After a stomach-churning takeoff from a 550-meter runway at Long Banga airstrip on the Malaysian side of the island of Borneo, the 19-seat plane soars over a green
tropical wilderness. This is one of the world’s last remaining virgin rain forests.
About 30 minutes into the flight to the bustling oil town of Miri, the lush landscape changes, and neatly terraced fields of oil palms take the place of jungle. Twenty years ago, this was forestland. Now, those forests are lost forever.
The shift from rain forest to oil palm cultivation in Malaysia’s Sarawak state highlights the struggle taking place between forces favoring economic development, led by Sarawak state’s chief minister, Abdul Taib Mahmud, and those who want to conserve the rain forest and the ways of life it supports.
During Taib’s 28-year rule, his government has handed out concessions for logging and supported the federal government’s megaprojects, including the largest hydropower site in the country and, most recently, oil palm plantations. The projects are rolling back the frontiers of Borneo’s rain forest, home to nomadic people and rare wildlife such as orangutans and proboscis monkeys.
At least four prominent Sarawak companies that have received contracts or concessions have ties to Taib or his family.
Read the full article at: http://groups.google.com/group/joyonews/browse_thread/thread/39bde78161da332f#
Terrorist Funds - Transferring Money, Funding Death
Indonesian Police capture couriers of funds for terrorism.
It is suspected that the Jakarta hotel bombs involved foreign donors since this act of terrorism was meticulously planned and required a huge amount of money.
The 2002 and 2003 bombings were funded by foreign money through Hambali alias Riduan Isamuddin. The information on this foreign money comes from the police report regarding the investigation of Ali Ghufron alias Mukhlas and Rusman Gunawan—Hambali’s younger brother. Funds from Al Qaeda also came up in the confession made by Mohd. Faruk bin Amin alias Zubair, a Malaysian citizen captured in Thailand and now detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Hambali proposed the plan to detonate bombs in Bali and at the Marriott to Khalid Syah Muhammad, a Pakistani, who is said to be the right-hand man of Osama bin Laden. Hambali got US$30,000 plus 200,000 Thai baht. For the 2003 Marriott bombing, Hambali
proposed US$50,000. The money from Pakistan first stopped over in Bangkok.
In the 2003 Marriott bombing, Hambali through Rusman contacted Ammar al-Baluchi in Pakistan to hand over US$50,000 to Zubair in Thailand. Zubair took the money through the Al-Baluchi network in Bangkok. From Bangkok the money was taken in cash to Indonesia via Malaysia. The 2003 Marriott bombing only used US$15,000 out of the total US$50,000. The remainder was used for the bombing of the Australian embassy in 2004.
The terrorist money supplies dwindled following Hambali’s capture in Thailand or 10 days after the 2003 Marriott bombing. This terrorist network struggled to obtain money at home by, for example, robbery. Part of the money for the 2005 Bali bombs was gained from robbing a jewelry store in Serang, Banten.
Money for the bombs at Kuta and Jimbaran, Bali, were amounts of about US$2,000, while at least US$15,000 was used for the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton bombs. The money was used for a number of rooms at the five-star hotel, to hire cars, to buy explosives, and to lease houses at Jatibening, Bekasi and at Mampang, South Jakarta, where the bombs were assembled and stored.
Excerpts from Tempo Magazine
Dr. Emanual Tanay is a well known and well respected psychiatrist.
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
‘Very few people were true Nazis 'he said,' but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just ignores my statement is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.
Emanuel Tanay, M.D.
2980 Provincial St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
734-997-0256
drtanay@umich.edu
Om Swastiastu ...
May I "steal" the next dance? Malaysia and Indonesia are at loggerheads, with Bali claiming Malaysian tourism promoters are hi-jacking Balinese dances to promote Malaysian destinations.
The Best Western Hotel in Kuta is reportedly open and doing business with no operating license. Three out of four of Bali’s fresh water lakes are shrinking. Arrival numbers via Bali’s airport remain very robust. And, 44 immigration officials in Bali are now safe from criminal prosecutions after being caught stealing US$300,000 in visa-on-arrival fees.
Bali’s police need more bomb-sniffing dogs to fight terrorism, while police officials warn of a possible upsurge in terrorism in the coming October-November period.
A Balinese girl has just won a bikini fashion contest in China; a win causing some concern and embarrassment to Bali tourism officials.
From the Hotel Beat: Starwood hotels in Bali join forces to provide kids with motorcycle helmets; we’ve got a brief interview with the new Chef de Cuisine at the Ayana Resort’s “Dava” restaurant; and Australian Adam McDonald is appointed Resort Manager at the InterContinental Bali Resort.
Looking for something to do in Bali? The Kuta Karnival returns for the 7th year September 17-29; SKAL International President Hulya Aslantas gives a speech in Bali on Friday, August 28; The Ubud Readers & Writers Festival is shaping up to be a gala event October 7-11th; and there’s a major exhibition of paintings by Ipong Purnama Sidhi at the Ganesha Gallery September 3 – October 5.
All these stories, and more, in this week’s Bali Update
Follow me on Twitter.com at BaliUpdateEd
Om Çanti Çanti Çanti Om ...
J.M. Daniels - Bali Update
Bali Discovery Tours
Read the full report at: http://www.balidiscovery.com/update/update676.asp
The government and the House of Representatives (DPR) are committed to passing the state secrecy bill this month. This is bad news because the bill, if passed, could be draconian, inhibiting people's right to information and fertilizing a corrupt regime. The law will be a serious threat to democracy and, at the same time, empower political authoritarianism in this country.
Historically, the first draft of the state secrecy bill was initiated in 1994 when Soeharto's regime was still in power. It was a part of Soeharto's scenario to monopolize and control public information. So the legalizing of such a bill is no longer relevant today. Our reform movement that was built on freedom of information, transparency and people's political participation should behind the basic spirit of any rule, including state secrecy issues.
Regulating state secrecy is accepted, in democratic countries too, by putting national security and people's safety as the main goal. For this purpose, a state secrecy bill must avoid the tendency to limit individual rights, have accountability mechanisms and be under public control. These expectations are not contained in this draft bill; it gives power to the state and criminalizes the people.
First, in regard to the definition of state secrecy: "State secrecy is information, a thing, and/or activity which has been officially approved by the President, and must be kept secret and protected through standard managerial procedures, which if
known by unauthorized person/persons can endanger the sovereignty, wholeness, and safety of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) and/or can disturb the function of the state's official role, national resources, general order and/or disturb the implementation of the duties and role of state institutions". This definition is too broad and too general.
Second, the kind of information categorized as secret is too wide, such as information on national defense, the military, intelligence and the national economy. It is against the spirit of the law on the openness of public information.
Third, the President is given too much power to determine the definition of state secrecy.
The punishments, a heavy fine of Rp 1 billion (US$100,000), prison sentences, and even the death penalty, show that the law will be used to inhibit people's right to information and, at the same time, make the state more powerful. A regime of secrecy impedes people's opportunity to participate in the public policy making process. Although receiving strong opposition from pro-democratic groups, this draft bill will almost certainly be legalized this year.
If so, consolidation of the civil society movement is urgently needed. So far, advocacy against the draft bill has been done only by limited groups, specifically by NGOs activists, member of the press and intellectuals. And it is being done sporadically, so it is failing to get support from a wide public.
In this case, we can probably learn from the English experience. When the government legalized the Official Secrets Act in 1911, many civil society groups, led by activists and media workers, were against the law. They campaigned against the detrimental effects of state secrecy on civil liberties, democracy and human rights. At the same time, they promoted the importance of freedom of information for public participation and control over the state.
The bringing to court of two senior English state officials made their movement even stronger.
First, the Sarah Tortilla case. A senior official at the foreign ministry, she was accused of disclosing secret information about the government's plan to eradicate the mass protests at a ballistic missile site.
Second, the Clive Ponting case. A senior official at the defense ministry, Ponting was accused of disclosing that a minister had given false information about the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War.
The two cases became a great public arena to fight against the Official Secrets Act and to promote the freedom of information issue. After a long process, the pressure finally got a serious response from the English government, the passing of the Freedom of Information Act in 2000.
The government and specifically Commission I of the House of Representatives must appreciate and be responsive to people's criticism of this draft bill. This is the time for Commission I to boost the implementation of the law on the openness of public information, not to create a new law that will be against the spirit of transparency, democracy and human rights. Without strong public support, the forcing of the state secrecy draft bill into law will cause their legitimacy over it to be negligible.
Romanus Ndau Lendong , lecturer at Bina Nusantara University Jakarta
A row has taken off in Indonesia over whether or not to allow gold mining near Komodo National Park, home to the infamous, venomous, and largest of all lizards, the Komodo dragon. Eight mines have currently been proposed, several have already begun exploratory work. Critics of the gold mines contend that the mining threatens the ecology of the park and the Komodo dragon, listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN.
The local government and members of the national government have argued that the mine is far enough away not to impact the park. One of the mining sites has already come under investigation for allegedly violating environmental regulations. Officials visited the Chinese-backed exploratory mine on Batugosok Island saying that the digging began before the approval of an environmental assessment.
Although it's the headliner, the Komodo dragon is not the only endangered inhabitant of Komodo National Park. Its main source of prey the Timor deer Cervus timorensis is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN as well. In addition, nearly 70 percent of the park is marine environment. Created in 1980 over several islands, the park contains half of the world's Komodo dragons.
To stop the country sliding out of control, the West needs more men and a better strategy
THIS is the just war, the “war of necessity”, as Barack Obama likes to put it, in contrast to the bad war, the war of misguided choices in Iraq. But as a deeply flawed election went ahead in Afghanistan this week, there were echoes, in the mission by America and its allies, of the darkest days of the Iraq campaign: muddled aims, mounting casualties and the gnawing fear of strategic defeat. Gloomy commentators evoke the spectre of the humiliations inflicted by Afghanistan on Britain in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th.
Americans, relieved to be getting out of Iraq, and caught up in a national row about health care, are paying little attention to the place. But if things there continue to slide, Afghanistan could turn out to be the biggest blot on the Obama presidency.
The war is going badly. Much of the south of the country is out of government control. A scattered, disparate insurgency has gained strength and risks turning into a widespread insurrection against Western forces and the elected government they are backing . In Britain, a sceptical public wonders what its soldiers are dying for. And as the costs and casualties continue to mount, Americans too will ask that question increasingly loudly.
Western governments use a lazy shorthand to justify this war. Its purpose, they say, is to deny terrorists the base and haven that Afghanistan under the Taliban provided to al-Qaeda. But al-Qaeda’s surviving leaders are reckoned to have decamped across the border to the tribal areas of Pakistan, where Western forces do not tread. The other reasons that Western governments keep their soldiers in Afghanistan are harder to sell to voters: first, because a precipitate departure would damage the West’s global clout, and, second, to stop the country becoming the theatre for a war which could destabilise Pakistan and draw in other powers, such as Iran, India and Russia.
As the West struggles to maintain its weak hold on Afghanistan, so its ambitions there are narrowing. Early aspirations to bring peace, prosperity and decent government to the country have been replaced by the hope of establishing a functioning state and of improving security. By that measure, success in the short term will look much like stalemate. But the chance of achieving even these modest aims is being jeopardised by too few troops and a flawed strategy.
The shortage of soldiers has hampered the generals’ ability to hold territory and forced them to use air power to make up for the lack of numbers. The civilian casualties that are the inevitable consequence of conducting a war from the air are, in turn, damaging the war effort. The generals need more troops both to regain territory from the Taliban and to fight the war in a way that does not breed hostility to the West.
Yet swamping Afghanistan with foreign soldiers will never bring outright military victory. The surge that helped secure Baghdad was carried out in a smallish, densely populated area. Such tactics cannot be contemplated in a country as mountainous and rural as Afghanistan. If the West is to stop the place slipping further out of control, it needs not just to direct more resources to the place, but also to use them better. That means different approaches to three elements: the opposition, the government and aid.
The opposition, casually described as “the Taliban”, is far from a unified force in a country of great ethnic complexity. It includes not just religious zealots but all manner of tribal warlords and local strongmen. Many have alarming ideas and repellent social attitudes. But if Afghanistan is to be stabilised, the West will have to hold its nose and encourage its allies in government to do deals with them.
On the campaign trail, President Hamid Karzai has appealed to his enemies to make peace. But his government—inept, corrupt and predatory—does not look like a trustworthy partner. In parts of Afghanistan where insurgents have been driven out and the writ of the government has been restored, residents have sometimes hankered for the warlords, who were less venal and less brutal than Mr Karzai’s lot.
Cleaning up government is not just an end in itself but also a means to building a functioning state, for Afghans will not support an administration as corrupt as the current one. The West should therefore use its leverage over the government to insist that the next cabinet is dominated by competent technocrats, rather than thugs owed a favour.
How to spend it
The West is spending a fortune in aid to Afghanistan. As the new head of Britain’s army recently pointed out, it is likely to have to go on supporting the country for decades. Yet the roads that are foreign development’s proudest boasts also serve to meet the insurgents’ and drug-dealers’ logistical needs.
That is inevitable: infrastructure serves the wicked as well as the righteous. But the West has not spent its money as well as it could have. By giving too many contracts to foreigners, it has created grudges instead of buying goodwill. To most Afghan eyes, watching heavily guarded foreign aid-workers glide by in their Landcruisers, it is obvious that much of the money is going straight back out of the country. To a degree, this is forgivable: in such a poor country it is difficult to build the capacity to manage huge volumes of aid, and channelling more of the cash through the government may mean that more of it gets stolen. But that is a risk that needs to be taken to build support for the West and the government.
Taking even the rosiest view, the war in Afghanistan is likely to get more expensive, and worse, before it gets better. The mini-surge this year to enable the election to take place in most of the country will probably be followed by another to try to contain the growing insurgency. For the moment, Mr Obama is better off than George Bush was when Iraq went bad, because he enjoys broad political and popular support for this commitment. But as casualties mount, political pressure in America to announce a timetable for military withdrawal will intensify. To resist it, Mr Obama will need more men, a better strategy and a great deal of luck.
Economist Editorial
