The Guthrie deal: Land laundering<\/p>\n
Your editorial Guthrie deal finally closed (March 9, 2001)
\nmisses the point somewhat.<\/p>\n
If (some of) the lands for the plantations were taken without
\nthe agreement of the original owners, then the Salim Group never
\nobtained legal title. Therefore, the Indonesian Bank
\nRestructuring Agency (IBRA) had no authority to sell the land on
\nthe group's behalf and consequently Guthrie has acquired ...
\nnothing. In fact, Kumpulan Guthrie Bhd. could cancel the deal and
\nsue IBRA for damages resulting from misrepresentation.<\/p>\n
Under Indonesian law, there is no contract if there is no full
\nagreement between parties. If, in a land sale, there is no
\nagreement on the purchase price, legal title to the land cannot
\npass to the buyer. The buyer can never become owner if he is
\naware (bad faith) that the purchase was not based on true
\nconsensus, even if the sale is registered at the land office
\n(\"negative\" land registration system) or after years of
\npossession.<\/p>\n
Usually such \"buyers\" claim that the protesting farmers were
\nmerely squatters on state land. In most countries, people who
\noccupy unclaimed land for, say, 20 years, can become true owners.
\nIn Indonesia such provisions were abolished. Farmers who had
\noccupied land for 40 years or 50 years could still be evicted as
\nsquatters to make way for plantations, golf courses, etc.
\nHowever, government regulation 24\/1997 on Land Registration again
\nstates (article 24:2) that occupation of land for 20 years or
\nmore is equal to ownership, provided one truly believes that one
\nhas acquired the land legally (good faith), and no objections are
\nraised by others (including by government) during that time.<\/p>\n
Ministerial regulation (No. 5\/1999) acknowledges the communal
\nland rights of traditional communities (generally known as hak
\nrakyat) and the principle that communal land can only be used
\nwith the approval of the community. The regulation implies an
\nobligation to give land back to communities after it has been
\nabandoned by the temporary user\/investor.<\/p>\n
The Jakarta Post praises the Guthrie deal, but considers none
\nof these issues, although the legacy of stolen land looms over a
\nlarge portion if IBRA's assets. Ignoring people's grievances will
\ndamage \"investor confidence\" much more than a called-off deal
\nwith Guthrie. No investor wants to discover that he is doing
\nbusiness on disputed land.<\/p>\n
If the farmers are right, then part of the US$387 million
\nshould be used to compensate them. That would repair the legal
\nflaw underlying the deal, protect Indonesia's reputation and
\nrestore faith among all the people whose land rights were ignored
\nduring Indonesia's past era of rapid growth.<\/p>\n
PIETER J. EVERS<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-guthrie-deal-land-laundering-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }