Investigation into time gaps during the Situbondo riots

Investigation into time gaps during the Situbondo riots

By Ainur R. Sophiaan

SURABAYA (JP): Only days after the Oct. 10 attacks on East
Java churches occurred, the National Commission on Human Rights
sent an investigation team to the site of the violence.

H.A.A. Baramuli, Asmara Nababan and Clementino Dos Reis Amaral
met with East Java Governor Basofi Soedirman, the Jember regent
and government officials to discuss the riot in Situbondo.

Investigations so far indicate the riots were sparked by
Situbondo Moslems' anger over the jail term requested by the
prosecution for a Moslem sect member on trial for blasphemy
against Islam.

The mob, considering the requested punishment too lenient,
burned down the court building and set fire to a nearby church
after someone shouted that the defendant, Saleh, was hiding
there. The mob reportedly burned and damaged 12 churches and 12
worship houses, five elementary schools, one Christian orphanage,
two plazas, three cars and five motorcycles.

Five people died inside one of the churches. The frenzy
reportedly lasted five hours before troops intervened to contain
the mob.

Soetandyo Wignyosoebroto, was unable to go join the team in
Situbondo due to ill health but has been monitoring the progress
of the investigation. In an interview with The Jakarta Post, the
professor of sociology at Airlangga University identified a
number of factors that may have led to the riots and to the
violations of human rights in the small, normally quiet town.

JP: What is the Commission's preliminary conclusion of the
riots?

Soetandyo: The riots broke out because of people's
dissatisfaction with the sentence demanded for Saleh. They
deemed it too lenient. From a legal point of view, the demand for
five years imprisonment is actually a maximum punishment. The
mass, however, were referring to a religious edict that states
blasphemy is punishable with death.

So, there is a legal gap here. The prosecutors did not
understand the point of view of the mass, most of whom were from
the pesantren (Islamic boarding school), and the people did not
understand the prosecution's stand point.

This is where the misunderstanding started. Upon hearing the
demanded sentence was five years, the mass became restless. There
is something to take note of, however, and that is the fact that
there is a one hour lapse between the reading out of the sentence
and when the mob began to rampage.

We are currently investigating the events of that hour. Pak
Baramuli believes the riot began spontaneously. But there are of
us who think that something happened during that one hour
interval which incited the mob.

Question: Please explain more about the destruction itself.

Answer: First, they attacked the courthouse. Then a number of
new shops. Several stages passed before the mob turned to the
churches. This is why there are people who believe that the riot
was not caused by religious tension.

We are now waiting for intelligence to report on whether
during that one hour, anything happened to drive the mob, who had
already attacked the courthouse and shops, to target the
churches?

There's no way we can answer these questions. We can only
interpret from the facts.

Q: What will the commission do next?

A: We're not going to offer a solution, because we're not
authorized for that. We are only monitoring whether there were
rights violations. Of course there had been, as people were burnt
to death, the worship houses destroyed, and there are people who
are now afraid to practice their religion.

We can, however, suggest the need for some measures to be
taken so that similar violations of rights will never be
repeated. Or if it does happen again, it won't be as bad.

On Nov. 5, the commission will hold a plenary meeting. We will
announce our findings at the meeting.

Q: What about the reported circulation of leaflets before the
incident inviting people from out of Situbondo to come and gather
at the trial?

A: That is for intelligence to explain. The commission could
not go that far. It would only invite criticism that the
commission had conducted political and security analyses. We'll
be only interpreting facts, not other people's conclusions about
what happened.

Q: So, was the attack a purely criminal act or was it a
manifestation of religious hatred?

A: If we study how the riots first erupted and how the mob
attacked only the courthouse and government offices, we could see
that it's a matter of misunderstanding. A conceptual gap, if not
a legal gap.

I personally received information that there were people who
wanted to see Saleh punished with death.

Q: From a sociological point of view, what was really behind
the riot?

A: It's the problem of an angry mob. It's like the riots in
Jakarta on July 27 or when soccer fans vandalized cars and
buildings. The security personnel might not understand mob
psychology. Or may be they did, but let the people attending the
hearing form a mob.

Q: Was the riot instigated?

A: Once again, only intelligence can answer that.