The Indonesia Art Movement has collaborated with the Monj Hen Wani Community and environmental advocates in Papua to organise the “Arumbay Tonotwiyat” — the Women’s Forest People’s Party.

The event took place beneath the lush canopy of Enggros village’s mangrove forest Abepura District, Jayapura City last weekend.

Arumbay Tonotwiyat was a multifaceted celebration that blended art, culture and environmental conservation.

This gathering was a tribute to nature and the preservation of cultural heritage.

It was also a commitment to fostering harmony between humanity and the natural world.

Rumah Bakau Jayapura, Kampung Dongeng Jayapura, Forum Indonesia Muda Jayapura, Sangga Uniyap, and representatives from Cenderawasih University and ISBI Tanah Papua, and Papua Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BKSDA) supported the event.

The “forest party” engaged a wide range of participants, including children, teenagers, and adults.

Beach clean-up
The event started with a beach clean-up initiative at Cibery Beach, organised by Petronela.

This cleanup effort was a “demonstration of environmental love”, said the organisers.

It acknowledged the persistent issue of marine debris washing ashore during the rainy season.

Following the cleanup, participants were treated to a tour of Youtefa Bay, where they witnessed a performance by children from Tobati-Enggros village.

This performance depicted the story of a mangrove forest tainted by garbage and waste originating from Nafri Village, Hamadi Beach, and the Acai River.

Subsequently, the participants were guided to the Women’s Forest in Enggros, an area accessible only to women.

Here, women sought food sources to meet their household needs while also sharing their domestic concerns.

Women’s Forest ‘off-limits’
The Women’s Forest is off-limits to men and any breach of this custom incurs penalties, typically in the form of jewelry or other items.

Mama Ani — “Mother Ani” — explained that men were not permitted to enter the forest while women were foraging for food, as women in the forest swam naked.

Within the mangrove forest, women typically gathered clams, crabs, shrimps, and fish as sources of sustenance.

However, men can enter the forest in the absence of women, usually in search of dried mangrove wood for firewood.

Orgenes Meraudje, the former head of Enggros Village and a prominent community leader, said women also visited the Women’s Forest to share their domestic experiences.

However, these stories remained within the forest, not to be brought back home.

For the women of Enggros-Tobati beach, the forest holds sacred significance, and they foraged unclothed for their household necessities.

Protecting Women’s Forest
Yehuda Hamokwarong, a lecturer at Cenderawasih University who attended the event, stressed the importance of protecting the Women’s Forest.

“The forest served as an educational hub, imparting knowledge and survival skills to Enggros-Tobati women, encompassing practical skills, ethics, and morals,” she said.

“The Women’s Forest represented not only the lungs of the world but also a profound emblem of feminine identity.”

In addition to the Women’s Forest, there is a designated area called “para-para”, a sort of hall exclusive for men, and women were prohibited from entering.

Any woman entering this area would face customary fines.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A West Papuan leader, defending himself against treason charges, has denounced “systemic racism” by Indonesian authorities in the Melanesian region in a court hearing.

Viktor Yeimo, the international spokesperson of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), presented his defence statement — pledoi — in a hearing at the Jayapura Class 1A District Court in Papua Province last Thursday.

He claimed that the treason charge against him was discriminatory and had political undertones.

Yeimo also argued that the trial conducted at the Jayapura District Court had failed to provide evidence of any wrongdoing or violation of the law — let alone treason — on his part.

The accusation of treason against Yeimo was linked to his alleged involvement in the anti-racism protests in Jayapura City on August 19 and 29, 2019.

These protests were made to condemn derogatory remarks made towards Papuan students at the Kamasan III Student Dormitory in Surabaya on August 16, 2019.

On August 12, 2021, the Jayapura District Court registered the alleged treason case under the case number 376/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Jap. The trial was presided over by chief judge Mathius and member judges Andi Asmuruf and Linn Carol Hamadi.

Witnesses ‘proved innocence’
When reading his defence statement, Yeimo said that all witnesses presented by the prosecutor had actually proven the fact that he did not plan or coordinate the demonstrations against Papuan racism that took place in Jayapura City.

Video of Viktor Yeimo’s defence presentation.  Video: Jubi TV

“At the August 19, 2019 action, I participated as a participant in the action against racism, and took part in securing the peaceful action at the request of students until it was over,” Yeimo said.

During the hearing, Yeimo argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecutor had actually corroborated his innocence. Their testimony had shown that he did not organise the protests in question.

Yeimo maintained that he had simply participated in the protests as a supporter of the cause and had helped ensure their peaceful conduct.

“During the protest on August 19, 2019, I merely acted as a participant and helped maintain a peaceful demonstration until it ended,” Yeimo said in his defence.

Yeimo highlighted the testimony of Feri Kombo, the former head of the Cenderawasih University Student executive board in 2019, who affirmed that Yeimo was not involved in the planning or coordination of the anti-racism protests.

Kombo was summoned as a witness on February 7, 2023, and testified that Yeimo had only given a speech at the event when requested by the protesters, and that the speech was intended to maintain order among them.

Delivered speeches
“I delivered speeches expressing my disappointment with the acts of racism in Surabaya. This aspiration is protected by the country’s laws as a constitutional right,” Yeimo said.

“As stated by the state administration expert witness and the philosophy expert witness, this right has a scientific basis.”

In addition, Yeimo stressed that he had never been involved in participating, let alone planning, in the protest that occurred on August 29, 2019, which was confirmed by all the witnesses presented in the trial.

Yeimo admitted that he had taken photos and videos in front of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) office and the Governor’s Office, but did not join the protest.

Yeimo clarified that he captured photos and videos to share with journalists and the public outside of Papua since the internet network was cut off by the central government at the time.

He added that President Joko Widodo had been found guilty of unlawful acts by a judge in the State Administrative Court in relation to the internet blackout.

Response to racism
Yeimo said that the anti-racism demonstration was a spontaneous action taken by both Papuan and non-Papuan people in response to the racial insults that had been directed at Papuan students in Surabaya.

“The 2019 anti-racism protest that spread throughout Papua was a spontaneous response by Papuans and non-Papuan sympathizers from various backgrounds including private sector workers, students, farmers, military and police, and others.

“Everyone was reacting to the racist remarks in Surabaya. The demonstration in Jayapura was organised by students and the Cipayung group, and there was no planning, conspiracy, or treason as alleged.

“My speech was to represent the Papuan people who felt outraged by the racist insults. I deny all accusations that link me to my organizational background and other activities that have no direct connection to the facts of the anti-racism protest,” Yeimo said.

Yeimo stated that during the protest on August 19, 2019, he spoke about the issue of racism and discrimination in Indonesia. He emphasised that these problems were not merely personal issues but rather systematic problems that were perpetuated for the benefit of the ruling economic powers.

“It is evident that racist views have led to Papuans being treated differently in all aspects of their lives. The negative stigma attached to Papuans is what led the mass organisation and state apparatus to attack the Papuan Student Dormitory in Surabaya.”

In his statement, Yeimo’s arguments revolved around the issue of racial discrimination that Papuans have faced and how it is seen as a normal occurrence that the State tolerates.

Papuans standing up to injustices
He highlighted that when Papuans stood up against these injustices, they were met with accusations of provocation and charged with treason.

“This trial case proves it. Racism really exists in all these accusations and charges. Could the State explain why the Papuan race is a minority, with only 2.9 million people remaining, while in Papua New Guinea there are already 17 million Papuans?” Yeimo asked.

In his pledoi, Yeimo not only defended himself against the treason allegations but also criticised Indonesia’s lack of development in Papua.

He raised questions about why the poverty rate in Papua remained the highest among all provinces in Indonesia and why the Human Development Index in the region had consistently been the lowest.

Yeimo pointed out the contrasting approaches taken by the Indonesian government in resolving the conflict in Aceh and in Papua.

Differences with Aceh
While the Aceh conflict was resolved through peace talks, Papua’s aspirations for independence have been met with violence and imprisonment.

Yeimo questioned why the government treats the two regions so differently.

Yeimo said that although Indonesia had enacted several laws to address issues of discrimination, freedom of expression, and special autonomy for Papua, these laws do not seem to be enforced in Papua, and their implementation did not benefit the indigenous Papuans.

“Isn’t that a structured crime against us Papuans? Can the government answer these questions? Or do the answers have to come from the muzzle of a gun?” asked Yeimo.

“Why is the government avoiding solutions recommended by state institutions such as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, the National Research and Innovation Agency, and others who present the studies on Papua problems?”

Linguist witness competence in Yeimo’s trial questioned
During the hearing, Viktor Yeimo’s legal team, represented by the Papua Law Enforcement and Human Rights Coalition, presented a defence read by advocate Emanuel Gobay.

Gobay argued that the prosecutor’s conclusion that Yeimo had committed treason relied solely on the testimony of a linguist witness who lacked the necessary expertise to prove the elements of the crime of treason as outlined in Article 106 jo Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code, which Yeimo had been charged with.

“As a matter of fact, during the trial, the prosecutor never presented a criminal expert witness. Instead, the prosecutor relied on a linguist and then concluded that Viktor Yeimo was guilty of treason,” said Gobay.

According to Gobay, Yeimo’s legal team had presented multiple expert witnesses who explained the components of the treason offence, which included the elements of intent, territorial separation, and participation.

“All elements mentioned in Article 106 are not proven based on the testimony of both the prosecutor’s witnesses and the expert witnesses we presented,” Gobay said.

Gobay expressed the hope that the judges would review all the facts presented in Yeimo’s trial.

He asked the judges to re-examine the data provided by legal philosophy expert Tristam Pascal Moeliono, human rights expert Herlambang P Wiratraman, conflict resolution expert in Papua Cahyo Pamungkas, and criminal law expert Amira Paripurna.

Ultimately, Gobay made a plea to the judges to exonerate Viktor Yeimo, stating there was no proof of the alleged offences.

He requested restoration of Yeimo’s reputation and the State to bear the trial costs.

Republished from Jubi with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A West Papuan leader, defending himself against treason charges, has denounced “systemic racism” by Indonesian authorities in the Melanesian region in a court hearing.

Viktor Yeimo, the international spokesperson of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), presented his defence statement — pledoi — in a hearing at the Jayapura Class 1A District Court in Papua Province last Thursday.

He claimed that the treason charge against him was discriminatory and had political undertones.

Yeimo also argued that the trial conducted at the Jayapura District Court had failed to provide evidence of any wrongdoing or violation of the law — let alone treason — on his part.

The accusation of treason against Yeimo was linked to his alleged involvement in the anti-racism protests in Jayapura City on August 19 and 29, 2019.

These protests were made to condemn derogatory remarks made towards Papuan students at the Kamasan III Student Dormitory in Surabaya on August 16, 2019.

On August 12, 2021, the Jayapura District Court registered the alleged treason case under the case number 376/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Jap. The trial was presided over by chief judge Mathius and member judges Andi Asmuruf and Linn Carol Hamadi.

Witnesses ‘proved innocence’
When reading his defence statement, Yeimo said that all witnesses presented by the prosecutor had actually proven the fact that he did not plan or coordinate the demonstrations against Papuan racism that took place in Jayapura City.

Video of Viktor Yeimo’s defence presentation.  Video: Jubi TV

“At the August 19, 2019 action, I participated as a participant in the action against racism, and took part in securing the peaceful action at the request of students until it was over,” Yeimo said.

During the hearing, Yeimo argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecutor had actually corroborated his innocence. Their testimony had shown that he did not organise the protests in question.

Yeimo maintained that he had simply participated in the protests as a supporter of the cause and had helped ensure their peaceful conduct.

“During the protest on August 19, 2019, I merely acted as a participant and helped maintain a peaceful demonstration until it ended,” Yeimo said in his defence.

Yeimo highlighted the testimony of Feri Kombo, the former head of the Cenderawasih University Student executive board in 2019, who affirmed that Yeimo was not involved in the planning or coordination of the anti-racism protests.

Kombo was summoned as a witness on February 7, 2023, and testified that Yeimo had only given a speech at the event when requested by the protesters, and that the speech was intended to maintain order among them.

Delivered speeches
“I delivered speeches expressing my disappointment with the acts of racism in Surabaya. This aspiration is protected by the country’s laws as a constitutional right,” Yeimo said.

“As stated by the state administration expert witness and the philosophy expert witness, this right has a scientific basis.”

In addition, Yeimo stressed that he had never been involved in participating, let alone planning, in the protest that occurred on August 29, 2019, which was confirmed by all the witnesses presented in the trial.

Yeimo admitted that he had taken photos and videos in front of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) office and the Governor’s Office, but did not join the protest.

Yeimo clarified that he captured photos and videos to share with journalists and the public outside of Papua since the internet network was cut off by the central government at the time.

He added that President Joko Widodo had been found guilty of unlawful acts by a judge in the State Administrative Court in relation to the internet blackout.

Response to racism
Yeimo said that the anti-racism demonstration was a spontaneous action taken by both Papuan and non-Papuan people in response to the racial insults that had been directed at Papuan students in Surabaya.

“The 2019 anti-racism protest that spread throughout Papua was a spontaneous response by Papuans and non-Papuan sympathizers from various backgrounds including private sector workers, students, farmers, military and police, and others.

“Everyone was reacting to the racist remarks in Surabaya. The demonstration in Jayapura was organised by students and the Cipayung group, and there was no planning, conspiracy, or treason as alleged.

“My speech was to represent the Papuan people who felt outraged by the racist insults. I deny all accusations that link me to my organizational background and other activities that have no direct connection to the facts of the anti-racism protest,” Yeimo said.

Yeimo stated that during the protest on August 19, 2019, he spoke about the issue of racism and discrimination in Indonesia. He emphasised that these problems were not merely personal issues but rather systematic problems that were perpetuated for the benefit of the ruling economic powers.

“It is evident that racist views have led to Papuans being treated differently in all aspects of their lives. The negative stigma attached to Papuans is what led the mass organisation and state apparatus to attack the Papuan Student Dormitory in Surabaya.”

In his statement, Yeimo’s arguments revolved around the issue of racial discrimination that Papuans have faced and how it is seen as a normal occurrence that the State tolerates.

Papuans standing up to injustices
He highlighted that when Papuans stood up against these injustices, they were met with accusations of provocation and charged with treason.

“This trial case proves it. Racism really exists in all these accusations and charges. Could the State explain why the Papuan race is a minority, with only 2.9 million people remaining, while in Papua New Guinea there are already 17 million Papuans?” Yeimo asked.

In his pledoi, Yeimo not only defended himself against the treason allegations but also criticised Indonesia’s lack of development in Papua.

He raised questions about why the poverty rate in Papua remained the highest among all provinces in Indonesia and why the Human Development Index in the region had consistently been the lowest.

Yeimo pointed out the contrasting approaches taken by the Indonesian government in resolving the conflict in Aceh and in Papua.

Differences with Aceh
While the Aceh conflict was resolved through peace talks, Papua’s aspirations for independence have been met with violence and imprisonment.

Yeimo questioned why the government treats the two regions so differently.

Yeimo said that although Indonesia had enacted several laws to address issues of discrimination, freedom of expression, and special autonomy for Papua, these laws do not seem to be enforced in Papua, and their implementation did not benefit the indigenous Papuans.

“Isn’t that a structured crime against us Papuans? Can the government answer these questions? Or do the answers have to come from the muzzle of a gun?” asked Yeimo.

“Why is the government avoiding solutions recommended by state institutions such as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, the National Research and Innovation Agency, and others who present the studies on Papua problems?”

Linguist witness competence in Yeimo’s trial questioned
During the hearing, Viktor Yeimo’s legal team, represented by the Papua Law Enforcement and Human Rights Coalition, presented a defence read by advocate Emanuel Gobay.

Gobay argued that the prosecutor’s conclusion that Yeimo had committed treason relied solely on the testimony of a linguist witness who lacked the necessary expertise to prove the elements of the crime of treason as outlined in Article 106 jo Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code, which Yeimo had been charged with.

“As a matter of fact, during the trial, the prosecutor never presented a criminal expert witness. Instead, the prosecutor relied on a linguist and then concluded that Viktor Yeimo was guilty of treason,” said Gobay.

According to Gobay, Yeimo’s legal team had presented multiple expert witnesses who explained the components of the treason offence, which included the elements of intent, territorial separation, and participation.

“All elements mentioned in Article 106 are not proven based on the testimony of both the prosecutor’s witnesses and the expert witnesses we presented,” Gobay said.

Gobay expressed the hope that the judges would review all the facts presented in Yeimo’s trial.

He asked the judges to re-examine the data provided by legal philosophy expert Tristam Pascal Moeliono, human rights expert Herlambang P Wiratraman, conflict resolution expert in Papua Cahyo Pamungkas, and criminal law expert Amira Paripurna.

Ultimately, Gobay made a plea to the judges to exonerate Viktor Yeimo, stating there was no proof of the alleged offences.

He requested restoration of Yeimo’s reputation and the State to bear the trial costs.

Republished from Jubi with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Indonesian police forcibly dispersed a student protest near the Cendrawasih University (Uncen) in Jayapura, Papua, yesterday and the police “denied any clash” even though video footage shows action by heavily armoured security forces.

The students were protesting against an extension of Special Autonomy (Otsus) for Papua.

“There wasn’t any clash, Polri [the police] forcibly broke it up after holding negotiations”, said Papua regional police public relations division head Senior Commissioner Ahmad Musthofa Kamal when contacted by CNN Indonesia.

Kamal declined to spell out in detail what happened at the rally or what situation existed so that security personnel had to forcibly disband the demonstration.

Uncen student representative Ayus Heluka said that they were calling for a study of the Special Autonomy policy which would involve local people which would then be handed over to the Papua provincial government.

Heluka cited the stipulations in the Special Autonomy law itself, specifically Article 7, which says that when the Special Autonomy period ends a decision on its extension shall be made by the Papuan people.

“For this reason we (the Uncen students) are demanding that Otsus be returned to the people. Listen to what the ordinary Papuan people want,” Heluka told CNN Indonesia.

Demand for a referendum
Initially, said Heluka, the students wanted to hold a protest action in front of the Papuan governor’s office. They were also demanding that a referendum be held so that the Papuan people could determine their own future.

However, he said, the protest action was forcibly broken up by police. He added that several students were also arrested.

“Before we [the students] got to the governor’s office, we were disbanded by police. Three people were injured after being hit by blunt instruments, and three people were arrested [but have since been released],” said Heluka.

In a video circulating on social media, scores of Indonesian police and TNI (Indonesian military) officers could be seen on guard in the vicinity of the Uncen front gate.

Several of them appeared to be wearing uniforms complete with body armour and helmets. Officers carrying teargas launchers could be seen and a police tactical vehicle was parked at the location.

Another video showed protesters scattering in disarray after hearing sounds resembling gunshots. Kamal however declined to respond to questions about alleged gunshots during the rally.

A wave of protests against the extension of Special Autonomy has taken place in Papua.

Thousands of demonstrators
Last Thursday, September 24, thousands of demonstrators from the Papua People’s Petition (PRP) protested in Nabire regency, Papua, opposing Special Autonomy.

Action spokesperson Jefry Wenda stated that they had planned to hold a protest against Special Autonomy in front of the Nabire governor’s office but before it could begin, protesters were blockaded then driven away by police.

After negotiations, in the end the action went ahead in front the Nabire district police (Polres) station.

“After negotiations with police, the demonstrators held a long-march from the Nabire River Bridge. Our action at Polres was also to visit our friends who are being detained”, he told CNN Indonesia.

Wenda explained that they opposed the extension of Special Autonomy because since its implementation there had been no positive impact felt by the Papuan people.

Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft News. The original title of the article was “Polisi Bubarkan Paksa Demo Mahasiswa Uncen Tolak Otsus Papua”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A court in East Kalimantan found seven Papuans guilty of treason in separate trials today for their involvement in antiracism protests in Jayapura, Papua, in 2019, despite calls from human rights defenders for authorities to drop all charges against them.

The Balikpapan District Court sentenced Buchtar Tabuni, an executive of pro-Papuan independence group United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), to 11 months of imprisonment.

Meanwhile, Cenderawasih University student union head Ferry Kombo, as well as Irwanus Uropmabin and Hengki Hilapok, both students of the University of Science and Technology (USTJ), were sentenced to 10 months in prison.

READ MORE: Indonesian court issues guilty verdicts in West Papua trial

The punishment handed down by the court was far from the demands of prosecutors, who sought 17 years of imprisonment for Buchtar, 10 years for Ferry and 5 years for both Irwanus and Hengki.

Two other defendants in the case, namely Agus Kossay and Stevanus Itlay from the National Committee of West Papua (KNPB), were sentenced to 11 months of imprisonment after prosecutors had demanded 15 years.

Meanwhile, USTJ student union head Alexander Gobai was sentenced to 10 months in prison. The prosecutors had sought 10 years of imprisonment for him.

“We are given a week to think about whether we will file an appeal or not. We will discuss further with the seven political prisoners and figure out if they can accept [the verdicts],” Emanuel Gobay, one of the defence lawyers, told The Jakarta Post.

West Papua Uprising
The seven students and activists were involved in Jayapura protests widely known as the Papua Uprising in August last year following a racially charged incident targeting Papuan university students living in a dormitory in Surabaya, East Java.

“Your Excellencies, it’s not that I am objecting the 11 months sentence, but my consience says that I am innocent,” said Buchtar Tabuni.

He was not involved on the West Papua Uprising last year at all due to different political opinion. pic.twitter.com/2n2EuxKoSo

— Veronica Koman (@VeronicaKoman) June 17, 2020

The students were physically and verbally attacked by security personnel and members of local mass organisations, who accused them of refusing to celebrate Indonesia’s 74th Independence Day.

Security personnel reportedly banged on the dormitory’s door while shouting insults like “monkeys”, “pigs” and “dogs”.

Jayapura, West Papua today (17/6/20) pic.twitter.com/BC82P3yp2F

— Veronica Koman (@VeronicaKoman) June 17, 2020

The protests in Jayapura started out peacefully but later turned violent, resulting in dozens of injuries and several buildings being damaged. The seven activists were arrested in Jayapura and were moved for trials in Balikpapan earlier this year for security reasons.

The trials have been met with an outcry from the public and from activists, with many demanding that authorities drop all charges, as they argued that the Papuans involved in the rallies had only been exercising their right to protest over racism against them.

Over the past three days prior to the verdicts scheduled for Wednesday, rallies carried out by students and young people demanding the defendants’ release took place in various cities across the country.

Human rights activists have lambasted the arrests and charges against the Papuans, saying that acts of treason and reactions against racism were two different things.

They also argued that perpetrators of racism against Papuans, including hoax spreaders and verbal attackers, had been charged with less than a year of imprisonment.

‘Racism under justice system’
“Despite the leniency, the verdicts still reflect racism under Indonesia’s justice system. No matter what happens, West Papuans ‘must’ be found guilty by Indonesian courts, especially in treason and incitement cases,” Indonesian human rights lawyer Veronica Koman said on her Twitter account.

Koman told the Post that, during the antiracism protests last year, 86 Papuans were arrested and charged with treason. Some were immediately released, leaving 56 to be processed legally.

Some of the 56 Papuans have been sentenced to prison and recently been released, including Surya Anta and Ariana Elopere, who were spotted among the crowd during Monday’s rally in front of the Supreme Court building in Central Jakarta.

“There was no political intervention, because those who are now released have fully served their sentences,” Koman said, adding that 23 of 36 Papuans still being detained would face their first hearing in Fakfak, West Papua, later this week.

Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid said he deeply regretted the court rulings against the seven Papuans engaging in peaceful protests, arguing that such a decision showed that the state failed to uphold human rights for Papua.

“Although the verdicts were much lighter than the demand of prosecutors, the seven prisoners of conscience should not have been arrested, imprisoned and prosecuted from the start.

“They should be released will all charges dropped,” Usman said in a statement.

“In the era of president BJ Habibie, East Timorese political prisoners or prisoners of conscience were released. President Jokowi himself even freed five Papuan prisoners of conscience at the beginning of his first term,” he said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz