Land Disputes in : Some Current Perspectives Author(s): Anton Lucas Reviewed work(s): Source: Indonesia, No. 53 (Apr., 1992), pp. 79-92 Published by: Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3351117 . Accessed: 28/09/2012 02:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Indonesia.

http://www.jstor.org LAND DISPUTESIN INDONESIA: SOME CURRENTPERSPECTIVES

Anton Lucas

I see developedcountries giving economic aid. Andas a result manypeople from the third world arelosing their lands, so therich can play golf, orso a dam cangive electric power toindustries with foreign capital. Andthe unfortunate people, yes Lord, getcompensation forevery square meter of their land, withmoney that has the same value as a packetof American cigarettes. W. S. Rendra,For the People of Rangkas Bitung' The "Land forthe People" Calendar In March1991 a studentfrom a Yogyakartaactivist women's group visited the Inter UniversitiesCenter office, to ask fora donationfor her organization. Her groupwas one of ninesponsors of a calendarcalled "Land forthe People" (Tanahuntuk Rakyat). The calendar attractedconsiderable comment after she had left,as thosein theoffice at thetime crowded around,trying to guesswhich national political figures were being satirized there--not a difficulttask. About a weeklater, the government suddenly banned the calender for "jeopardizingnational security" and forinsulting the President and thegovernment of

An earlierversion of this paper was presentedat a conferenceon "IndonesianCulture, Asking the Right Ques- tions,"at theFlinders University of South Australia in Adelaidein October1991. I wouldlike to expressmy thanksto Nasikun,director of the Social Studies division of the Inter University Center at GadjahMada University,and MochtarMas'oed, the deputy director, for their continuing support of this research. 1 PikiranRakyat, December 31, 1990, reprinted in Problema,no.1 (March 1991), p. 13,issued by the Yayasan Buruh Membangun. 80 AntonLucas

Indonesia.The policeinterrogated thirteen students, university lecturers, journalists, and officials,mostly from Satya Wacana Christian University in Salatiga,and theartist who createdthe calendar went underground (and reportedlyleft the country). The ninenon- governmentalorganizations that had sponsoredthe calender publicly claimed collective responsibility,in an effortto countercriminal charges being brought against two student activistsfrom a non-governmentalorganization based in Salatiga(the Geni foundation), who werebacking farmers' requests for higher compensation in theregion to be floodedby theKedung Ombo dam.2 The Tanahuntuk Rakyat calendar visualizes in cartoonform what the sponsors (and manyothers) believe to be a majorsocial and politicalissue in Indonesiatoday--the ques- tionof land clearancesor penggusuran tanah. Various scenes in thecalendar illustrate charac- teristicsof many of these recent conflicts; the arbitrariness of official policy, the political and physicalintimidation of protesters, and theunsatisfactory methods and levelsof compensa- tionfor the farmers who have beendisplaced. It depictslocal government officials with wads ofmoney bulging out of every pocket of their safari jackets, people being evicted at thepoint of a gunby nasty looking soldiers, with their land being fenced off with barbed wire.A largefigure dressed in blue pourswater into an unfilledhole labeledKedung Ombo whileholding a bag ofmoney with "overseas debt" printed on it. Underneaththis collage of social commentary, the creators of the calendar summarize six recentclearance cases. Theseare at Mt Badega (southof Garut), Jatiwangi (near Maja- lengka),and Cimacan(in Cianjurkabupaten), all in theprovince of West ; Belangguan (Situbondokabupaten) in EastJava; Kedung Ombo covering the kabupatens of Boyolali, Sragen,and Grobogan(Central Java); and Pulau Panggungsubdistrict in SouthLampung province.The factsabout each case as givenon thecalendar, together with data on the Cilacap petrochemicalfactory and theUrip Sumoharjo urban redevelopment project in Surabaya,are summarizedin Table 1 (p. 81). Beforeconsidering three of these cases in more detail,I would liketo lookbriefly at thehistorical background and thelegal position of clearancecases in thecontext of perceptions of land disputesin Indonesiatoday. Some HistoricalBackground The penggusuranissue is closelytied to rightsto landand land ownershipwhich have longbeen a complexsocial issue in Indonesia.In theHindu Javanese kingdom of Mataram beforethe coming of the Dutch, the ruler distributed land forthe people and theirdescend- antsto cultivate,or as appanagesto faithfulfollowers in returnfor their loyalty to theking. In colonialtimes, the VOC and thecolonial administration that succeeded it tried to make senseof the Javanese land-tenure system, for purposes of taxation and laterfor levying corvee.The eighteenth-centurydebates about rights to land inJava--regarding whether ownershipof the land residedwith the Sovereign (or theState), with proprietors who col- lectedrevenue and determinedland use, withvillages ( or hamlets),or withindividual peasantcultivators-usually reaffirmed the rights of the sovereign power.3 The Agrarian Law of 1870,making it illegal forforeigners to own land, declared thatall "unused" or unoccupiedland belongedto thestate, and could thereforebe leased to Europeanplanta- tions,while village land could be rentedfrom the village for up to threeyears. The 2 KedaulatanRakyat, March 19, 1991; Jawa Pos, March 19, 1991; "Kasus Kalender Aneh Bin Ajaib" a pamphletex- plainingthe backgrounds of the two students charged, and theactivities of the Yayasan Geni, as wellas providinga summaryof local press commentary. 3 RobertVan Niel,"Rights to land inJava," in DariBabad dan Hikayat sampai Sejarah Kritis: Kumpulan karangan dipersembahkankepada Prof Dr Sartono,ed. T. IbrahimAlfian et al. (Yogyakarta:UGM press,1987), pp. 122,135-48. Table 1. Major Land Clearancesin Indonesia1989-1992

No. offamilies/ No. ofhouses/ totalpopulation totalarea Compensation Statusof project/ Projectand Location involved expropriated offer(rupiah) totalinvestment Developer KedungOmbo dam 5390/30000 5968ha flooded Rp.300/m2, irrigationof 60000 ha. government+ World Bank (CentralJava) laterincreased 22.5MW ofelectricity $US76.5million

UripSumoharjo 468/25000 2348/265ha. Rp 178-825,000/m2 offices,shopping center, government+ PT Karya urbanredevelopment hotels,recreation YudhaSakti (Sudwikatmono) (Surabaya) Petrochemicalfactory 1400/3035 200ha. variesaccording to petrochemicalfactory. Shell52%; Pertamina 15%; Cilacap(Central Java) classof land Totalinvestment Bimantara12%; C. Itoh9%; $US1.5billion Mitsubishi9%; International FinanceCorporation, Asian DevelopmentBank 3% Airforcebase 2198landholders 1021ha. N/A Disputed Jatiwangi(Majalengka) W. Java

KotoPanjang dam (Riau) 4125/23000 12600ha. to be rp.30/m2 114MW ofelectricity Japan'sOverseas Economic flooded US$290million DevelopmentFund (OEDF) Golfcourse 287farmers 33.4ha. cultivated rp.30/m2 increased to golfcourse+ touristpark PT BandungAsri Mulya Cimacan(Cianjur) since1943 rp.210/m2. (BAM) Tea plantation 579/2500 498.6ha. cultivated "gift"of 0.12 ha. per tea plantation PT SuryaAndaka Mustika Badega(Garut) since1943 family W.Java 42 Marinesbase 200families 140ha. cultivated rp.200/m2 marinetraining PT Asia BudiDaya . Belangguan(Situbondo) since1923 E.Java

PulauPanggung, South 2376families 476dwellings burnt noneoffered reforestation+ coffee localgovernment Lampung bylocal authorities plantations .

o- 82 AntonLucas twentieth-centuryconcept of adat law,as applied to landclassified as villageor communally ownedland (tanahulayat or tanahjasan), gave theso-called "autonomous self-regulating villages"power to makelaws regardingland. Thus the 1870 Agrarian Law recognizeda dual systemof land laws: theWestern concept of private ownership (eigendom); and long- termlease (erfpacht)through which state and villagelands could be rentedout to Western plantations.Although farmers still had rightsto land,the power of the sugar interests in Java,for example, ensured that farmers were in effect"evicted" from their lands forthe lengthof the sugar mill lease (approximatelythree years). Several of the well-publicized disputesin Indonesiatoday regarding land claimshave occurred as a resultof farmers cultivatingland formerlyrented under long-term lease arrangementswhich began during thecolonial period. The disputesat Mt.Badega and Cimacan,for example, both concern land formerlyleased to Europeanplantations which was takenover during the Japanese occupationby local farmers. Althoughall butone ofthe cases describedin Table 1 relateto penggusuran of agricul- turalland fordevelopment projects, there are dozensof similar less-publicized cases which concerndisputed urban land clearance.4In Jakartaand Surabaya,the two main urban areas ofJava, penggusuran of kampung people began to increasein thefirst decades ofthe twen- tiethcentury. During 1918, in therun-up to theopening of the People's Council (Volksraad), SarekatIslam leaders attacked the Batavia Municipal Council for forcing people offtheir landsin thecity's Menteng area "withonly paltry compensation" to providea new Euro- pean residentialarea. Stricter housing regulations led to manykampung dwellers being forcedfrom their homes, as housesthat were below standard were demolished.5 Similar clearanceswere increasingly occurring in Surabaya,a city"originally built in largepart on illegallyacquired kampung land."6 Duringthe Japanese occupation, in orderto requisitionthe maximum amount of rice and otherresources for their war effort,Japanese authorities returned land previously leased by Europeanplantations (including the majority of sugar mills in Java) to thecultiva- tionof wet rice. In thecase ofJatiwangi, in 1943the Japanese took over land tobuild an airstrip.After the end ofthe war, the previous owners reclaimed their land and beganculti- vatingit, but in 1951,Indonesian airforce personnel took it over, forcibly removing the people,although it has neverbeen used as an airforcebase since. Fromthe declaration of Indonesian independence until the passing of the Basic Agrarian Law in 1960,the State acted to resumelands where colonial agrarian law had grantedlegal rightsof cultivation to foreigners.In 1948the Republican government revoked 40 sugarmill leases ofland previouslyrented from the kratons of Yogyakarta and Surakartaby European companies,and negotiatednew lease agreementswith individual farmers. In 1958the Indo- nesiangovernment abolished what were called private lands (tanahpartikelir)--created in Raffles'day-which saw 1,150,000hectares mainly owned by British, Dutch, Arab, and Chineseinterests either sold to thegovernment or distributedto farmers.7

4 The NationalAssembly (DPR), until the third sitting of the 1990/91 Parliament session, recorded recieving 541 writtencomplaints about land problems.Editor, December 21, 1991, p. 11. 5 Susan Abeyasekere,: A History (Singapore, Oxford University Press, revised edition 1989), pp. 106,122. 6 WilliamH. Frederick,Visions and Heat: The Making of the Indonesian Revolution (Athens, Ohio UniversityPress, 1989),p. 8. 7 Selo Soemardjan,"Land Reformdi Indonesia,"in Dua AbadPenguasaan Tanakh Pola Penguasaaan Tanah Pertanian diJawa dari Masa keMasa, ed. SedionoM.P. Tjondronegoro and GunawanWiradi (Jakarta: Gramedia, 1984), pp. 104-5. LandDisputes in Indonesia 83

The Basic AgrarianLaw of 1960 The BasicAgrarian Law (UUPA, Undang-UndangPokok Agraria) no 1 of1960, which re- placedall previouscolonial land legislation,is extremelycomprehensive. The State,on behalfof the citizens of Indonesia, is responsiblefor the management of land, water, air, and all naturalresources (article 1). Wherenot in conflictwith national laws, adat or communal propertyrights are recognizedand variouscategories of rights to land are spelledout (in- cludingownership, exploitation, building and use rights).All rightsto land have a social function(article 6). The actgives protection to theinterests of the economically weak (article 11).Issues addressed by thelegislation include absentee landholdings, the registration of ownershipto land and proceduresfor legal sale and inheritance,and maximumand mini- mumlimits to land holdings.The governmentis responsiblefor land use planningor zoning. Underthe Basic Agrarian Law theState granted and revokedrights to land.Article 18 statedthat: For thepublic interest (kepentingan umum), which includes the interest of the people (bangsa)and thestate (negara), as wellas thecollective interest of the people (kepentingan bersamadari rakyat) rights to land can be revoked,with the payment of reasonable com- pensation(ganti rugi yang layak) according to regulations.8 The new act also specifiedthat revocation of rights to land was by presidentialdecree only. In practice,this has beenseldom used becauselater legislation (Permendagri [Peraturan MenteriDalam Negeri]no 15/1975)set up local Land ReleaseCommittees (Panitya Pem- bebasanTanah) to implementthe process. After1965, with the exception of the 1961 law on sharecroppingand land reform(which willnot be discussedin thispaper), regulations to implement the UUPA, were never enact- ed. Especiallyin Java,agrarian relations were politicized by thePKI-led land-reform cam- paignof 1963-1965 to implementpart of the UUPA. In theaftermath of the 1965 attempted Coup theentire Basic Agrarian Law becametarred with the same PKI brush.This further weakenedthe bargaining power of farmers under the New Order,vis-ai-vis the stronger cap- italisteconomic forces who werelooking for land.9 Furthermore, after 1971, the state dis- continuedits annual budgetary allocations to financethe land-reform program, giving the impressionthat agrarian reform was "no longera governmentpriority."10 Yet todaythe UUPA is stillon thestatute books, and thereare periodiccalls for regulations to implement it.For example, such concepts as the"social function" of land, "public interest," and "reasonablecompensation" have neverbeen spelled out in a way thatwould enableland clearancesto be morecarefully regulated. Rather, new regulationshave beenformulated whichlandholders feel have encourageddevelopment without protecting the rights of the economicallyweak proclaimedunder the UUPA. Accordingto theUUPA, in orderfor the state to recognizetitle to land,all rightsmust be registeredand certificatesissued acknowledging category of ownership. This was theonly way ofproviding legal security to landholders.While registration was made mandatory

8 BoediHarsono, Undang-Undang Pokok Agraria: Sedjarah penjusunan isi dan pelaksanaanja (Jakarta: Djambatan, 1971),p. 431. 9 ImanSoetiknja, Politik Agraria Nasional (Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Press,1990), pp. 95-96. 10 SartonoKartodirdjo, "Latar Belakang Masalah-Masalah Pokok," in LaporanInterim: Masalah Pertanahan (Jakarta:Kementerian Riset Republic Indonesia, 1978), p. 14. 84 AntonLucas underthe law, no timelimit was seton registrationof land.11 As manylandholders have found,subsequent regulations have empoweredthe government to expropriateland against thelandholders' wishes, even if a certificateto therights has beenissued. Issues RegardingRights to Land In all theland clearancecases surveyed,including the six mentionedby theTanah untuk Rakyatcalendar, two common issues are clear.In themajority of cases underreview land- holdershave neverregistered their lands, because both of the cost and ofthe bureaucratic proceduresinvolved. Thus the only proof of ownership or cultivationrights is thelength of timethey have beencultivating the land and theirpayment of all financialobligations. In an open letterto theIndonesian parliament, farmers from Belangguan in EastJava pointed out that"these have beenour ancestors' lands (tanah leluhur), since 1923, when our grandpar- entscleared the forest, and everyyear since then we have paid taxes."12 A secondissue in all land clearancecases is compensation.One ofthe issues involved in theKedung Ombo dam land clearance(see below)was thecomplaint that, if people had to leave theirfertile ancestral wet-rice lands, the compensation should be adequate.There had beena cultureof opposition to theDutch in thisregion, where the graves of two folkheroes (importanthistorical figures involved in theDiponegoro war of1825-1830), as well as sacred sitesconnected with these heroes, were submerged along with thousands of family graves. Manyelderly relatives, often in poorhealth, were reluctant to leave becauseof the ties with theirland and theirancestors. In theCilacap land dispute,dipossessed owners complained thatthe Rp.1000 compensation for removal of a gravemeant that many had to leave their familyancestors behind on thesite of the new petrochemicalfactory. Protesting the inade- quate compensation,landholders carried the exhumed remains of their relatives in coffins on theback of bicycles around the villages. Land Policysince 1965 No decree,no setof regulations or law holdsgood in Indonesiawhen it comes to land appropriation.The land and thelaw belongto thepowerful and thepeople with money.13 The issue ofland appropriationin Indonesia,and theincreasing commercialization of land,reflects a numberof trends since the beginning of the New Order.As was mentioned earlier,agrarian reform is no longerthe priority it was before1966. The earlyfive-year de- velopmentprograms of the New Ordergovernment emphasized increasing agricultural output,and thishas made land moreproductive and increasedits value to farmers.Agricul- turalland close to majorcommercial centers has becomevaluable for joint venture projects withforeign investors. The rapidlyincreasing value ofland as a commodityhas attracted localspeculators (cukong tanah, tengkulak), who buyup theland and resellit, making large profits.Although the Basic Agrarian Law made absenteeland ownershipillegal, such own-

11Colin MacAndrews, Land Policy in Modern Indonesia: A Studyof Land Issues in theNew Order Period (Boston: Oelgeschlager,Gunn & Hain,for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,1986), p. 24. 12 The letterwas signedwith thumb prints by 80 landholders,with identity cards of 136 citizens of Belangguan village,"who request protection from a bombthreat." From student files of the Belangguan case. 13 Setiakawan,no.6 (July 1991), p. 12,English original. This issue of Setiakawan, the journal of SKEPHI, the NGO networkfor conservation in Indonesia,gives a wide-rangingcoverage of recent land disputes throughout the country. LandDisputes in Indonesia 85

ershipis in factincreasing, and good agriculturalland is beingbought up by theurban middleclass, as a formof investment in thefuture.14 Tourism,the garment industry, and thefootwear industry are threerapidly expanding economicsectors that require land in closeproximity to, if not within, the big urbancenters. Governmentdepartments need land foroffice expansion. In urbanareas Indonesiancon- glomerateshave been working with local governmentauthorities to buyland forhotels, shoppingplazas, and officeblocks. In ruralareas, conglomerates have consolidatedtheir controlover former state forest areas which are beingcleared for agricultural crops.15 Implementationof land-use policy is a complexprocess. It involvesdifferent govern- mentdepartments, including the Ministry of Home Affairs,and theBPN (BadanPertanahan Nasional,National Council for Land Affairs)which now has nationalresponsibility for land policy,replacing the former Directorate General of Agrarian Affairs. The dimensionsof the problemof implementing land policyin Indonesiatoday are clearfrom comments made by theIndonesian Legal Aid Service(LBH). The numberof laws, acts, regulations, and instruc- tionswhich have beenpromulgated since the UUPA was passed in 1960have made itdiffi- cultto givelegal advice in land disputes.The Legal Aid Servicehas reportedproblems in keepingitself fully aware of new legislationbeing enacted at variouslevels.16 Local gov- ernments,on theone hand,should defend the rights of individual citizens, and, on the other,actively promote development projects in theirrespective regions. Let us briefly examinethe main areas whereconflict arises in thecontext of three of the case studies. The CimacanCase "Don't value landcultivated for many years at only30 rupiahper square meter!" Minis- terof Home AffairsRudini's comment on compensationoffered to 287 farmersof Rarahanhamlet, Cimacan village, Cianjur, .17 The levelof compensation for landholders who have been toldthat their lands are to be appropriatedfor development projects is thecentral issue in theCimacan dispute. Article 18 ofthe Basic Agrarian Law states,as we have seen,states that the government must pay adequatecompensation (ganti rugi yang layak), according to regulationswhich were never promulgated.Fifteen years later a Ministryof Home AffairsRegulation (Permendagri no. 15/1975)created Land ReleaseCommittees (Panitia Pembebasan Tanah) to determinethe level ofcompensation for people who have losttheir land toa privateor government developmentproject. These Committees are constitutedin sucha way thatthey have no landholders'representatives. So whena levelof compensation is set forthe land itis often belowboth market price and thecost to thefarmer of finding alternative land ofsimilar productivity.The obligatorydeliberations (musyawarah) toreach an agreementon theprice ofthe land are reducedto a meetingat thelocal village or districtoffice when local officials informlandholders of the Committee's decision on compensation.There is no mechanism forsolving disputes if the process of musyawarah does notresult in agreement,nor is there an authorityto whomthe land ownercan appeal. Underthe UUPA of1960 landholders 14 Kuntowidjoyo,"Keadilan Sosial di Pedesaan,"in ProspekPedesaan 1987, ed. Mubyartoet al. (Yogyakarta,P3PK UGM,1987), pp. 109-15. 15 The coverstory "Liem mengkavling Riau," appeared in Prospek,September 21, 1991, pp. 86-97. 16Abdurachman, "Aspek2 Pokok Hukum Agraria," Radar 27 (September-October1987): 16-17. 17 Thecompensation was beingoffered to farmersby a privatedeveloper building a golfcourse in Cimacan. Kompas,July 24,1989, quoted in ArnoldPurba, Biarkan Rakyat Bicara: Tangan Besi Merampas Tanah Kami. Pembelaan DidepanPengadilan Negeri untuk Menjawab Semua Tuntutan Penguasa Negeri in kepada Mahasiswa Indonesia, (Bandung,January 27, 1990), p. 62 86 AntonLucas who sufferfinancial loss could appeal toa court,but Permendagri 15/1975 does notgive themthis right. In theKedung Ombo dispute, landholders who have soughtjustice through thelocal courts against the government have losttheir cases.18 Under the same law, the villageheadman is a memberof the Land ReleaseCommittee. He has to protectthe interests ofhis people,but in the"era ofdevelopment" policy of the New Orderhe mustbe supportiveof government or privateinterests needing land fordevelopment projects. The Cimacandispute highlighted the powerlessness of farmers to fightunjust compen- sationunless supported by a powerfulofficial, and theimportance of the attitude of the villageheadman. In Cimacanvillage the headman declared that 33 hectaresof land, origi- nallyheld under a longterm lease (erfpachtverponding) by a Europeanplantation but since 1943actively farmed by (in 1989)287 farmers, was villageland and thereforeofficially at his disposal.Without consulting the villagers concerned, this land was leased to a developer, PT BandungAsria Mulia (BAM),for 30 years,for a golfcourse forming part of a local tourist parkdevelopment. The 287 farmersaffected had beguncultivating the land in 1943,paying a totalannual rent of Rp. 1.4million to thevillage, although the village claimed to receive onlyRp. 300,000.As thecompany was offeringonly token payment (referred to locallyas uangpengjeujeuh), the dispute continued for several months. There was interventionfrom variousnotable figures, including Minister for Home AffairsRudini, Minister Coordinator forPolitics and SecuritySudomo, and Chairmanof the National Council for Land Affairs (BadanPertanahan Nasional or BPN) SonyHarsono. None ofthese interventions helped the farmers,who in lateAugust 1989 decided to cultivate their land againunder a posterwhich read "We live offthis land. Let us go on livingas farmers!"The headman'scomment was: "Theland is ownedby thevillage, so ifthe people are not given compensation it actually doesn'tmatter."19 The Cimacanfarmers also tooktheir case to thenational parliament, the DPR, to whichlandholders often appeal forassistance in land disputes,and thematter was againreferred to theBPN. Howeverthe construction of the golf course has apparently proceeded. The Kedung Ombo Project. ... The implementationof the resettlement plans and landcompensation rates [for the KedungOmbo project]was leftto local government,in particularthe district [kabupaten]authorities. From the start confusion, uncertainty and secrecymarked the process,whether in theplanning or theimplementation stages. In theend, from the pointof view ofthe majority of the villagers, the process was noteworthyonly for the outrighthostility which government officials showed them.20 Beginningin 1982the provincial government of Central Java began setting compensa- tionrates and developingresettlement plans for more than 5,000 families from 37 villagesin 7 subdistrictswho wereto be movedfor a hugedam financedlargely by theWorld Bank. Constructionstarted in October1985, and floodingof 6,576 hectares of farmland began in January1989. The functionsof the Kedung Ombo dam includetourism, flood control,

18Landholders who tooktheir cases tocourt in Semarangand Boyolali,claiming compensation for loss of sawah, housegardens, houses, and otherpossessions, and forloss of two years harvest, claiming they had beenunjustly smearedwith ex-tapol (ex-political prisoner) stamped on theiridentity cards, lost their cases, and theirappeal. Othercases arebeing prepared. Romo Mangunwijaya, "Situasi dan saran tentang resettlement penduduk Kedung Ombosekarang," (Yogyakarta, February 20, 1991), pp. 8-9. 19 Kompas,July 22, 1989, quoted in Purba,Biarkan Rakyat Bicara, p. 61. Fora summaryof the Cimacan case see YLBHI [YayasanLembaga Bantuan Hukum] and JARIM[Jaringan Informasi Masyarakat], Laporan Khusus/ Case Report,(Kedung Ombo, Kasus Arso,Cimacan), vol. 2 (June1991), pp. 91-99. LandDisputes in Indonesia 87

irrigating70,000 hectares of new ricelands, and theproduction of 22.5 megawatts of electricity.21 Compensationrates paid to landholderswere inadequate and neveraccepted as fairby thefarmers, partly because the farmers themselves were never included in negotiations.The qualityof the land in theresettlement sites in theregion was muchpoorer, while villagers no longercould be persuadedto transmigrateto otherislands. Although the dam has been floodedfor over a year,and was formallyopened by thePresident in March1991, approxi- mately600 (now reportedto be 1,000)families still live in thegreen belt above thewater-line ofthe dam, now a vastinland lake. It was to thesepeople thatthe President addressed his remarksat theopening ceremony, when he said thathe understoodhow difficultit was for farmersto leave theirancestral farmlands, but that people were being asked to makesacri- fices"for the greater good" (kepentinganyang lebih besar). Referring to thosewho had not moved,he said thegovernment would notincrease the compensation, because it would not be fairto thosewho had alreadyaccepted payment. He would also regretit if a groupof themwere to become known as resisters(kelompok mbalelo) in thefuture. The Presidenttold theassembled farmers and inviteddignitaries that the people had twoalternatives: to transmigrateto otherislands, or to movetheir villages to land previouslymanaged by the ForestryDepartment where they would be issuedwith certificates of title.22 The KedungOmbo dam projecthighlights another set of conflicts which arise in com- pulsoryland acquisition,namely relations between landholders and local governmentoffi- cials.Attitudes towards individual projects and themechanism for solving disputes vary considerablybetween levels of local government.Officials often appear patronizing, manipulative,sometimes intimidatory. Since the beginning of the project officials have used threatsand intimidationto persuadevillagers to acceptcompensation rates and resettlement plans.Kedung Ombo residents had to signa documentwith thumb prints after being told it relatedto taxation.The same documentwas producedlater as evidencethat the landholders had agreedto compensationoffered by thegovernment. Then a numberof villagers, having submittedtheir personal identity cards for routine renewal, had themreturned with stampedinitials marking them as formerpolitical prisoners or membersof now-banned organizations,making them vulnerable to all kindsof bureaucratic or politicalpressure.23 Indirectpolitical pressure also comesfrom local DPRD (RegionalPeople's Consultative Assemblies)which often seem uninformed about the facts and issuessurrounding particular disputes.The chairmanof Boyali kabupaten DPRD (whichrepresents a largenumber of villagesaffected by the Kedung Ombo dam) said itwas untruethat the Kedung Ombo fami- lies who refusedto moveand soughtbetter compensation for their fertile rice lands were antiPanca Sila or anti-development.The BoyolaliGolkar chairman said "Thereis no evi- dencethat they are antigovernment, they are notyet aware [belumsadar]."24 The Urip SumoharjoDispute The 26 hectaresof urban land in Surabayanow underdispute are hometo roughly4,600 familiesor a totalof 19,000 people, administered by seven kampung associations (RW or 20 LaporanKasus/Case Report, vol.2 (June 1991), p. 22 (Englishoriginal). 21 Tempo,May 25, 1991, p. 22. 22Ibid. 23Laporan Kasus/Case Report, vol 2 (June1991), p. 23 24 Stanley,"Seputar Kedung Ombo," typscript prepared for a seminarin Salam,Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, May 19-20,1990, p. 154. 88 AntonLucas

rukunwarga) under two different village administrations (kelurahan). Centrally located and accessibleto publichealth and cheappublic transport, the area is suppliedwith electricity and telephones,has good groundwater, no wet-seasonflooding, and comparativelylittle pollution(it is notan industrialarea). Being close tocity markets, kampung people can buy basicnecessities cheaply. The majorityare self-employedin a wide rangeof activities, par- ticularlyrunning food-selling and motor-bikerepair businesses. Also a minorityof them workin thearmed forces or in thegovernment. Residents have inheritedtheir houses and claimthey have beenliving in thearea --inKeputran, Pandegiling, and Kedondongkam- pungs-forup to fivegenerations. They belong to no villageor kampungelsewhere, and rejectthe idea theyare illegalresidents.25 The disputeoriginated with a firein 1983which destroyed the Horizon supermarket on J1.Urip Sumoharjo and 81 kampungdwellings on thewest side ofthis main Surabaya thor- oughfare.The municipalgovernment refused to allow theowners to rebuildtheir dwellings; instead,the ailing Mayor of Surabaya suddenly announced plans for kampung renewal, and a privatedeveloper was contractedto build flats. After living in makeshiftaccommodation fortwo years, people moved in and startedpaying rent to thegovernment.26 Surabaya's"obsession to become a metropolis"has, since 1988, encouraged developers to investin thisprovincial capital of East Java. This development has resultedin increasing competitionto obtainland, and sky-rocketingprices, particularly after the municipal gov- ernmentdeclared the area partof a new centralbusiness district. Adjacent to thedisputed land thereare now fourhotels, two shopping plazas, two banks, and an officeblock, while twocommercial office towers and a 5-starhotel are eitherplanned or under construction.27 As withthe other land clearancedisputes, the main issue is compensation.The devel- oper,PT KaryaYudha Sakti(a companycontrolled by the President's brother-in-law Sud- wikatmono),offered the residents three choices: new high-densityhousing on thesame site, alternativehousing on theedge ofthe city, or cash payments.Most inhabitants chose cash, butrejected the amount of compensation offered by the Mayor of Surabaya, which was based on whetherthe site was classifiedas businessor residentialand on thequality of the building.In supportingthe developers, the assistant to theMayor of South Surabaya quoted versesof the Qur'an to explainthat by accepting low compensationfor their land thepeople showedthat they were able "to livewith a stateof loss."28 Local militaryofficers have intervenedwithout any success to helpsolve the dispute. One kampunghead offeredlocal residentscheap loans on conditionthey accepted the rates ofcompensation offered. Residents continually requested a meetingwith the developer, but thedeveloper denied that his company was actingas a (private)investor, but rather as a projectcontractor for the government. Local residentsfeel that once the government pos- sesses theland itwill sell itto thedeveloper, although officials keep emphasizing that it is "a local governmentproject." Why, then are thehotels, shops, office blocks, being financed privately?the people ask.

25 "PembebasanUrip Sumoharjo,"typescript, November (?) 1991,p. 3. 26Ibid., pp. 6-8. 27 "JawaTimur 1991, Kebijakan dan Problema:Aib birokrasi ditengah melonjaknya Harga Tanah," Jawa Pos, December24,1991; "Pembebasan Urip Sumoharjo," p. 13. 28 "PembebasanUrip Sumoharjo',"p. 25. The assistant mayor only quoted the first two verses "Demi masa sesungguhnyamanusia itu dalam kerugian" but the Surat Al-'Ashr continues "kecuali orang-orang yang berimamdan ber'amalsalih dan berwasiatdengan kebenaran dan berwasiat dengan kesabaran," 105:1-3, in H. MahmudJunus, Tarjamah Al QuranAl Karim(Bandung: Al-Ma'Arif, 1988), p. 540. LandDisputes in Indonesia 89

Appeals to thenational parliament and toMinister of Home AffairsRudini have also not produceda solution,although Rudini has visitedSurabaya and talkedwith residents' action groups.As ofthe time of writing the dispute is stillnot settled. Attitudesof theMinister of Home Affairs National-levelofficials, and membersof the Indonesian parliament often send outcon- tradictorysignals regarding land clearances.Minister of Home AffairsRudini is in factthe mostprominent national-level government official involved in land disputes,because his ministry,together with the National Council for Land Affairs,is responsiblefor the admin- istrationof the land clearances.In theCimacan dispute discussed earlier, Rudini at first respondedpositively to thefarmers' protests, but in theend he backedthe authority of the local villageheadman and, by implication,the developer, advising farmers to acceptthe compensationoffered. Landholderswho bring their complaints to theMinistry of Home Affairsseem to geta fairhearing from Rudini or hisstaff. At leasthis publicstatements indicate sympathy for theirplight. He is oftenalso criticalof officials in hisown ministry,saying that the numbers ofprotesters coming to theMinistry of Home Affairsin Jakartawith grievances about land show thatlocal governmenthas "failedto giveleadership."29 He questionsthe meaning of publicinterest, asking if a supermarketis in thepublic interest, then in whosepublic inter- est.30He suggeststhat the term penggusuran should be replacedby the"purchase of land for developmentprojects."31 In Cimacanhe warnedthe village headman not to be a "victimof theflattery of businessmen," because in theend "itis thefarmers who suffer."32In Surabaya Rudinilistened to peoplewhose land was beingappropriated for hotel and officeshopping plaza redevelopment,criticizing municipal officials who "havejust read out theirdecision regardingcompensation, without giving the people a chanceto speak."33 He has also told thepress in Surabayathat "local government must not be thespokesperson for business,"3 and has declinedthe invitation of the Surabaya municipal government to lay thefoundation stonefor the Urip Sumoharjo development project, on thegrounds that there is stillno agreementon compensationbetween the government and thepeople who are being evicted.35When over one hundredlandholders from Cilacap arrived in theMinistry of Home Affairs,Rudini made an unscheduledappearance in thecar-park, and in a much publicizeddialogue, gave an impressionof openness and a genuinewillingness to listento grievances.36At thebeginning of the Kedung Ombo protestshe was receptiveto student involvement.After students told him he was gettinga one-sidedversion of the dispute, he agreedto openup alternativesources of information apart from official government chan- nels,with a studenttask force formed to workwith landholders in KedungOmbo. At the same meeting,he toldstudent leaders not to listento outsideinfluences and statedthat the majorityof the people who didn'twant to movewere ex-PKI. He promisedto act immedi- 29 Media,January 14,1991; Institute of Legal Aid (LBH) newspaperfiles. 30Angkatan Bersenjata, January 3, 1991;LBH newspaperfiles. 31 PikiranRakyat, January 3, 1991;LBH newspaperfiles. 32 Kompas,July 24,1989, in BiarkanRakyat Bicara, p. 62. However,after talking with the headman in question, Rudinibacked down, saying that he onlymeant the project should be halteduntil the dispute was solved. 33Media Indonesia, January 3, 1991,in RakyatVS Shell:Pengalaman Kasus Tanah Rakyat Cilacap, distributed by Sekerep[Serikat Kesetiakawanan Rakyat Cilacap] (Yogyakarta, 1990). 34 "PembebasanTanah Urip Sumoharjo," p. 15 35Retorika, 5, 2 (1991),p. 16. 36Pos Kota, November 13,1990, Sinar Pagi, November 13,1990, in RakyatVS.Shell. 90 AntonLucas

atelyagainst government officials who manipulated compensation payments.37 Rudini's liberalattitude apparently was notreflected in decisionsfavorable to landholders. Rudini'spublic statements are in contrastto thoseof provincial-level officials, and membersof the provincial-level DPRDs. On November13, 1990, the day after400 landhold- ersfrom Cilacap protestedto thenational parliament, Governor H. Ismailset up a 24-Hour CommandoPost (Posko24 jam),where people in CentralJava could taketheir disputes con- cerningland.38 The Governorannounced the cultural principle on whichPosko was based, namelyono rembug, ya dirembug,in otherwords "discuss your problems with us, don't protest."39 The Governorof Central Java in generalreacts negatively to farmers'protests about low levelsof compensation. He complainedthat the leaders of the Cilacap protestswere "stirrers,"not "real farmers," charging that the people who mastermindedthe Cilacap protestswere the same as thosewho organizedthe Kedung Ombo dam actions.4?One of GovernorIsmail's most publicized decisions was hisrefusal to giveCatholic activist priest and novelistY.B. Mangunwijayapermission to setup a schoolprogram for the 3,500 chil- drenwho wereunable to getto schoolafter the flooding that occurred as thedam was filling.This publicized the plight of the inhabitants who had refusedto moveout of the regionbut had triedto dismantle their houses and moveto higherground before the water levelreached them. StudentPerceptions of Land Disputes Studentgroups have beeninvolved in disputeswith landholders over rights to land and overlevels of compensation since 1989. All levelsof government have beenwary of outside influence,particularly that of students, and have triedto drivea wedgebetween the stu- dentsand landholders.In Cilacap,security officers only allowed landholders holding ID cardsas proofthey were residents in thedisputed area tomeet the regional head to discuss levelof compensation. The localgovernment closed off the Kedung Ombo communitiesand refusedto allow studentsto enterthe region. However student involvement continued in a numberof ways. First,students provided support, through legal advice and informationnetworks and throughorganization of many of the protest actions to theparliament and theMinistry of Home Affairsor to local governmentofficials. Where there are detentions,or court cases pending(as in theBadega, Cilacap, and KedungOmbo disputes), students have arranged legalaid. Studentaction groups formed around each landcase providefirst-hand accounts ofdevelopments, giving a differentperspective from the ones appearingin theIndonesian dailypress. Some student groups find places in educationalinstitutions in theirown cities forchildren of the community leaders with whom they are working.

37See Stanley,Seputar Kedung Ombo, pp. 96-98. 38Suara Merdeka, November 15, 1990 in Rakyat VS Shell. 39Ibid., Media Indonesia, January 3,1991 in RakyatVS. Shell."Ona rembug,ya dirembug"is thekind of advice Javaneseparents would give recalcitrant children, "don't go and actfoolishly, discuss it with your family first." 40Governor Ismail calls the protesting landholders oknum2 WTS. WTS usually means prostitute (wanita tuna susila)but the Governor means waton sulaya, or talkingin an argumentativeway withnegative results. He also callsthe leadership of protests "jumping bedbugs" (kutu loncat) a referenceto thesame student leadership of differentland disputes,and "satesellers" who fanthe flames of discontent. Suara Merdeka, August 11, 1990; MediaIndonesia, August 14,1990 in Rakyat VS. Shell. LandDisputes in Indonesia 91

However,the students are spliton thestrategies to use in workingwith the people in- volvedin thedisputes. Some students regard disgruntled landholders as an instrumentfor provokingan issuearound which political opposition can be mobilized.This view is de- scribed(at leastby its opponents) as therakyat sebagai alat provokasi approach. Anotherapproach emphasizes training cadres, based on thefelt needs ofthe local peo- ple,or as one studentput it: "We shouldbe dealingwith the issues rather than with the masses,organizing around issues; otherwise, the people are justa tool."41Another student viewis thatstudent involvement should be aimedprimarily at raisingthe consciousness of therural poor concerning their rights, with the foremost aim to createan alliancebetween urbanand ruralpoor. Over thepast eighteen months, student involvement in thelandholders' dispute with theIndonesian Airforce in Jatiwangihas shownconcrete results, at leastaccording to the activiststhemselves. It is claimedthat the people can cultivatetheir land withoutbeing "taxed"30 percentof the harvest by theairforce; they now have greateraccess to all thedis- putedland; and a new commanderof the local airforce base has announcedpublicly his willingnessto entera dialoguewith farmers.42 Nevertheless,results in generalhave been disappointing, especially to theactivists themselveswho speakabout the poor organizational skills of their fellow activists, poor managementof funds, and competitionbetween different factions for influence amongst villageleaders.43 The same patternof student involvement re-occurs in thedisputes, with differentgroups competing with each other,with intrigues, no self-evaluation,overlapping ofactivities, and lackof focus.44 The relationshipbetween student groups and NGOs, char- acterizedby mistrustand lackof cooperation on bothsides, also makesany joint action difficult. The Future The penggusurantanah issue continuesto simmeraway in thelead-up to theelection. Effortsby ICMI, theIndonesian Muslim Intellectuals Association, to finda solutionto the problemof the remaining landholders who refuseto movefrom Kedung Ombo produced nothingconcrete. Muslim cultural activist Emha Ainun Nadjib, who was promotinga role forthe organization in thedispute, has resignedfrom ICMI in protestagainst the bureau- craticprocedures followed, which prevented further compensation being offered; against therefusal of the Kedung Ombo project engineers to allow morethan 50 percentof the greenbelt above thedam's high-watermark to be used forresettlement; and againstthe President'sreference to thoselandholders who refusedto moveas resistersor protesters (kaummbalelo). Therehas beenno follow-upto thepromising statement made byMinister of Home AffairsRudini in January1991 that the Permendagri no 15 1975would be reformedto con- structa mechanismwhereby compensation payments for landholders would be more equitablydetermined.45 Rudini's most recent proposal has beenthat compensation for 41 Interviewwith student activists, Yogyakarta, September 1991. 42Suara Rakyat, no 7,July 1, 1991. 43This has beena characteristicofthe Cilacap case. "Pergulatandi TengahMassa" (typescript,Yogyakarta, 1991),pp. 29-30. 44"Perkembangan Permasalahan Kasus Tanah Jatiwangi" (typescript, Surabaya, October 11, 1990, student files). 45Media Indonesia, January 3, 1991, LBH files. 92 AntonLucas

landholdersshould include replacement housing provided by theproject developer who is buyingthe people's land.46 The broaderquestion remains the social cost to thegovernment of these continuing disputes,which began in theearly 1980s but which have greatlyintensified since 1989. Con- sultativeprocesses and otherformal procedures, whereby landholders whose legal and politicalposition is weak obtainfair compensation, are notworking in themajority of the disputes.Indeed, there has beenpress speculation that so-called vocal ABRImembers of the NationalAssembly, such as PoliceColonel Roekmini Koesoemasti, have losttheir nomina- tionas appointedmembers of the next parliament because of their public support for those who bringtheir land disputesto theDPR.47 Landholdersstill refuse to accept the decisions regarding compensation for their land whichhave been forcedon themby local governmentand developers,although the land is oftentaken over anyway. The governmentfears that the disputes are beingpoliticized by forcesfrom outside the village, and indeedstudents are activein nearlyall theland clear- ances,as are NGOs. National-levelbureaucrats and membersof the National Assembly, and mostof the daily press, say theywant change but the state seems powerless to implementit.

46Editor, September 7, 1991. 47Jakart Pos, April 1, 1992.