu.

The death toll was revised down from eight after police realized that one of the fatalities had been counted twice because he had two names.

…Some analysts have said the violence might have been masterminded by members of the local political elite, using trained militias or even members of the security and intelligence forces, to incite further religious conflict in order to profit from relief aid and pilfer funds designated for military reinforcements, and to divert attention the vast corruption in Central Sulawesi.

Other analysts have suggested the killings could be the work of local Islamic extremists with links to offshoots of regional terrorism network Jemaah Islamiyah, which has been blamed for a series of deadly bombings in Bali and Jakarta.

Exposing The Truth

Members of the Regional Representative Council (DPD) and human rights activists have called for the deployment of an independent fact-finding team to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the violence in Palu and Poso.

DPD member Muspani on Monday said there are already more than enough police and soldiers in Central Sulawesi, so the proposed team is needed to investigate whether members of the security forces are involved in the violence.

About 4,000 police and military reinforcements were sent to restore order in the province throughout 2005.

Muspani, coordinator of the DPD’s team for Poso, said the team should uncover the source of the widespread availability of firearms and explosives in Palu and Poso.

“This team will eventually clarify the truth of whether the security apparatus or armed civilian groups were involved,” he was quoted as saying by detikcom online news portal.

He said locals may know who is responsible for the violence but are afraid to speak out because their security is not guaranteed. “It is illogical if the situation is considered safe but then a bombing occurs,” he said.

Muspani said the team should investigate claims by three Catholic militants, now on death row for their role in massacres of Muslims in Poso between May and June 2000, that 16 individuals had masterminded the violence. He said the 16 individuals named by Fabianus Tibo and his two associates have never been thoroughly investigated.

Nurmawati Bantilan, a DPD member from Central Sulawesi, said the council will write to the Attorney General’s Office to request that the imminent execution of Tibo and his associates be delayed. “If they are executed, then the investigation of this case will be interrupted and incomplete, and similar cases will continue to erupt,” he said.

He said the bombing of the pork market showed the government was not serious about resolving the problems in Central Sulawesi. “The bomb actually could have been predicted because of what had happened beforehand. So the intelligence system should have been improved.”

…‘Bombings Not Religious Conflict’

Hamid said the bombings and shootings in Palu and Poso were not religiously motivated but had been orchestrated by a “certain group” to deter police from uncovering the roots of the conflict.

The Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) concurred, saying the Palu bombing should not be seen as a form of religious violence.

“This not part of religion. But it is possible that a third party sought to exploit the momentum of religion,” MUI chairman Amidhan was quoted as saying by detikcom.

He declined to mention the possible identity of the “third party” but pointed to political and economic interests. “I am still studying this because the Poso and Palu problem is complex. There is not only the problem of religion, but also of economics and politics. For example, the unjust exploitation of economic resources, or politics concerning the position of the local government there,” he said.

Amidhan emphasised that local religious leaders in Central Sulawesi were committed to peace, so the latest violence must have come from another side.

Kalla: No One Saw It Coming

Vice President Jusuf Kalla agreed that the Palu bombing was linked to previous incidents of violence in Central Sulawesi. But he brushed aside criticism that security and intelligence forces should have been able to prevent the blast, saying it was impossible to predict that a meat market would have been targeted.

“Frankly, terrorist elements continue to exist, with their remnants always in conflict areas such as Sulawesi and Ambon,” he was quoted as saying by detikcom.

“Who would have thought that a pork kiosk would be bombed? If it was a hotel or a karaoke bar, people would understand why it was bombed. America also did not think the World Trade Center would be bombed,” he said (Tupai, R. 2006 ‘Independent Inquiry Sought Over Pork Market Blast’, Paras Indonesia website, 4 January http://www.parasindonesia.com/read.php?gid=158 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 25).

Indonesian police did arrest one suspect in relation to the Palu bombing but he was later released on lack of evidence (US Department of State 2006, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 15 September – Attachment 26).

Some insight into the level of discrimination faced by Chinese in Medan is provided by a Channel NewsAsia article from June 2004. Members of the Chinese community in a small township just north of Medan were interviewed on the eve of the Presidential elections. They offered their opinions on the candidates and their potential for improving the situation for the Chinese in the future:

Chinese community in Medan determined to fight for equality

Medan: For much of Indonesia’s Chinese community, a commitment to end discrimination and ensure security will be determining factors when they cast their ballots in the July 5 presidential election.

Channel NewsAsia visits one community in Medan which has been repeated target of public anger. The little township north of Medan in Sumatra is home to some 3,000 ethnic Chinese.

It was not the case 40 years ago. Back in 1966, an anti-Chinese movement in Aceh resulted in an exodus of more than 10,000 ethnic Chinese.

The Chin brothers were among those taking refuge in Jalan Metal. After having fought against decades of discrimination and being the target of public anger, they were happy to see the end of the Suharto era.

And so their criteria in choosing Indonesia’s next President is simple. Chin Chung Mau, Medan resident, said: “We hope to have a President who treats the Chinese and other races fairly.”

Chin Chung Can, Medan resident, said: “Mrs Megawati treats the Chinese better. I am not familiar with the other candidates as they mostly come from the military and the old regime...I also do not want any leader who has radical Islamic views.”

Dr Indra Wahidin, Chairman of the Chinese-Indonesia Association North Sumatra Province, said: “Mrs Megawati has been our leader for three years. She may need a lot more time and effort to build up the country, but her treatment towards the Chinese has been acceptable.

“As for Mr Susilo, his military background will enable him to maintain the country’s stability and order better than Mrs Megawati.”

It has been six years since Indonesia embraced democracy, but not much has been done to abolish laws that discriminate against the Chinese community there.

Despite knowing that whatever promises given by the candidates during this campaign period can easily become empty promises made just to attract votes, the Chinese community insists on continuing this fight for equality believing that things will get better eventually.

After all this is the first time they get to choose their President (Bee Leng, T. 2004 ‘Chinese community in Medan determined to fight for equality ‘, Channel NewsAsia sourced from the Kabar-indonesia website, 26 June http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:jKP53me_IPgJ:www.kabar-irian.com/pipermail/kabar- indonesia/2004-June/000796.html+medan+chinese&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=80 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 27).

Chinese Indonesians do continue to face discrimination across the country especially with regard to certain bureaucratic procedures, a fact admitted to publicly by the president in 2006. The level of discrimination faced by Chinese in Indonesia at the national level is covered in 2006 research by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and in a February 2007 RRT Country Research Response (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2006, IDN101030.E Indonesia: Reports of attacks against ethnic Chinese, Christians and non-Christians alike; state protection available (2004 – 2006), 28 March – Attachment 28; question five of RRT Country Research 2007, Research Response IDN31298, 8 February – Attachment 29).

4. What information is available on the possibility of relocating to Taiwan from Indonesia for a Chinese Indonesian? Would a Chinese Christian be able to sell pork in the markets in Taiwan without threat and intimidation?

There are a significant number of Indonesian citizens residing in Taiwan as foreign labourers. Figures for July 2006 reported in The Tapei Times show that of a total of 337 000 foreign labourers in Taiwan, that “the number of Indonesian laborers increased the most by some 46000 people” (Lin, J. 2006 ‘Laborers comprise biggest group of foreign residents’, The Taipei Times, 30 July http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/07/30/2003321023 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 30). A Jakarta Post article from April 2007 on Taiwanese investment in Indonesia indicated that Taiwan is an important destination for Indonesian migrant workers and estimated that there were a total of 100 000 workers there (Hudiono, U. 2007 ‘Taiwan investing big in Indonesia’, The Jakarta Post, 20 April http://www.thejakartapost.com/community/china2.asp – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 31). In 2002 a ban was imposed on new Indonesian labourers into Taiwan, after government concerns over a rapid increase in the number of missing or absconded workers. A significant number of these were Indonesian (‘Taiwan freezes use of new Indonesian laborers’ 2002, Asian Political News, 5 August sourced from the Find Articles website http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_August_5/ai_90193398 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 32). The ban was lifted in December 2004 with the two countries working toward a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to regulate labour. The MOU was intended to deal with:

…the rights of Indonesian workers, health and medical services for the workers, supervision of labor brokerages and immigration assistance for workers entering the country at the nation’s airports. It also covers the resolution of labor-management disputes and accelerated direct hiring (‘Ban on Indonesian labor lifted’ 2004, The Taipei Times, 20 December http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/20/2003215925 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 33).

Some information on the process of foreign nationals becoming Taiwanese citizens is provided in 2004 research by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The report provides the following details on obtaining such citizenship:

Taiwanese citizenship by naturalization can be acquired by persons who have resided in the territory for at least five years, have reached the age of 20 years, are of “good character,” have “sufficient property or skill to make an independent living” (ibid.) and no criminal record ( Post 2 June 2003). In February 2000, an amendment was implemented requiring foreign nationals to have lived in Taiwan for a period of at least 183 days in each of the past three years to qualify for Taiwanese citizenship (Taipei Journal 31 Mar. 2000; China Post 2 June 2003; see also Taiwan News 4 Dec. 2002).

China Post reported that stateless persons who obtain a residency permit to stay in Taiwan may only apply for citizenship after residing in Taiwan for an uninterrupted period of five years, upon which they must wait seven years before citizenship is granted (5 Oct. 2000).

According Citizenship Laws of the World, dual citizenship is not recognized in Taiwan (US Mar. 2001, 193). However, according in early 2000, the government enacted a revised law, which eases the restriction on dual nationality for academics and experts in technical fields (Taipei Journal 31 Mar. 2000; Taipei Times 18 Jan. 2000). Further, in April 2001, a legislative amendment enabling individuals “who have suffered ‘uncorrectable’ factors [that] prevent... them from forsaking their original citizenship” of another country, to be naturalized as Taiwanese citizens was passed (Central News Agency 6 Apr. 2001).

On 6 February 2004, the Ministry of Interior released a draft of several amendments to the Nationality Law (Taipei Times 7 Feb. 2004). One amendment will require applicants to have a basic knowledge of the Chinese language and civic obligations before citizenship can be granted (ibid.). In respect of the marital circumstances of citizenship applicants, the amendments will provide for the following:

If the Taiwanese spouse in a marriage dies and the foreign partner has not remarried but has children with that spouse, then he or she must apply for naturalization as a spouse...

... [I]f a child was born in Taiwan and one parent was a foreigner of unknown identity, then after six months of residence the child would be able to apply for naturalization.

Blue-collar foreign workers and foreign students will not be able to include their duration of stay in the country as part of the period of time required to be resident in the country for naturalization purposes...

Applicants would also need to provide financial details and possess specialized skills ... (ibid.).

Similar information pertaining to these proposed amendments was reported by the Central News Agency (7 Feb. 2004) (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2004, TWN42385.E Taiwan: Nationality laws (2000 – February 2004), 23 February – Attachment 34).

Further information on the new citizenship requirements, which were passed into Law in June 2005, are provided in three more recent news articles (‘Taiwan citizenship hopefuls required to pass language test’ 2004, The Taipei Times website, 20 April http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/04/20/2003137354 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 35; Yan-chih, M. 2005 ‘Foreigners decry citizenship law’, The Taipei Times, 7 July http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/07/07/2003262511 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 36; Hirsch, M. 2007 ‘MOI to change naturalization law’ The Taipei Times, 31 March http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/03/31/2003354644 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 37).

The national network of foreign spouses in Taiwan website provides some information on the rights of foreign nationals to work and establish a new business in Taiwan:

Rights to Work or Establish a New Business

The work rights of foreigners in the Taiwan area are regulated by the Council of Labor Affairs, in accordance with the “Employment Services Act”, promulgated in May 1992. The right to reside in Taiwan does not include the right to work legally.

Foreign spouses who desire to open a business in Taiwan, regardless of their length of residency, are not viewed differently from other foreigners. They are subject to many legal restrictions.

This is to say that foreigners and local citizens who desire to open a business in Taiwan are subject to completely different capitalization requirements, regulatory structure, and reporting rules. This is especially true if the business is small or medium sized. Indeed it is known that many local citizens operate various small or medium sized businesses which are unlicensed and unregistered with any government department, and pay no taxes. In terms of economic activities, the foreigner who follows the dictum of “When in China, do as the Chinese do” will soon find himself arrested, and probably deported (‘Foreign Spouses Residency Information Statement’ 2001, National Network Of Foreign Spouses In Taiwan website, May http://nt.tainan.com/nnfs/document02.html – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 38).

No reports were found of persons selling pork in a Taiwanese market being threatened or harassed. Reports indicate that pork is used widely in Taiwanese cooking and that pork products are available in Taipei’s famous night markets (Fusaro, D. 2005 ‘No to stinky tofu, yes to fish-pork dumplings’ Food Processing website, http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2006/174.html?page=print - Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 39; Ming-The, L. ‘Popular Food Culture in Taiwan’ (undated), Government information Office, Republic of China – Taiwan website http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/culture/food/ – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 40; ‘Taiwan Quick Take: Diseased pork confiscated’, 2006, The Taipei Times, 5 August http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/08/05/2003321854 – Accessed 17 May 2007 – Attachment 41).

List of Sources Consulted

Internet Sources: Government Information & Reports Government information Office, Republic of China – Taiwan website http://www.gio.gov.tw/ Non-Government Organisations National Network of Foreign Spouses in Taiwan website http://nt.tainan.com/ International News & Politics The Jakarta Post http://www.thejakartapost.com/ Asiaweek website http://www.asiaweek.com/ The Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/ Region Specific Links Indahesia.com website http://news.indahnesia.com/ Search Engines Google search engine http://www.google.com.au/

Databases: FACTIVA (news database) BACIS (DIMA Country Information database) REFINFO (IRBDC (Canada) Country Information database) ISYS (RRT Country Research database, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, US Department of State Reports) RRT Library Catalogue

List of Attachments

1. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2006, IDN101031.E – Indonesia: The largest centres of Chinese Indonesian population; reports of attacks in these areas and protection available; whether some areas of Indonesia are considered more welcoming than others to Chinese Indonesians (2004 – 2006), 29 March.

2. Gunawan, A. 2007 ‘Kampung Keling: Economic symbiosis in Medan’s Chinese- Indian enclave’ The Jakarta Post, 2 May http://www.thejakartapost.com/community/ina9.asp – Accessed 7 May 2007.

3. ‘Chinese Indonesians celebrate lunar new year in style’ 2007, Englis.sina.com website, 18 February http://english.sina.com/life/1/2007/0218/104413.html – Accessed 7 May 2007.

4. US Department of State 2005, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 8 November.

5. US Department of State 2003, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 18 December.

6. US Department of State 2002, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 7 October.

7. ‘Indonesia jails Christmas parcel bomber’ 2001, BBC News, 14 August http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1490247.stm – Accessed 17 October 2002. 8. ‘Medan rocked by two bomb blasts, no casualties’ 2000, The Jakarta Post, 28 August http://www.thejakartapost.com/Archives/ArchivesDet2.asp?FileID=20000828.A01 – Accessed 16 October 2002.

9. RRT Country Research 2006, Research Response IDN30246, 26 June.

10. ‘Medan’s Madness: How and why Indonesia’s third-largest city descended into chaos’ Asiaweek website, 22 May http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/98/0522/cs3.html – Accessed 7 May 2007.

11. RRT Country Research 1997, Research Response IDN12216, 12 August.

12. RRT Country Research 1995, Research Response IDN10472/10473, 23 May.

13. ‘The Anti-Chinese Element – Excerpts from: Human Rights Watch Report – Indonesia: The Medan Demonstration and Beyond’ 1994, Human Rights Watch website, Volume 16, No. 4, 16 May. (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/indonesia/anti- chn.htm – Accessed 23 June 2006.

14. RRT Country Research, Research Response IDN17775, 7 February.

15. U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 2006, ‘Annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’, May.

16. US Department of State 2007, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Indonesia, 6 March.

17. ‘We trust clerics more than SBY’, 2007, The Jakarta Post, 16 May http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20070516.@02&irec=1 – Accessed 16 May 2007.

18. ‘Police issue shoot-on-sight for for (sic) East Java rioters’ 2006, The Jakarta Post, 1 May.

19. Siboro, Tiarma 2005, ‘Freedom Guard to protect minority groups from terror’, The Jakarta Post, 1 October.

20. US Citizenship and Immigration Service 2003, Indonesia: Information on Attacks by Muslims Against a Chinese Christian Neighbourhood in Jakarta in September 2002, and Police Protection of Chinese Christians in Jakarta, 14 November. http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/asylum/ric/documentation/IDN04001.htm – Accessed 2 December 2005.

21. RRT Country Research 2003, Research Response IDN15918, 27 May.

22. ‘In Padang, On the Hunt for Pork’, 2006, Eating Asia website, 3 August http://eatingasia.typepad.com/eatingasia/2006/08/on_the_hunt_for.html – Accessed 16 May 2007.

23. ‘Eight killed in Indonesian blast’ 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 December http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/six-killed-in-indonesian- blast/2005/12/31/1135915716771.html# – Accessed 17 May 2007. 24. ‘Indonesia sets up team to tackle Sulawesi violence’ 2006, Indahesia.com website, 4 January http://news.indahnesia.com/item/200601047/indonesia_sets_up_team_to_tackle_sula wesi_violence.php – Accessed 17 May 2007.

25. Tupai, R. 2006 ‘Independent Inquiry Sought Over Pork Market Blast’, Paras Indonesia website, 4 January http://www.parasindonesia.com/read.php?gid=158 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

26. US Department of State 2006, International Religious Freedom Report – Indonesia, 15 September.

27. Bee Leng, T. 2004 ‘Chinese community in Medan determined to fight for equality ‘, Channel NewsAsia sourced from the Kabar-indonesia website, 26 June http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:jKP53me_IPgJ:www.kabar- irian.com/pipermail/kabar-indonesia/2004- June/000796.html+medan+chinese&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=80 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

28. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2006, IDN101030.E Indonesia: Reports of attacks against ethnic Chinese, Christians and non-Christians alike; state protection available (2004 – 2006), 28 March.

29. RRT Country Research 2007, Research Response IDN31298, 8 February.

30. Lin, J. 2006 ‘Laborers comprise biggest group of foreign residents’, The Taipei Times, 30 July http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/07/30/2003321023 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

31. Hudiono, U. 2007 ‘Taiwan investing big in Indonesia’, The Jakarta Post, 20 April http://www.thejakartapost.com/community/china2.asp – Accessed 17 May 2007.

32. ‘Taiwan freezes use of new Indonesian laborers’ 2002, Asian Political News, 5 August, sourced from the Find Articles website http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2002_August_5/ai_90193398 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

33. ‘Ban on Indonesian labor lifted’ 2004, The Taipei Times, 20 December http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/20/2003215925 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

34. Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2004, TWN42385.E Taiwan: Nationality laws (2000 – February 2004), 23 February.

35. ‘Taiwan citizenship hopefuls required to pass language test’ 2004, Taipei Times website, 20 April http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/04/20/2003137354 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

36. Yan-chih, M. 2005 ‘Foreigners decry citizenship law’, The Taipei Times, 7 July http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/07/07/2003262511 – Accessed 17 May 2007. 37. Hirsch, M. 2007 ‘MOI to change naturalization law’ The Taipei Times, 31 March http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/03/31/2003354644 – Accessed 17 May 2007.

38. ‘Foreign Spouses Residency Information Statement’ 2001, National Network of Foreign Spouses in Taiwan website, May http://nt.tainan.com/nnfs/document02.html – Accessed 17 May 2007.

39. Fusaro, D. 2005 ‘No to stinky tofu, yes to fish-pork dumplings’ Food Processing website, http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2006/174.html?page=print – Accessed 18 May 2007.

40. Ming-The, L. ‘Popular Food Culture in Taiwan’ (undated), Government information Office, Republic of China – Taiwan website http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5- gp/culture/food/ – Accessed 17 May 2007.

41. ‘Taiwan Quick Take: Diseased pork confiscated’, 2006, The Taipei Times, 5 August http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/08/05/2003321854 – Accessed 17 May 2007.