Class and Conflict in the Fishers’ Community in Indonesia by Rilus A. Kinseng

Author:Rilus A. Kinseng
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9789811509865
Publisher: Springer Singapore

5.3.1.1 Conflict Resolution

The resolution processes to settle the 16 January 2006 vessel burning conflict was quite tough and lengthy. The owner of KM Mutiara Sakti, H.A. Sariyani, assigned his son-in-law, Bambang Wicaksana, to handle the case. On the day after the incident, on Tuesday 17 January 2006, Bambang Wicaksana left Central Java and arrived in Balikpapan at 14.00 local time. Then on the same day at 19:00, he officially appointed a prominent lawyer in Balikpapan, H. Yusuf Mustafa, SH to be their lawyer. After that, two days later on Thursday 19 January 2006 at 09.00 local time, the owner (Bambang Wicaksana) and the ship captain (Jasiman), accompanied by the lawyer (H. Yusuf Mustafa), officially reported the case to Balikpapan Police Station. At the same time, three fishermen from Markoni were questioned by the police as witnesses to the case of KM Mutiara Sakti vessel burning.

Meanwhile, the case of “coercion” used by the Balikpapan fishermen to force the purse seine fishermen to sign the previously mentioned statement letter on 15 December 2005 had also caused concern among the Central Java fishermen. To respond to it, the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries had planned to hold a meeting between the two parties on 17 January 2006 in Semarang, Central Java. The meeting was almost canceled because of the KM Mutiara Sakti incident just one day prior; however, in the end the meeting went ahead. It was chaired by the Director General of Fisheries and attended by 50 participants, including officials from the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries from National, Provincial, and District/City levels, and several fisherman representatives.

While in the meeting in Balikpapan on 15 December 2005 the fishermen from Central Java felt that “their safety is under threat”, at the meeting in Semarang it was the fishermen from Balikpapan’s turn to feel worried, and even the Head of Balikpapan Fishery Office felt “unsafe”. They were rather afraid because, “we went straight into their territory during a tense circumstance. It’s like entering a tiger cage”, says a participant from Balikpapan. The Head of the Balikpapan Marine Affairs and Fisheries Office admitted that he did not expect too much from the meeting in Semarang. It was therefore not surprising that the fishermen from Balikpapan later rejected some of the points of the Semarang agreement.

Although initially the 17 January meeting in Semarang was not designed to discuss the KM Mutiara Sakti incident case, due to the previous day’s incident the meeting ended up specifically discussing that case. The case was even placed as the first item in the minutes of the “Semarang meeting” with the following statement: “Concerning the incident of the KM Mutiara Sakti purse seine vessel arson attack (not trawl as mentioned in the media), an agreement is made to investigate the case thoroughly subject to applicable rules and regulation, both under criminal and civil laws. For that reason, it is hoped that the National Police Chief will also help to thoroughly investigate the said case”. Thus, the “Semarang meeting” was

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.