Samoan playwright, author and poet Papali’i Sia Figiel has died in prison, according to local media reports.

Local media, citing sources at the country’s main correctional facility in Apia, are reporting that Papali’i, 58, was found dead in her prison cell on Monday.

She was being held at Tanumalala Prison, awaiting her next Supreme Court hearing in relation to a murder charge.

RNZ Pacific has contacted the Samoan police for comment.

Samoa Observer reports she had been in custody since 2024 for the alleged murder of Professor Caroline Gabbard.

Often described as Samoa’s first woman novelist, Papali’i’s first book, where we once belonged (1996), won the Best First Book award in the South East Asia/South Pacific region of the Commonwealth Writers Prize in 1997. Her second novel was They who do not grieve (1999).

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The 16 protesters at Waikeria Prison have surrendered to authorities after a six-day stand-off.

The news that the men had ended the stand-off came in a statement from Māori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi, who said he escorted the prisoners out about 12pm today.

Waititi said the prisoners were ready to come down.

“Naturally, they were tired and hungry but still very determined to see change.

“They have achieved what they set out to do when they embarked on bringing attention to their maltreatment in prison.”

Corrections Minister Kelvin Davis said the men received food and water and would soon be transported to other prisons around the country.

A plume of smoke could still be seen rising from the fire-damaged buildings at Waikeria Prison this morning.

The 16 inmates had been protesting at the prison since Tuesday, when several fires started.

Widespread destruction
Corrections has said there had been widespread destruction of buildings and property, and the men had acted violently.

But the men had said they were protesting against unacceptable conditions at the prison, after complaints about inhumane treatment had not been listened to.

Davis said the protesters had done a lot of damage to the part of the prison they were in and it was now unusable.

The arson, violence and destruction carried out by the men were reckless criminal acts, and the responsibility for laying charges was with police, he said.

There were many legitimate avenues for prisoners to raise concerns about their conditions, Davis said.

Five of the men involved in the disorder are deportees from Australia, and three are subject to returning offender orders because of their criminal convictions.

At a press conference this afternoon, Davis said he was involved from the outset, but wanted to give professionals the space, time and resources to do their ob.

‘True hero’ negotiators
He said the “true heroes” were the negotiators who spent six days at this site working with the prisoners.

Davis said he had noted before that he did not like the state of the upper part of the prison, but that did not excuse the actions of the protesting inmates.

He said he had “total confidence” all prisoners across the network were being looked after in accordance to the Corrections Act.

Department of Corrections chief executive Jeremey Lightfoot said there was “no excuse” for what the men did, and there were multiple ways for prisoners to complain, including to the Ombudsman.

“Let me be clear, there are many channels to complain,” he said.

Lightfoot said it was not appropriate to take this action as a way of complaining, and it was a criminal act.

He said he was proud of the collaboration between Corrections staff, police and other emergency colleagues, as it was a very complex matter in a dangerous area that took a lot of effort and planning to ensure it was resolved safely.

Prisoners’ supporters on site
Several family members of the prisoners were outside the gates again today and were calling for a peaceful end to the protest.

One told RNZ that their cousin who was protesting did not care if he lived or died, because he was standing up for his rights.

She said he had become fed up with conditions in the jail, and was determined to stick it out.

“He was agitated, he was hungry, he was thirsty… but he said he’d stick it out… at least he knows he’s standing up for his rights and the rights of others who are going to be incarcerated in this prison.”

The woman said her cousin was only on remand for non-payment of fines and had a 6-month-old baby at home.

Corrections had said the men have been given opportunities to negotiate, and would not be given water unless they surrendered.

In a statement earlier this morning, Corrections said the situation remained “incredibly volatile”.

“The prisoners have continued to light fires within the facility overnight, make threats toward our staff and police and throw debris at them from the roof of the buildings.

“Our options for intervention are limited due to the dangers present.”

Waititi, who previously tried to negotiate with the prisoners at their request, had said an Ombudsman’s Report, published in August, supported the men’s claims about the conditions at the prison.

He has called on the government to resolve the situation and end basic human rights breaches.

He said today that while people that do crime must serve their time, they must also be treated in a just and humane way.

“Even prison guards acknowledged to us that the state of the unit was unacceptable.

“These men are not animals, they are humans; they are brothers, fathers and sons and are deserving of better treatment.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Pacific Media Watch

The Indonesian human rights advocacy group TAPOL has denounced the sentencing by the district court of Central Jakarta which found six political prisoners guilty of treason yesterday and demanded their immediate release.

Paulus Suryanta Ginting, Ambrosius Mulait, Ariana Elopere, Dano Tabuni, and Charles Kossay were sentenced to nine months imprisonment, whereas Isay Wenda was sentenced to eight months imprisonment.

The six were arrested over their participation in a peaceful protest outside the State Palace in Jakarta on 28 August 2019, during which they flew Morning Star flags and chanted “Free West Papua”.

READ MORE: 63 political prisoners in Indonesia file urgent appeals amid virus pandemic

The first of their trials commenced on 15 December 2019. The prosecutors were seeking one year and five months imprisonment for each, except Isay Wenda, for whom prosecutors sought 10 months.

Suryanta, popularly known as Surya Anta, is the first non-Papuan Indonesian to be detained on treason charges over the West Papua self-determination cause.

The sentences include jail time that they have already served, including eight months for Isay Wenda with a release on 2 May 2020. The other five will still have to spend another month behind bars.

“One month is too long to be serving prison time in this critical pandemic period, as it is anticipated that Indonesia will reach its Covid-19 peak in the coming months,” said TAPOL in a statement.

Other West Papuan political prisoners charged with treason arrested during the uprising are on trial: seven in Balikpapan, four in Manokwari, four in Sorong, and one in Jayapura.

Twenty three political prisoners detained in Fakfak and 11 others in Sorong who were arrested in the lead up to 1 December 2019 and charged with treason are still awaiting trial.

The UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has stated that political prisoners should be among the first to be released amid the pandemic.

Human rights lawyers Veronica Koman and Jennifer Robinson, with the support of TAPOL, have submitted a joint urgent appeal to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and UN Special Rapporteurs on 15 April 2020.

“We therefore reiterate the urgency of releasing all political prisoners currently detained in overcrowded prisons where it is impossible to practice physical distancing,” said TAPOL.

“To organise or participate in a protest and to wave flags are internationally protected activities as freedom of expression and assembly are guaranteed under international law”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Vasinatta Yama in Mt Hagen

Eight prisoners at the Baisu Correctional Service prison near the Western Highlands provincial capital of Mt Hagen are dead following a massive jail breakout.

Western Highlands Acting Provincial Police Commander David Kongui confirmed that two prisoners have surrendered, while an unknown number of prisoners escaped.

Many of the fugitives, who escaped about midday yesterday, are those who have committed summary and criminal offences and who were remandees at Baisu jail.

READ MORE: Inside the world’s toughest prisons – Bomana in PNG

The reports were still sketchy earlier today, but police and warders have been patrolling the province in an attempt to track them.

After hearing about the Baisu prison breakout, police in Mt Hagen traveled to all suspected escape routes prisoners may have used.

Task force almost ambushed
Mt Hagen Task Force Rat One team nearly lost their lives when they were caught in crossfire between two warring groups at Dei electorate.

The seven policemen on board were nearly ambushed with high-powered guns, but they remained calm and were disarmed by more than 20 men along the Gumanch bridge in Dei electorate.

Police Constable Jonathan Rami, who was driving, said the armed men disarmed them, taking away with more than 30 rounds of ammunition.

This warring group also gave their demands to the police.

Vasinatta Yama is a reporter for EM TV News. Asia Pacific Report republishes articles in partnership with the Pacific Media Centre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

There has been little real debate on an important Government announcement made last weekend. Justice Minister Andrew Little said the Government had decided to give the right to vote back to prisoners with sentences of three years or less.

Perhaps it’s appropriate that there was no great reaction. After all, the change affects so few prisoners – about 1900 – and is likely to have no real electoral impact. And, in fact, the Government was probably keen for as little publicity as possible, given their fear of any negativity from conservative voters about being too liberal on crime.

For the details, see Isaac Davison’s Prisoners serving sentences of less than three years to vote at 2020 election. And for a background to the issue, see my earlier roundups: Will the Government reverse the “fascist” ban on prisoner voting?, and Suffrage reality check – prisoners still can’t vote.

There was certainly something for progressives to celebrate in the Government’s decision. This announcement was the culmination of a long campaign by justice reformers, including some maverick prisoners – see Andrew Geddis’ The reversal of the prisoner voting ban is a big move, and especially sweet for two men.

The National Party sought to create a backlash over the issue, with leader Simon Bridges calling the decision “soft on crime” and promising to reverse the decision once in government. But, despite the rhetoric, there isn’t actually a huge difference between the major parties on the issue, as Labour has decided to retain the voting ban on prisoners with longer sentences. Essentially, they’ve agreed to revert to the pre-2010 situation in which only those prisoners with sentences of more than three years are prohibited from voting.

I’ve written about this today in the Guardian, arguing that this amounts to a half-measure, and is the bare minimum the Government could get away with given recent declarations against the ban from the Waitangi Tribunal and the Supreme Court – see: Ardern’s prisoner voting compromise exposes the cynicism of NZ politics.

I argue this compromise “solution” falls short of what progressives might really want: “Progressives – and possibly even most Labour MPs – support all prisoners being given the right to vote. But the government fears this would be too unpopular and so has compromised, hoping to appease progressive voters with an improvement, but not scare conservatives by retaining the voting ban for the worst criminals.”

Essentially the Labour-led Government is allowing the National Party to set the agenda on law and order issues, and it “doesn’t augur well for next year’s election campaign, which could descend into an auction of awfulness on crime and punishment.”

Other commentators have also lamented that the Government hasn’t been braver. Blogger No Right Turn says the decision “raises a number of questions. Most obviously, why they’re not going the whole way, and restoring voting rights to every prisoner, rather than just going back to the status quo ante? Because the arguments for short-term prisoners being able to vote apply just as powerfully to long-term ones. But Labour is the government of half-measures, so I guess that’s all we’ll ever get from them” – see: Erasing the infamy.

Former Alliance MP Liz Gordon has challenged the decision to re-introduce the three-year prison sentence as the threshold for voting rights: “While National can be criticised for its essentially nonsensical position, the Labour coalition really are not much better.  What the government has done is applied exactly the same test as National but simply drawn the line higher. Those people sentenced to more than three years in prison are beyond the pale. They should not be allowed to vote. Really? Why three years, and not two or four?” – see: Votes for all.

Gordon ponders whether Labour’s argument for excluding some prisoners from voting amounts to some sort of slippery slope: “Are ‘prisoners’ the only category we may want to exclude? How about ‘white supremacists’, for example, or men who watch child pornography. That’s the tricky thing about values – they are a slippery slope down which the principles of a universal suffrage can quickly disappear.”

Similarly, Gordon Campbell puts the case against the three-year “arbitrary” threshold for human rights: “Usually when the state imposes subsequent restrictions on rights in the wake of criminal sentences being served – eg on the future ability to own weapons, or to drive vehicles – there is a direct connection between the original offence and this subsequent restriction of rights. Cancelling the right to vote though, bears no such connection to the original offence. It seems utterly gratuitous” – see: On restoring prisoners’ right to vote.

Of course, it was a difficult decision for Labour. Writing prior to the announcement, the Herald’s Audrey Young explains that the party “has to balance its reforming instincts with the electoral reality” – see: Labour squeezed from all sides on prisoner voting ban, no one happy (paywalled).

A moderate path had to be found, because “the Labour Party again finds itself in a halfway house pleasing no one between the ‘hard on crime’ coalition partner New Zealand First and the ‘soft on crime’ confidence and supply partner in the Greens.”

Elaborating on this, the Otago Daily Times pointed out earlier that liberalising too much would be seen as “soft on law and order” and would not be “a winning strategy” – see the editorial, Prisoners and the right to vote.

The newspaper endorsed a compromise solution: “The middle road, that established before 2010, might not satisfy the purists on each end of the debate. But sometimes such approaches are pragmatic and as just as possible.”

The Herald appeared to take a similar position, believing that a middle road should be taken by reverting to the 2010 status quo – see the editorial, Voting ban on prisoners is all stick, no carrot (paywalled).

But is the issue even that important? Not according to talkback radio host Andrew Dickens, who says Anger over prisoner voting rights is a lot of hot air. He says both sides of the debate are engaging in “hollow virtue signalling” over something of little consequence – especially as few prisoners are likely to take up the opportunity to vote anyhow.

Similarly, columnist Martin van Beynen thinks it’s a non-issue: “The kerfuffle reflects a trend where a minor issue distracts from more important problems much more deserving of attention. Those relatively trivial issues then become like a scout badge for the bleeding heart left, another box to tick to prove their empathy with the oppressed” – see: Prisoners have forfeited the right to vote.

Van Beynen also succinctly explains why prisoners shouldn’t be allowed to vote: “Some have asked what purpose the disfranchisement serves. Pretty obvious, I would have thought. A prison sentence is essentially treating adults like naughty and sometimes dangerous toddlers.”

Liam Hehir gives a more theoretical explanation: “The basic premise of the social contract is that people exchange total freedom of action for the protection the rules the legitimate government. If you are found unwilling to adhere to those rules, being stripped of your right to influence them for the period of your ostracisation. After all, what is prison but a period of suspended freedom? When the prisoner is restored to the community, he or she is then, of course, permitted to participate in the act of governing once more. The return full democratic and civil rights is mark of the former prisoner’s restoration to society” – see: Prisoner voting ban: Not required; not not required.

But what does the public think about the issue? According to a recent Colmar Brunton survey, there’s a majority in favour of liberalisation: “The poll found 26 per cent of people believed all prisoners should vote and 28 per cent wanted just prisoners serving sentences with three years or less to be able to vote – pulling total support for sentences three years or less to 53 per cent. Forty-four per cent were against any prisoner voting” – see 1News’ Pressure to reinstate prisoner voting rights grows as 1News poll reveals over 50 per cent public backing.

What do the prisoners think? According to one report, there is a desire to participate – see Denise Piper’s Prisoners want to vote in council elections, general election.

One prisoner is quoted, making the case against the prisoner voting ban: “I’ve voted in every other election prior to coming to jail and I had hoped that my human rights would have been upheld… It raises the concern that if they’re willing to overlook our human rights, who’s next? People in the community – the disabled, mental health facilities – who else is at risk of losing their vote?”

Finally, with the general political climate on crime and punishment heating up, it’s worth looking at satire on the issue – see my blog post, Cartoons about the politics of law and order in NZ.

OPINION: By Glenn Fredly in Jakarta

The remarks of renowned American philosopher John Dewey, “If you want to establish some conception of a society, go find out who is in jail”, has been quoted many times to elaborate on the state of freedom in many parts of the world, including Indonesia.

Indeed, reports about people being imprisoned, tortured or executed because of their views or faith are rife in the country.

Looking closely at prisons in Indonesia today, at least 20 people have been locked up for peacefully expressing their views about religion and politics, according to Amnesty International.

Eleven of them were charged with “blasphemy or defamation of religion” and the rest were peaceful pro-independence political activists.

Papua would probably quickly pop up in our minds when talking about the province with the highest number of imprisoned peaceful political activists. Indeed the easternmost province is home to an active armed pro-independence movement.

In western Indonesia, such “insurgence” ended after the government secured a peace agreement with the Free Aceh Movement in 2005.

-Partners-

List of punishers
However, Amnesty International has also identified the underdeveloped province of Maluku, which currently has no record of an armed pro-independence movement, on top of the list of punishers of peaceful political activists.

Eight people from Maluku are serving prison sentences for what the government calls makar (treason). They are Johan Teterissa, Ruben Saiya, Johanis Saiya, Jordan Saiya, John Markus, Romanus Batseran, Jonathan Riry and Pieter Yohanes.

The Benang Raja flag of Maluku … outlawed. Image: File

Their only offence is unfurling the Benang Raja flag, a symbol of the aspiration for Maluku’s independence, on June 29, 2007.

Johan Teterissa was leading a group of 22 activists who performed the traditional war dance cakalele in front of then-president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in the Maluku capital of Ambon, before they were all arrested for unfurling the flag.

If Indonesia respects rights to freedom of expression, they should not spend a single day in prison for such peaceful activity. Yet they were thrown behind bars for between 15 and 20 years. Johan was among those denied medical care while at least four of the activists have died in prison.

The Morning Star flag of West Papua … outlawed. Image: SIBC

Amnesty International considers Johan and all those arrested like him prisoners of conscience, who are jailed for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Their arrests highlight the police’s failure to respect these rights.

Adding insult to injury, in March 2009, Johan and dozens of prisoners of conscience were transferred to prisons in Java, more than 2,500 kilometers away from their home. The isolation meant family visits were almost impossible, which is unnecessary, costly and cruel on prisoners and their families.

Maximum security prison
On November 28, 2016, I had a chance to visit Johan Teterissa at a maximum security prison in Nusakambangan, Central Java, with the help of Amnesty International and the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute as part of a campaign to release all prisoners of conscience in Indonesia.

As a Maluku native, I have been enjoying the fruits of freedom in Indonesia after the fall of Suharto in 1998 through my work as an artist. I have been able to freely express my thoughts through songs peacefully, but many in Maluku like Johan and other activists still lack this basic right to freely express political aspiration.

This is why I am calling on the government to release Johan and his friends and grant them amnesty.

Johan and his friends posed no threats to the president when unfurling the “forbidden” flag, but the government at that time considered the act treason. Their arrests clearly tarnish Indonesia’s image as a free country.

The administration of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo must correct this mistake to restore Indonesia?s so-called freedoms.

Differences in political views must be clearly respected and expressing it peacefully in public never constitutes a crime. There was recent progress when all the prisoners from Maluku were transferred to a prison in the province, enabling easier access to visits for their families.

The transfer also means the administration is open enough to respect different political views.

Amnesty needed
However, relocating them to a Maluku prison is not enough. They must be granted amnesty. Through amnesty, the Jokowi administration could restore Indonesia’s image as a country where anyone can easily express their ideas freely through peaceful means without fearing criminal charges.

In early 2015, I had an opportunity to meet President Jokowi with other artists. I personally asked the President about the fate of political prisoners from Maluku and Papua. I was happy with his firm answer that he would free all political prisoners as soon as possible.

Shortly after, President Jokowi released and granted clemency to six Papuan political prisoners.

I am sure the transfer of the Maluku political activists is part of his plan to release and grant them amnesty. By doing so the President will rebuild trust and public confidence in the eastern part of Indonesia in the government.

I personally believe the peaceful call for independence derives from political frustration among activists in Maluku. One important fact is that Aboru, the village where Johan and other Maluku activists are from, is still very much underdeveloped and neglected by the central and local government.

The government must tackle the root causes instead of arresting them for peacefully expressing their political aspirations. The President must understand this background, so he would be convinced that granting amnesty is the right course of action to solve this case.

I am confident that President Jokowi will walk his talk to release and grant amnesty to all political prisoners in Papua and Maluku in the near future. So when he is asked “who is in jail?? he can confidently say Indonesia no longer has political prisoners there.

Glenn Fredly is a musician and campaigner for freedom of expression. This article was first published in The Jakarta Post.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz