VICTIM WOMEN ASK

VICTIM WOMEN ASK
Hearing between Commission III of DPR RI
and tragedy of 1965 Victim Women

That night is on 1st February 2007. Jakarta was bathed by rain in torrents since the night came. Although the rain dropped only in some hours but it turned the capital city paralyzed by the flood.  The streets could not be accessed because they were almost 60% covered by the flood water. The electrical turned down several times. The telephone wires and cellular connection were also blocked. Soon, a lot of short messages repeatedly came through mobile phones. They gave news about activities on giving a help to the victim of the flood and some ways to collect the logistics. This condition welcomed the arrival of the delegation of the tragedy 1965 victim women from 26 regencies over Java and Madura Island to Jakarta.
With the advocacy from Syarikat Indonesia (SI), the delegation consisted of mostly old age women would have a hearing in front of the Commission III of DPR-RI that was responsible with law and human rights sector. The victim women would like to ask to the Commission III of DPR-RI concerning the step and policy that would be taken by DPR after the revoke of UU Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi /UU KKR (The Truth and Reconciliation Law) by the Constitution Court in order to end the concerns of Human Rights Crimes in the past, particularly in tragedy of 1965.

Until afternoon on 2nd February 2007 the situation in Jakarta had not changed much. Flooded areas were still here and there. We, Lingkar Tutur Perempuan/LTP thought that the situation was not quite conducive to the plan of the delegation. Even communication with SI members through cellular was very hard as finally we could contact Kusnul, one of them. She said that the schedule could not be postponed. The group from Yogyakarta was on their way to Jakarta, so were the group of the women together with their advocates from other regencies. Considering the condition and the plan that had actually been prepared since last year, we agreed to continue the program.

Actually, the revoke of UU KKR by the Constitution Court did not surprise us and SI members. We had already discussed the possibility in our last workshop in 2006 in Yogyakarta. A lot of consideration on UU KKR, including the one that was arranged by ICTJ (International Commission for Transitional Justice) showed how weak the law was. However, especially for SI members that moved in organizing the victims of the tragedy of 1965, at least UU KKR could be the protection of the works on motivating social reconciliation in the grass roots level.  For the victims of the tragedy of 1965, KKR mechanism also opened the opportunity to the revealing of truth and justice fulfillment they needed all this time. So, the revoke of UU KKR was actually bad news for the victims and SI. On the other way, it was gratefully accepted by some groups (such as Yusuf Hasyim side) that from the first, did not want to have the revealing of the truth and the human rights crimes in the past.  
For the hearing program, SI asked ELSAM to support the transportation cost and procurement for the delegation during their activity in Jakarta. Meanwhile, LTP was expected to help the facilitation of the final process of the hearing preparation. Then we shared the tasks. Yuyud guided the meeting of the final preparation of the hearing. Erlijn wrote down the material draft of the hearing based on the input of the victim women discussion over several past years. Rini and Agung Yudha from ELSAM had to contact the parties outside the Commission III of DPR-RI.

It was true, beside the program with the Commission III of DPR RI, we propose the delegation to see other related institutions that so far had not been invited to discuss, for instance, General Director of Law and Human Rights and National Committee of Human Rights. This idea came up from the condition of the delegation that lived far away from state institutions that probably might help the process of the revealing of the truth and the human rights crimes in the past. On the other words, they could take advantage of the precious time while they were in Jakarta. This proposal was agreed by Imam Azis as SI leader.

As matter of fact, all these plans might fail as the condition of the flood in Jakarta. The Commission III of DPR-RI could cancel the meeting due to the flood reason. Besides, the mass media would pay much attention to the calamity. Thereby, we reminded Kusnul that it was possible for the arranged plan not to run smoothly. In other words, everything would follow the flowing water.

On Saturday noon on 3rd February 2007, the delegation and SI advocates arrived at Menteng I Hotel, Gondangdia Lama. As the host, LTP should be at the hotel before the first group arrived, but the flood blocked our way. Then Sunday morning, Rini and Yuyud could go to hotel with the guide through sms from Erlijn who had already been there.  We arrived at the hotel when the delegation was in group discussion concerning the situation of the victims per regency. Along that day, the program was full. That afternoon, the delegation planed to go to 68 H radio station. Some of them would have a talk show on the station.  After that, all of the delegation would see Gus Dur at PBNU office in Kramat Raya Street. After dinner, all group members would gather to discuss the material draft, the hearing program and the representatives who would speak in front of the Commission III of DPR-RI.

After lunch, some of the delegations and we went to Utan Kayu area which 68 H Radio Station laid in the same roof with Institut Studi Arus Informasi/ISAI (The Institute of Information Current Study) and the theater of Utan Kayu. There we were hospitably welcomed by Tedjo Bayu, one of ISAI staff who was also ex-political prisoner of 1965 expelled to Buru Island. He directly accompanied us to the theater of Utan Kayu. After Tedjo Bayu gave some talk, the program was taken over by the 68 H radio station broadcaster.

We thought that the broadcaster would invite the women to talk about their life story first so that she got complete stuff for the talk show. If she did it, he would have known about the other story of 1945 revolution, the situation of Indonesian society at the first decade after the Independence Day, the organization life dynamics on that era, and many more. Thereafter, the talk show would be able to give more complete information about the victim women of the tragedy of 1965.
However, we were wrong. Instead, the broadcaster talked about 68 H radio station, its plan to build relay station in Papua and other things that made us and our group get confused. Finally, Yuyud suggested the women to sing the songs that they would like to present in front of the Commission III of DPR-RI. The women sang cheerfully under the amateur conductor – a child of the victim from Yogyakarta – who conducted enthusiastically.

 The enthusiasm of the women on that day for their talk would be on air had to be annoyed by an announcement from the broadcaster that for some reason the talk show could only be broadcasted on the next day, Sunday 4th February 2007 at 3.00 pm. Because of this changing schedule, we went straight to PBNU office to join with other delegations.  
PBNU office, for SI members, especially for Imam Azis and Syaiful, was just like at their own home. Almost all of SI members had NU background. Therefore, the atmosphere of the meeting between the delegation and Gus Dur ran quite informally. The entire group members made Gus Dur’s working room crowded. Gus Dur who had just finished the hemodialysis process in RSCM answered the women’s questions pessimistically in weak voice. The brief questions and answers between the victim women (W) and Gus Dur (G) are as the followings:
W         : How will the state be responsible with the severe violation of the human rights?
G         : The state will not be.
W         : How is your opinion about the revoke of UU KKR by the Constitution Court?
G         : The Constitution Court is as same as Jimly Assyidiqie. He is someone who follows where the wind blows.  
W         : What do you mean?
G         : The one that is profitable. He scares.
I           : Who does he scare?
G         : Who else? Of course, TNI.

We could not spend much more time with Gus Dur because he had already had an appointment at other place that he had to leave PBNU office immediately. That afternoon, all the delegation took a rest to prepare the discussion for that night.
After dinner, all of us gathered at meeting room to discuss the material. Kusnul previously had given the copy of material draft to all of the delegation. Yuyud facilitated the discussion process; Erlijn revised the material at the same time based on the correction from the women and the advocates. One by one, sentence by sentence, the material was read by Yuyud and at once they were commented, corrected, added, or omitted by the women and the advocates, until all the material was completely discussed. Henceforth, the meeting discussed the running of the hearing and the appointing of the speakers. There were some speakers who were chosen based on the category of victim, victim’s wife and victim’s child.  They would give testimony in front of the Commission III of DPR-RI. One more woman would read the summary of the hearing material. While Kusnul, would be the moderator.

When the discussion of the hearing material was over that night and all group members went to bed, there had not been certainty from Eva Sundari (Commission III of DPR-RI member from F-PDIP and also NU member who became the SI contact person) whether the Commission III of DPR-RI would like to accept our delegation. Kusnul, Yuyud and Syaiful continually try to communicate with Eva through their own mobile phones.  However, the three of them were sure that Eva would fight for the acceptance of our program into Commission III agenda on the next day. Until late at night, Erlijn, Rini and Yuyud were still doing the final revising of the hearing material.

On Thurday, 6th February 2007, the clock had pointed 10 am. The group members went to DPR-RI building by two rental buses. The nature seemed to encourage our departure. The day was bright. The street we passed to Senayan was free from floodwater. Perhaps the nature knew if that day was the first time after 42 years in silence, the victim women of the tragedy of 1965 would share their problem to their representative in the parliament. “Thanks to the oppressed’s praying” one of SI member joked.

It did not take long as our buses arrived at the back part of the building. Our buses could not get through easily because the gate keeper forbade us due to the absence of the permission pass. Syaiful got off from the bus and went in accompanied by one of the guards, while our buses were directed to the front gate of the building.

At the front gate, all of us went down from the buses. Several policemen who were in charge approached us. One of their job desk was prevented the group like us –that did not hold the permission pass- from breaking through the gate to the parliament building area. Two policemen who had higher rank were intentionally sent from inside to see us. Perhaps they thought they would face the group of demonstrates. They were wrong. The women and the young people they faced were obedient and patient to wait Syaiful to finish the protocol rules. Even the women and the advocates used cultural approach to the policemen that it did not take a long time to know the policemen’s hometown and they talked excitedly to each other. This atmosphere was felt again as we were waiting for our turn to see the Commission III of DPR-RI after we got permission to enter. The women were friendly asked the guards and the low level staff of DPR secretariat to talk with them. That was why, the guards and the staff cared about us and they were willing to do something so that the women who were mostly old enough were not tired. Although we had to wait for about four hours, we were finally met the Commission III of DPR-RI. 
Syaiful succeeded to get the permission letter to enter the parliament building for the group. We immediately got on the buses that they drove us back to the back gate. One protocol staff from DPR secretariat welcomed us at the parking area and directed us to the second floor of Nusantara I Building where the Commission III was. There was some moment when the women felt hard to get on the lift as they did not get used to.

At that time, we heard that the Commission III had been with National Committee of Human Rights whose one of the matters was similar with what we would like to propose.  We also heard from Eva Sundari that the Commission III had not been willing to put us into their agenda. Eva then arranged so that for a while our group could be accepted by the F-PDIP. The protocol staff took us to F-PDIP room at the fifth floor. Before the hearing was done, Nursuhud, F-PDIP member managed us to have lunch. Afterwards, the hearing ran.

There were six members of F-PDIP who accepted us. They were Nursuhud, Tomo, Aung, Tjiptaning, F-PDIP member from Papua election area, and another from South Sulawesi. To begin, the program was opened by the women’s singing. They sang three songs in tone of the song Lenggang Kangkung, Deklarasi Ekonomi, and Gelang Sipatu Gelang which they put their own lyrics in them so that the songs was accordance with the context of the hearing. A woman from Yogyakarta, Ibu Nik, sang a song which told a grandmother who felt sad to hear her grandchild’s question about where his parents were. The parents were the victim of the tragedy of 1965. The song was quite moved, especially when it was sung by Ibu Nik with her beautiful voice. For us, the song had represented us to tell the story the victim women were going to say.
One by one, the women pointed as speakers gave their testimony. Then Kusnul closed the program by making a conclusion and conveyed the purpose of the women. After that, F-PDIP representative gave some responses as the following: 

1. Those who became the victim of the tragedy of 1965 were not only Partai Komunis Indonesia/PKI (Communist Party of Indonesia). The people of left nationalist, Partai Nasional Indonesia/PNI (Nationalist Party of Indonesia) that later a lot of them became the member of PDIP were also became the victim.
2. It was not easy to fight for the justice of the past violation of human rights.
3. The most important thing today was eliminating the discrimination that was still undergone by the victims.
4. Therefore, DPR was discussing the Constitution Draft for Anti-Discrimination.
5. The constitution draft of Anti-Discrimination was expected to become the base of the problem solution for the victims of the tragedy of 1965 and their relatives.

We appreciated the hospitality of F-PDIP in giving responses. However, it was so clear that they had not understood enough the problem so that the solution they offered did not even touch the root of the matter raised by the victim women of the tragedy of 1965. It was like giving an influenza medicine for Tuberculosis patient.

After the hearing to F-PDIP finished, we had not heard from Eva Sundari whether we could meet the Commission III of DPR-RI. The group had to sit down on the floor in front of Commission III room. Actually, we were little bit worried if the women got ill that they had to sit down that way although the women who were mostly in old age did not complain at all. 
While the delegation was waiting to see the Commission III, two of them and Syaiful went to have the talk show at 68 H radio station. Kusnul and Yuyud were busy in contacting Eva Sundari. Several times, Eva came out and talked to Kusnul and Yuyud in a hurry. Nursuhud and Tjiptaning came afterward. Tjiptaning helped Eva to insist the chief of the Commission III, Trimedya Pandjaitan (F-PDIP) accepting us. Then they gave us two choices. The first, we could be accepted by the Commission III after the hearing of National Committee of Human Rights so that we had to wait longer. The second, we could meet someone from the Commission III member. The question was: If we choose the second choice and meet the person, could it be categorized officially? Who knew the answer that all of us then agreed to choose the first choice that we had to wait until 4.30 pm that finally we could get in the room.

One by one the delegation got inside the room. Trimedya Pandjaitan opened the hearing by saying, one other thing that they were busy to deal with kidnapping cases and other cases of the violation of human rights and that we had disturbed their agenda. It was really not appropriate welcome greeting said by someone from people representatives, moreover he was the chief of the commission which took care of law and human rights. However, the women were patient and well mannered.
The chief only gave half an hour for the delegation to speak their purpose while fifteen minutes of it had just been used by the chief himself. Yet, the women could spend the remained fifteen minutes effectively. Three women immediately gave their testimony, continued by the reading of the essential material from another woman. It was well run. Then the member of the Commission III gave their own responses as the following:

1. The chief was asked to put the question of the delegation in their next agenda. The Commission III thought they were so late to give response to the revoke of UU KKR.
2. SI was asked to gain more concrete data and the operational of the loss suffered by the victim of the tragedy of 1965.
3. They offered the solution using the Constitution Draft of Anti-Discrimination.
4. They offered the use of the mechanism of International Criminal Court (ICC) or by using people’s tribunal.

In our opinion, the responses showed that the Commission III had not discussed their response on the revoke of UU KKR, moreover their thinking about the following up step to deal with the past violation of human rights. The first point was closest with the delegation expectation. The second point showed that the member of the Commission III had not understood the complexity of the matter and the complaint of the victim women which was possible to be reduced only by the list of loss. They seemed to emphasize on the loss gained by the victim who was state/private employee that was arbitrarily hired from their job. The third point was similar with F-PDIP response. The fourth point had several weaknesses. First, the international mechanism could only be taken if evidently the national mechanism could not be able to solve the problem. Second, for us, the matter of the tragedy of 1965 should be solved firstly by this nation so that it became the lesson for the nation. That was why we demand for the national mechanism. Third, the people’s tribunal assumed that the people did not trust any longer to the national and international mechanism. Whereas we still believed that there was opportunity in our own country because there was Tap MPR no V/2000 that gave base of UU KKR and human rights trial.

After the program with the Commission III of DPR-RI, the delegation still had an agenda to see National Committee of Human Rights and National Committee of Woman. This agenda would be done at their last day in Jakarta. To National Committee of Woman, the delegation asked the follow up done by the committee regarding the women’s complaint in May 2006. To National Committee of Human Rights, the delegation gave the same questions as what they gave to the Commission III of DPR-RI. There, the delegations were accepted by Ibu Zoemrotin K. Susilo, Ibu Ros, and Pak Enny Suprapto. From the entire program of the delegation in Jakarta, we concluded that it was important to remind the Commission III of DPR-RI, National Committee of Human Rights, National Committee of Woman, the Department of Law and Human Rights and other institutions related with their obligation to prepare the mechanism of the solution concerning the state accountability towards the past violation of human rights. The Constitution Draft of Anti-Discrimination that was still discussed by DPR should not be used by the government or the parliament as the excuses to cut the claim of the truth revealing. While it was running, the human rights organizations together with the victims should also think more seriously about the mechanisms of the truth revealing alternative which did not depend on the state mechanism.

 Writer Team:
 B.I.  Purwantari
 E. Rini Pratsnawati
 Ruth Indiah Rahayu
 Theodora J. Erlijna