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.