Budi Santoso, a tailor in his forties232
The Jakarta government is repeatedly failing to provide adequate remedies for evicted residents loss of property, whether it is the loss of rights over land seized or the destruction of property in the form of a home or personal belongings. Failing to provide fair market value or replacement cost compensation for land or property confiscated or destroyed amounts to stealing from the citys poor. The financial loss to evicted residents is not limited to their property, however, but also includes the value of their existing business ventures in the destroyed community and the disruption to their sources of income caused by the displacement. An adequate compensation package must therefore take into account not only the loss of land, buildings, and personal property, but also the disruption to an individuals income.233
In some instances investigated by Human Rights Watch, evictees received absolutely no compensation at all. In other instances, residents complained that the compensation offered to them was insufficient to find adequate or comparable alternative housing. We found no instances where the government paid compensation for loss of income in the case of properties used for family businesses, or income losses caused by other disadvantages related to displacement.
The current legal regulations in Indonesia on compensation for land acquired for public interest projects require that the government negotiate with affected communities for 120 days (recently extended from 90 days, the applicable period at the time of our interviews with evictees), after which point the government may seize the land and the level of compensation then becomes a matter to be decided by the courts.234 Some residents noted that government officials used this provision to pressure them into accepting an unfavorable settlement on compensation, because residents felt they could not sustain themselves while waiting for the outcome of a court case once they had already been evicted. Adi Saleh tried to negotiate the level of compensation for his land which is to be seized for the East Canal Project, but when he tried to object to the money offered, he tells us: The mayor informed me of the legislation, saying that if I didnt take the money offered then Id have to go to court.235
Residents who were already evicted before they were offered compensation found themselves in a very difficult position to negotiate. As Suryo Witoelar explained: Because the community was living in tents [following the eviction] and had no food, that forced the community to accept the money even though it was [inadequate].236
Government officials sometimes also intimidate residents into agreeing to compensation. Irwan Naibaho, who at the time of our interview was due to be evicted for the East Canal Project, told us about the experiences of members of his community:
Human Rights Watch met with some individuals to whom the government had offered no compensation at all. The community we visited in Cikini received no money for the destruction of their homes by public order officials in March 2005. Soleh Atmaji, who had lived in the community for seven years, told us: Weve received no compensation for the goods taken during the eviction.238 Another community member, Sri Suharti, who has lived there for five years agreed: We received some help from some of my friends. Some brought clothes. But from the government, nothing at all.239
Sometimes, even though local officials promise compensation, it is not actually paid. Arif Wijayanto, a forty-three-year-old part-time laborer, told us about the experiences of his community at Teluk Gong: Some of the community was given compensation of Rp. 500,000 [US$50] per family. Even that money was not enough for us to move But only about 30 percent of the community got their compensation, and after that [the government] said theyd run out of money, but [those who didnt receive the compensation] were still evicted.240
A former lawyer who worked for evictees from a site in Tanjung Duren explained to Human Rights Watch the situation of his clients: It was in the news that [the local government] would offer alternative housing, but that didnt happen. No one got any money. The Social Department also offered Rp. 200,000 [US$24], but [the community] didnt receive that either.241
We also met with some communities that were offered minimum levels of compensation, but individuals felt pressured either by local officials or their fellow community members not to accept the compensation as it was deemed too low. Some ended up receiving nothing all. Sujatmi Wadud, a twenty-three-year-old mother of one, explained this situation to us: [Ive received] no compensation. Before the eviction, there was an offer, but [the local neighborhood official] said we shouldnt take it, and also the people didnt want to take it. The money didnt cover our needs. It was Rp. 500,000 [US$59] or maybe Rp. 300,000 [US$36].242
Lusiana Annga, told us of pressure from some members of her community not to accept compensation when she was evicted from Jembatan Besi:
This decision by some community members to refuse compensation on the grounds that what the government was offering was so inadequate was perhaps a negotiation tactic pushed by some leaders within the community.244 An advocate who used to work with the community from Jembatan Besi told us that as a result of this pressure from certain community members: They didnt get any compensation. The [head village official] only gave them a box of rice to eat. He gave enough for only three days.245
When evicted residents do receive some monetary compensation, frequently the amount given is small in comparison to the value of the property lost, let alone the financial costs of moving and the interruption to residents livelihoods.
The Chairperson of Indonesias National Human Rights Commissions sub-commission on economic, social, and cultural rights, told us: Compensation that is being given by the Jakarta government is very low, about Rp. 500,000 [US$56] per family.252 As an NGO advocate who is himself an evictee told Human Rights Watch: Thats not appropriate compensation Rp. 500,000 isnt even enough to hire a car to move peoples belongings. So many people remain on the land to try and find a solution that [works for them].253
Because homes had already been destroyed by the time Human Rights Watch met with evicted residents, we were unable to obtain market value assessments for properties. Instead, we asked many evicted residents to compare the amount of money they received in compensation to the cost of purchasing and moving to a comparable dwelling. Chahaya Utari told us that the compensation he received lasted only four months:
The compensation Hariadi Tadj received for his eviction from his home in Cakung Cilincing would be sufficient to cover nearby alternative accommodation for just over one year: Im now renting a house near here. We pay Rp. 300,000 [US$30] per month. I received Rp. 5,000,000 [US$495] in compensation.255
Irwan Naibaho fretted about the amount the government proposes to compensate him for surrendering his land for the East Canal Project: How would you afford to buy a new house with Rp. 802,000 [US$89] per square meter? Maybe you could buy land in the [far away] hill areas for that price. 256
Budi Santoso, whose house was demolished in early 2006, received more compensation than many people with whom we spoke. But even he told us: If I had to buy a new house, this Rp. 16,000,000 [US$1700] is not enough. I would need Rp. 50,000,000 [US$5335] and that would just be for the house, [not to mention] for the land.257
One resident who is scheduled to be evicted because of the East Canal Project, Siringo Ringo, showed Human Rights Watch letters from a real estate developer offering to sell on the open market neighboring land unaffected by the East Canal Project for between Rp. 2,000,000 (US$220) and 2,500,000 (US$275) per square meter.258 In contrast, the government was offering Siringo Ringo and his affected neighbors just 57 percent of this amount, Rp. 1,147,000 (US$126) per square meter. This demonstrates that the residents who will be displaced by the East Canal project will be unable to buy a comparable property given their current level of compensation. How can I buy a nearby place, when land nearby is already Rp. 2,500,000 per meter? he asked.259
Siringo Ringo was particularly upset because administration officials had publicly declared in 2003 that residents displaced by the East Canal Project would receive compensation of between Rp. 1,500,000 and Rp. 1,800,000. And were wondering how has the [value] gone down?260 he exclaimed. Moreover, although the regional governments Office for the Planning of Structures and Buildings issued guidelines in 2004 citing the amount of compensation due for buildings in Jakarta, when the assessments for housing to be affected by the East Canal were released by the same office and the mayor of East Jakarta in 2005 values for most forms of building structures had dropped to an average of just 69 percent of even the minimum amounts originally prescribed by the regional office.261 The decrees provide no explanation for the reduction in compensation.
Even when the government offers residents compensation, residents may sometimes lose part of their money to dubious commissions or taxes taken by local government officials. In other instances, the standards established by the government to assess and disburse compensation are flawed and result in less than adequate compensation.
Kersen Saptono, who was evicted from a site in Cakung Cilincing in September 2005, did receive some compensation after he was evicted from his home of more than thirteen years: We got the money after the eviction. Rp. 10,000,000 [US$990]. But the [local neighborhood official] took a cut from the compensation of Rp. 3,000,000 [US$295], so I only got Rp. 7,000,000 [US$693].266
Adi Saleh, whose house is scheduled to soon be demolished to make way for the East Canal Project, lost money to a tax: They measured the land, and gave it a valuation of Rp. 1,147,000 [US$113 per meter squared] and then they cut that with a 10 percent tax The government took [the 10 percent].267 Participants at a meeting of affected communities attended by Human Rights Watch also expressed concern and uncertainty over the government reducing payments related to the East Canal Project.268 Human Rights Watch has been unable to confirm whether these commissions or taxes are officially prescribed. Nonetheless, even if they are legally provided for, the impact of imposing a tax on already low amounts of compensation is that the compensation can not be considered adequate, despite the governments assertion to the contrary.
In compensating people for land being acquired for the East Canal Project, the Jakarta administration is varying the level of compensation depending on what kind of proof of ownership individuals have over their land. As one resident worried:
This system penalizes landowners merely because the government has not yet registered their land. Another resident soon to be evicted for the East Canal Project asked: Why in the mayors process do people with a land certificate get 100 percent of [the assessed price] while people with tanah adat [customary land] get 90 percent when they all pay the same amount of land taxes?270
Another fundamental flaw in the Jakarta administrations policy for assessing the value of compensation for people displaced for the East Canal Project is that they are tying compensation to a value known as Nilai Jual Obyek Pajak (NJOP), which is a government-appraised valuation for calculating land taxes. The recent Presidential Regulation on Land Acquisition specifies that one of three factors that should be taken into account when calculating compensation for land taken for public interest projectsalong with the market value of the building and crops on the landis the NJOP or real/actual value of the land.271 However, as a representative from the World Bank in Jakarta informed us: There is a big gap between NJOP and market values.272 The Bank recently estimated that NJOP on average tends to be 40 to 50 percent less than the actual market value.273 Even the government appears to recognize this disparity, as it prints a statement on the back of its tax letters that the NJOP value cannot be used to determine the price of the land, but only to determine the amount of tax.274 By relying on NJOP valuations rather than actual market rate valuations or replacement costs, the government is systematically under-compensating at the expense of the residents.275
In numerous testimonies collected by Human Rights Watch, residents described being asked to sign blank receipts or receipts for amounts larger than they actually received. As already noted, several people also said that local officials demanded a portion of the compensation. The result is that residents are not receiving their full entitlement to compensation, and that other intermediaries and public officials are instead profiting from the evictions.
We interviewed Lena Arbali while she was sitting on her rain-soaked mattress under a temporary shelter where she had been living for a week since her eviction. Government security forces demolished her home in Jatinegara, East Jakarta, to make way for the Double-Double Track project. She told us:
Lenas neighbor, sixty-one-year-old Ira Netra, told us: I only received half [compensation]. The government promised Rp. 42,000,000 [US$4,738] but I only received Rp. 21,000,000 [US$2,369]. A letter sent by the government promised Rp. 42,000,000 [US$4,738]. A [local official] gave me the money. I didnt ask him why only half the compensation, I just followed what the other people did.277 Residents first reported these problems to the Corruption Eradication Commission in August, 2005, but they have received no reply or remedy, illustrating the lack of access to an effective remedy to challenge their exploitation by corrupt officials.278
Human Rights Watch also learned of bribery in the process of determining levels of compensation. Public order officials collected payments to expedite administrative processes. Some also extracted bribes before they would pay evictees proper compensation. In one case, a resident said that he had initiated the bribery knowing that, without helpers, his property likely would have received a low, inadequate valuation:
Ali Sadeh went on to admit that he paid a government evaluator to assess and grade his house at a higher level for compensation, not as a fifth class house (the most basic category of permanent house), but as a third class, medium quality, house.
A neighbor of Ali Sadehs suggested to us that payments to government valuators are not always entirely voluntary. Tommy Rustanto told us:
Numerous interviewees who worked for the Jakarta government, NGOs, and international financial institutions also complained about the involvement of land speculators profiting from using confidential and privileged information.283
Provision of Inadequate Alternative Land
In three of the incidents of forced eviction investigated by Human Rights Watch, the Jakarta administration gave the evicted communities the option of moving to alternative land or accommodations instead of taking monetary compensation. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has noted that, as an alternative to monetary compensation, governments may provide appropriate and sufficient alternative accommodation or land, consistent with their wishes and needs, to persons and communities that have been forcibly evicted.284 However, in all three incidents, residents of the affected communities found the alternative land inadequate given their chosen livelihood pursuits.
In 2001, government forces evicted the community of fishermen in Ancol Timur from their homes so that a yacht club and a sports club could be built on the North Jakarta coastline. The government offered the fishermen either Rp. 6,100,000 (US$613) or alternative housing in a different area. Santoso Mulyani, a sixty-one-year-old fisherman, explained to Human Rights Watch the problems with the land offered:
Chahaya Utari, a fellow fisherman from the Ancol Timur community, who now sleeps on his boat, told Human Rights Watch why he did not accept the alternative land:
At another eviction site, Pondok Kopi in East Jakarta, the government offered residents land owned by the state-owned housing company. But the location was very far away from the current location, an NGO advocate who worked with the community in 2001 informed Human Rights Watch, and was therefore far from residents existing livelihood activities.287 Accepting the social housing also required an advance payment by residents to the state-owned housing agency of Rp. 1,300,000 (US$130) and installments of Rp. 170,000 per month (US$17).288
In the case of both Ancol Timur and Pondok Kopi, some of the residents who took the alternative land found their livelihoods unsustainable and returned to their original site of residence. Santoso Mulyani, a fisherman from Ancol Timur, initially accepted the alternative land, but by the time Human Rights Watch interviewed him, he was living in an informal shelter on the side of the road close to the coast and near the site of his old fishing village. Santoso explained to us:
Former residents of Pondok Kopi who accepted the alternative land faced similar problems pursuing traditional livelihoods and therefore returned to their original site. Of the sixty-eight families evicted from Pondok Kopi, only fifteen moved to the land offered in Parung Pajang, in West Java. But, as an NGO advocate for the community explains, the fifteen families have their place [in Parung Pajang] but they still live in Pondok Kopi because Parung Pajang is too far from their work.290
In the case of the residents evicted from land in Cengkareng Timur, East Jakarta, in 2003, the government also failed to offer viable alternatives. Following the eviction from land claimed to be owned by the state-owned housing company, Perum Perumnas, the company gave residents two options for alternative sites.291 The first option was for the former residents to buy a Perum Perumnas house in Parung Pajang district, outside of Jakarta, for a discounted price of Rp. 14 million (US$1,647). Considering that the residents received no compensation for the loss of their original housing, even these discounted apartments were pricey. The apartments were also far from existing work and family ties for some residents. Moreover, the apartments offered by the government had yet to be built.292 This offer cannot be said to have constituted an adequate alternative.293
The second alternative accommodation offered was to rent low-cost apartments to be built on the site of the cleared land, where residents were promised they would only have to pay Rp. 100,000 (US$12) per month to rent. Again, however, the apartments had not yet been built. In fact, when Human Rights Watch visited the site in 2006, two-and-a-half years after the eviction, no new Perum Perumnas housing had yet been built.
231 Human Rights Watch interview with Jornal Effendi Siahaan, Deputy Head of Department for Public Order and Community Protection, January 26, 2006.
232 Human Rights Watch interview with Budi Santoso (not his real name), Pisangan Timur, January 7, 2006.
233 Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement, E/CN.4/2006/41, March 14, 2006, para. 59-62.
234 Perpres 36/2005, art. 18 and Perpres 65/2006, art. 18a.
235 Human Rights Watch interview with Adi Saleh (not his real name), a forty-eight-year-old who sells food from a food cart, interviewed in his home on January 27, 2006. Adi Saleh will soon be evicted as part of the land acquisition process for the East Canal project.
236 Human Rights Watch interview with Suryo Witoelar (not his real name), Cakung Cilincing, January 8, 2006.
237 Human Rights Watch interview with Irwan Naibaho (not his real name), a sixty-one-year-old unemployed man, interviewed January 29, 2006. Irwan Naibaho will be evicted as part of the land acquisition process for the East Canal Project.
238 Human Rights Watch interview with Soleh Atmaji (not his real name), Cikini, January 9, 2006.
239 Human Rights Watch interview with Sri Suharti (not her real name), Cikini, January 9, 2006.
240 Human Rights Watch interview with Arif Wijayanto (not his real name), Teluk Gong, January 14, 2006.
241 Human Rights Watch interview with representative from Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum Dan Hak Asasi Manusia Indonesia (PBHI; Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association), who worked on Tanjung Duren eviction case, January 25, 2006.
242 Human Rights Watch interview with Sujatmi Wadud (not her real name), a twenty-three-year-old homemaker, interviewed January 20, 2006. Sujatmi Waduds home in Cengkareng Timur was destroyed on September 17, 2003.
243 Human Rights Watch interview with Lusiana Angga (not her real name), a fifty-one-year-old woman, interviewed on January 22, 2006. Before the eviction, she worked teaching the Koran, but now is a housewife. Lusiana Anggas home in Jembatan Besi was destroyed on August 26, 2003.
244 Government officials and some NGO advocates, however, have both suggested that at times communities may be infiltrated by outsiders who offer to act as brokers or middlemen but who in fact manipulate the decision making process, either for their own private interests or the interests of other stakeholders.
245 Human Rights Watch interview with Yasmin Purba, former advocate at Berantas, who worked on Jembatan Besi eviction case, January 16, 2006.
246 Human Rights Watch interview with Suryo Witoelar (not his real name), Cakung Cilincing, January 8, 2006.
247 Human Rights Watch interview with Hariadi Tadji (not his real name), Cakung Cilincing, January 8, 2006.
248 Human Rights Watch interview with Kersen Saptono (not his real name), Cakung Clincing, January 8, 2006.
249 Human Rights Watch interview with Santoso Mulyani (not his real name), a sixty-one-year-old fisherman, interviewed on January 24, 2006, whose home in Ancol Timur was destroyed on October 4, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview with Chahaya Utari (not his real name), a fifty-five-year-old fisherman, interviewed on January 24, 2006, whose home in Ancol Timur was also destroyed on October 4, 2001; Human Rights Watch interview with advocates for East Ancol community from Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta), January 24, 2006; Muninggar Sri Saraswati and Ahmad Junaidi, Ancol homes destroyed in public order operation, Jakarta Post, October 6, 2001.
250 Circular from Office of Mayor of North Jakarta, January 15, 2001, and Letter from Office of Mayor of North Jakarta, September 24, 2001, copies kept by Human Rights Watch; Human Rights Watch interview with Chahaya Utari (not his real name), January 24, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with advocates for East Ancol community from Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta), January 24, 2006.
251 Letter from Office of Mayor of North Jakarta, September 24, 2001. Copy kept by Human Rights Watch.
252 Human Rights Watch interview with H. Amidhan, Chairperson of Sub-commission on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, National Commission on Human Rights, January 13, 2006.
253 Human Rights Watch interview with the Chairman of a small NGO working with evictees, who is also himself a victim of a forced eviction, interviewed on January 12, 2006.
254 Human Rights Watch interview with Chahaya Utari (not his real name), Ancol Timur, January 24, 2006.
255 Human Rights Watch interview with Hariadi Tadji (not his real name), Cakung Cilincing, January 8, 2006.
256 Human Rights Watch interview with Irwan Naibaho (not his real name), East Jakarta, January 29, 2006.
257 Human Rights Watch interview with Budi Santoso (not his real name), Pisangan Timur, January 7, 2006.
258 Offer Letter for land in Cipinang Indah II, Jakarta Timur, from PT. Inti Utama Dharma, Building Contractor Real Estate and Developer, June 24, 2005. Copy of letter held by Human Rights Watch.
259 Human Rights Watch interview with M. Siringo Ringo, Secretary, Suara Warga Terkenta Banjil Kanal Timur, January 27, 2006. Siringo Ringo, 55 years old, also works as a teacher at a Senior High School, and will be evicted as a result of the land acquisition process for the East Canal.
260 Human Rights Watch interview with M. Siringo Ringo, Secretary, Suara Warga Terkenta Banjil Kanal Timur, January 27, 2006.
261 Compare: minimum prices in Decree of the Regional Government Office for the Planning of Structures and Buildings No. 91/2004, Assessment for the amount of compensation for building structures in DKI Jakarta, October 15, 2004; Supplementary Letter of the Regional Government Office for the Planning of Structures and Buildings, Standard Value of structures in the region of East Jakarta from 2005-2008, June 6, 2005; and Decree of the Mayor of East Jakarta No. 123/2005, The form and amount of compensation for land, structures, crops and other objects on the lands that are connected with the East Flood Canal Project, June 29, 2005. It is noted that in three of the sixteen categories of structures, the decree of the Mayor of East Jakarta actually raised compensation levels from that stated in the regional governments supplementary letter, between 8 percent and 25 percent. For these three structure standards, the increased price given by the mayor raised compensation to between 75 percent and 95 percent of the minimum values prescribed by the earlier decree of the regional government.
262 Ratusan Warga Kampung Melayu Bentrok, Gatra.com, January 11, 2006.
264 Human Rights Watch interview with Ira Netra (not her real name), a sixty-one-year-old woman, interviewed beside the remains of her demolished home on January 16, 2006, evicted from Kampung Melayu on January 11, 2006, who previously worked for the state railway company; and Human Rights Watch interview with Setiono Muang, Kampung Melayu , January 16, 2006.
265 Ratusan Warga Kampung Melayu Bentrok, Gatra.com, January 11, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with Lena Arbali (not her real name), a forty-year-old of a printing store, interviewed January 16, 2006, while sitting on a rain-soaked mattress under a temporarily erected shell where her house in Kampung Melayu was until the eviction on January 11, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with Ira Netra (not her real name), Kampung Melayu, January 16, 2006; Human Rights Watch interview with Setiono Muang, Kampung Melayu, January 16, 2006.
266 Human Rights Watch interview with Kersen Saptono (not his real name), Cakung Cilincing, January 8, 2006.
267 Human Rights Watch interview with Adi Saleh (not his real name), East Jakarta, 2006. This problem of a 10 percent tax being taken by the government was also raised during a meeting of communities affected by the East Canal, on January 29, 2006.
268 Meeting of communities affected by the East Canal, on January 29, 2006.
269 Human Rights Watch interview with Ari Sulo (not his real name), a twenty-nine-year-old unemployed man, interviewed on January 29, 2006. Ari Sulo will be evicted as part of the land acquisition process for the East Canal project. Although operational guidelines have yet to be released for the new Presidential Regulation on land acquisition, the guidelines for the previous Presidential Decision on land acquisition (Keppress 55/1993), specified that compensation rates vary depending on the tenure status and land rights certificates. Individuals who hold hak milik (right of ownership) title receive 100 percent of the market value if they have a land certificate, but only 90 percent of the value if they own the land but do not have a certificate. Operation Guidelines No. 1/1994 on Keppress 55/1993 on Land Acquisition, art. 17; see also Dr. Mohammad Zaman, International Comparative Review: Displacement of People and Resettlement, p. 14 and p. 24.
270 Human Rights Watch interview with M. Siringo Ringo, Secretary, Suara Warga Terkenta Banjil Kanal Timur, January 27, 2006. Siringo Ringo, 55 years old, also works as a teacher at a Senior High School, and will be evicted as a result of the land acquisition process for the East Canal. This policy was officially stated in a Decree of the Mayor of East Jakarta, in the capacity of the Head of the Committee on the Procurement of Land in the Public Interest, No.123/2005, June 29, 2005.
271 Perpres 36/2005, Art. 15(1)(a).
272 Human Rights Watch interview with Lis Nainggolan, Social Sector Officer, World Bank Indonesia, January 20, 2006; see also Dr. Mohammad Zaman, International Comparative Review: Displacement of People and Resettlement, p. 14.
273 World Bank, Indonesia: Review of Implementation of the World Bank Policy on Land Acquisition and Resettlement, December 2005.
274 Back of tax letter issued to Irwan Naibaho (not his real name), a sixty-one-year-old unemployed man, interviewed January 29, 2006. Irwan Naibaho will be evicted as part of the land acquisition process for the East Canal project.
275 Such a disparity between the assessment of value of land for land tax purposes and the real market value of land is common across Asia. Because property taxes in most Asian countries, including in Indonesia, are primarily used as an instrument to raise revenues rather than as a mechanism for land development control, they are not necessarily related to realistic estimates of the market value of land as an efficient and equitable tax system would normally require. Moreover, the land tax system is so rigid that it is unable to respond to changes of value, resulting in these widely recognized disparities between the NJOP value and market value. See Tommy Firman, Major issues in Indonesias urban land development, Land Use Policy, vol. 21 (2004), pp. 347-355.
276 Human Rights Watch interview with Lena Arbali (not her real name), Kampung Melayu, January 16, 2006.
277 Human Rights Watch interview with Ira Netra (not her real name), Kampung Melayu, January 16, 2006.
278 Adianto P. Simamora, Residents allege railway scam, Jakarta Post, May 1, 2006.
279 The term used by the interviewee was calo. This term is usually used to refer to young men who work on public transport buses, to get people onto the buses and take their tickets. It can also be used to refer to a ticket scalper. Calosime, is a system characterized by using the power of ones position for personal gain.
280 Human Rights Watch interview with Adi Saleh (not his real name), East Jakarta, January 27, 2006.
281 The interviewee used the term oknum, an Indonesian word used to denote a person in a position of responsibility or in a certain capacity, especially with a negative connotation
282 Human Rights Watch interview with Tommy Rustanto (not his real name), January 27, 2006. Tommy Rustanto will be evicted as a result of the land acquisition process for the East Canal.
283 Email message from from Lis Nainggolan, Social Sector Officer, World Bank Indonesia, to Human Rights Watch, April 27, 2006.
284 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/77: Forced Evictions.
285 Human Rights Watch interview with Santoso Mulyani (not his real name), Ancol Timur, January 24, 2006.
286 Human Rights Watch interview with Chahaya Utari (not his real name), Ancol Timur, January 24, 2006.
287 Human Rights Watch interview with M. Berkah Gamulya, advocate for the Pondok Kopi community, Urban Poor Consortium, January 17, 2006.
288 Urban Poor Consortium, Kampung Rawadas, Pondok Kopi, East Jakarta, information sheet produced by Jakarta-based NGO, date unknown, given to Human Rights Watch, January 31, 2006.
289 Human Rights Watch interview with Santoso Mulyani (not his real name), Ancol Timur, January 24, 2006.
290 Human Rights Watch interview with Berkah Gamulya, advocate for the Pondok Kopi community, Urban Poor Consortium, January 17, 2006.
291 Evi Mariani, Evicted residents offered state housing, Jakarta Post, October 4, 2003.
293 According to the CESCR: Adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centers and other social facilities. This is true both in large cities and in rural areas where the temporal and financial costs of getting to and from the place of work can place excessive demands upon the budgets of poor households. The provision of adequate and appropriate alternative land as compensation to evictees should be understood within this context of adequate housing; Committee on Economic and Social Rights, General Comment 4, Art. 8(f).
294 Penggusuran di Kampung Baru Diwarnai Bentrok, 44 Orang Luka, (Clashes at Eviction in Kampung Diwarnai, 44 Wounded), Kompas, September 18, 2003; Anastasya, Kampung Baru, West Jakarta, Evicted, Tempo Interaktif, September 17, 2003; T. Sima Gunawan, Eviction: Whos to blame?, Jakarta Post, September 20, 2003; Bambang Nurbianto and Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak, Violence marks forced eviction in Cengkareng, Jakarta Post, September 18, 2003.
295 Evi Mariani and Bambang Nurbianto, Governor disregards human rights summons, Jakarta Post, October 29, 2003; Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak and Zakki Hakim, Eviction Injuries Take Their Toll, Jakarta Post, September 26, 2003.
296 Mariani and Nurbianto, Governor disregards human rights summons; Simanjuntak and Hakim, Eviction Injuries Take Their Toll.
297 Nurbianto and Simanjuntak, Violence marks forced evictions in Cengkareng.
298 Mariani, Evicted residents offered state housing, Jakarta Post, October 4, 2003.
299 Human Rights Watch visits to eviction site in Cengkareng Timur, West Jakarta, on January 20 and January 26, 2006.
300 Tinus Sitanggang et al. v. Perum Perumnas and the Government of Indonesia, the Governor of Jakarta, and the Mayor of West Jakarta et al., District Court of West Jakarta, 209/Pdt.G/2004/PN.JKT.BAR, March 8, 2005. Copy on file with Human Rights Watch.