Indonesia, MUST Proof Cause for Detention for This

• ShutterBug

  14 Jun 07, 06:08

  Boat with Shaw Bros MD and friends held in Kalimantan
  How did high-tech yacht stray off-course?
  It's equipped with GPS, sonar system, satellite links....
  By Faith Teo
  
  June 14, 2007
  
  THE big question: How can a 145-ft (44m) high-tech megayacht get into trouble with Indonesian immigration?
  
  That's apparently what the Sea Shaw did. It's owned by the son of Runme Shaw of Shaw Brothers.
  
  As a result, Mr Shaw Vee King, his six high-profile companions and 11 crew members are being held at a naval base in West Kalimantan.
  
  Mr Shaw, 63, is the managing director of film distributor Shaw Organisation.
  
  While it is not clear exactly how long they have been held, the Sea Shaw was believed to have been due to return to Singapore on 4 Jun, after a scuba-diving trip.
  
  The vessel was stopped off Pontianak, the capital of West Kalimantan, and detained for allegedlynot following proper immigration procedures.
  
  Indonesian authorities have apparently asked for a fine to be paid before they can be released. A check with Pontianak police and the local press there shed no light on the current situation.
  
  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was aware of the situation and, together with the Singapore consulate in Pekanbaru, was in touch with those on board and providing assistance.
  
  But the Sea Shaw is no fishing boat that might accidentally drift into territorial waters.
  
  It's a luxurious, all-fibreglass work of art with six guest rooms, excluding crew bunks. Besides a dining room and saloon, there's also a large entertainment centre on board.
  
  According to a review by Boats.com, the craft has an 'incredible array of electronic equipment' including a sonar that sweeps for obstructions, and satellite communications.
  
  How then could this Starship Enterprise of a yacht get into a fix like that?
  
  Mr Peter Lim, a veteran sailor, said it was highly improbable that the yacht had accidentally entered Indonesian waters, or had forgotten to clear immigration.
  
  'It should not happen, especially with a large mega-yacht. It would have GPS (global positioning system), which means you know exactly where you are, and where the borders are.
  
  CHARTS
  
  'There are charts on board, and in a high-tech boat the charts are electronic... Immigration points are charted, and sailors know they are obliged to go and get their passports processed,' said Mr Lim.
  
  He said that when a boat leaves Singapore, it has to apply for port clearance, and another application has to be made for a cruising permit if the boat plans to stop in foreign waters.
  
  'There's also something called the right of innocent passage from one port to another, for example, from Singapore to Sabah.
  
  'The boat may pass through Malaysian or Indonesian waters, but if they don't stop to fish, dive, snorkel or drop anchor for the night, they don't need to clear immigration.'
  
  The Sea Shaw had apparently been on a scuba-diving outing, but it's not clear whether the diving site was off Pontianak, where it was stopped.
  
  Mr Lim added that border authorities would usually stop a boat if it did not have a cruise permit, or had entered the country's waters without clearing immigration.
  
  'Other possibilities are that there was an engine breakdown and the craft couldn't be controlled, which led it to drift, or if the water was too deep for the craft to anchor.'
  
  Mr Edward Yow, the general manager of Changi Sailing Club, said that while a boat's owner can ask for club assistance in applying for the various permits, 'it is ultimately the responsibility of the owner to see it gets done'.
  
  'When a yacht leaves port (Singapore), they are on their own.'
  
  Most sailing hobbyists The New Paper spoke to had not been to the area where the Sea Shaw was detained because it's too far away for an average yacht to reach for a weekend trip.
  
  But it's no problem for the Sea Shaw, which reaches a top speed of 22.5knots (41kmh) and can cover about 650km in a day.
  
  The straight-line distance between Singapore and Pontianak is about 630km.
  
  SHAWS IN THE NEWS
  
  The Shaw brothers and their descendents are known to be private people who avoid the limelight.
  
  However, the family was hit by kidnap attempts and a tragic death over the years.
  
  Ms Shaw Soo Ling, 29-year-old daughter of Harold Shaw, drowned in 1998 off West Kalimantan during a diving trip. Her Dutch friend, Phillip Lemette, 31, also died in the accident.
  
  Her father, the youngest son of SirRun Run Shaw, was himself nearly kidnapped in 1971. He was then 32. A four-man gang grabbed him as he was driving out of his house in Andrew Road and tried to push him into the boot of a taxi.
  
  Mr Shaw escaped, but was shot in the right arm during the struggle.
  
  His elder brother, Vee Meng, was also kidnapped in 1964, after four men blocked his car with their van along the same road.
  
  The elder Mr Shaw had also just left his house when the armed men grabbed him and his driver.
  
  He was held captive for 12 days as the kidnappers demanded a HK$2million (then $500,000) ransom. Mr Shaw and his driver were released unharmed even though the ransom was not paid.
  
  
• Atobe

  14 Jun 07, 07:03

  The Singapore vessel is an unfortunate victim to the reality of economics, low budget, loose central control, low moral in the rank and file, unofficial tolerance towards malpractises.
  
  These circumstances have led to a lowering of military standards and pride of those in uniform; resulting in the abuse of its position of authority, leading to the abuse of state equipment and abuse of the state laws to enrich themselves.
  
  The facts of the ''official acts of piracy'' are recognised in a damning reports of the ''less professional military services'' in Southeast Asian states that suffered the economic downturns, and remained in the doldrums of low budget that affected improvements in naval equipment and moral building in its rank and file - as seen in extracts from the 'damning report' -
  

  
  Malaysia
  
  Despite the modernisation of maritime agencies, it remains difficult to secure Malaysian waters, and corruption is a problem among some Malaysian officers. Local fisherman along the Malacca Straits and Sabah, for example, claim that Malaysian Marine Police officers regularly harass local fishers and demand money or fish. [26] Even senior Malaysian police officers working along the Malacca Straits acknowledge that some officers may be corrupt or involved in illegal activities, stating that a number of pirate victims do not report attacks, as they are “afraid of acts of revenge because they believe, or know, that law enforcement agencies are themselves involved in illegal activities.”
  
  Philippines
  
  the Philippine Navy and other law enforcement agencies are known for corruption, including the sale of firearms to civilians or members of separatist movements and the acceptance of bribes. [31] Corruption combined with a lack of resources leave criminals as well as politically motivated groups such as the MILF and the Abu Sayyaf ample opportunities to operate in Philippine waters and travel with ease between the Philippines and neighbouring countries.
  
  Indonesia
  
  Yet the navy has only limited resources available to secure Indonesian waters and ports, with the Indonesian fleet consisting of around 115 boats of different sizes, of which only about 25 are operational at any given time. [32] The Indonesian marine police faces similar problems, with an insufficient number of operational vessels available. The comparatively low military budget (and funding for the police), particularly after the Asian financial crisis, is largely responsible for the lack of resources available. In fact, government officials have claimed in the past that only 25-30 percent of the militaryÂ’s expenditure is covered by the military budget, while in 2005 an estimated 50 percent of military costs were covered by the budget. [33] To compensate for the lack of government funding, the Indonesian military and police are involved in commercial ventures, own their own businesses and are partners in, and provide services for, private enterprises. [34] Other funding is derived from illegal activities, as a 2006 Human Rights Watch report states:
  
  The Indonesian military draws on off-budget (extra-budgetary and unaccountable) funds derived from military-owned enterprises, informal alliances with private entrepreneurs to whom the military often provides services, mafia-like criminal activity, and corruption. [35]
  
  Indeed, members of the Indonesian military/navy are believed to have been involved in criminal activities at sea such as pirate attacks. Military, navy and police officers are also known to accept bribes or ‘taxes’ from criminals, crime victims or businesses operating within Indonesia and its waters. Fishers on the Malaysian side of the Malacca Straits have, for example, claimed to have paid ‘protection’ money to Indonesian authorities. Allegations of involvement of Indonesian officials in criminal activities and corruption are also voiced by owners and operators of merchant vessels, often based on reports from crewmembers or personal experiences. [36] One Singaporean ship manager, for example, pays the Indonesian Navy to protect its vessels while at berth in Aceh and one of his company’s vessels was detained by the Indonesian Navy on Batam for allegedly dumping waste into the ocean. The navy officials responsible for the arrest contacted the ship manager, who was told that the official procedures could take weeks or even months but offered the manager the alternative option of paying ‘compensation money’. The manager paid $200,000 in cash and his vessel was allowed to leave the following day. [37]
  
  This type of corruption is often explained by the comparatively low salaries army, navy and police personnel receive. [38] Accepting bribes and requesting ‘fees’ are ‘accepted’ or at least tolerated methods of increasing incomes of officers. Involvement in business activities and providing services for private businesses are other practiced methods. The provision of security and protection services is of particular importance for this article, with the military and police known to provide such services by either hiring out troops as private guards or setting up their own private security companies. According to a Human Rights Watch report:
  
  [T]he TNI provides security to large multinational companies. In Indonesia, companies that operate facilities that the government has declared to be ‘vital national assets’ are required to have protection. In practice, it has usually been the TNI that fills this role, despite a 2004 presidential decree that officially shifted the responsibility to guard such facilities to the police. For example, Indonesian authorities certified in January 2006 that the TNI would guard the facilities of three companies because neither the company nor the police could ensure adequate security. [39]
  
  Companies operating in the extractive sector, including companies operating (at least in part) in the maritime sphere, are often those paying local law enforcement agencies to guarantee the safety of their assets and employees. According to the Human Rights Watch Report:
  
  Companies can come under strong pressure to underwrite the expenses of military forces assigned to protect their facilities, so they do not always feel they have a choice. A former international executive commented to Human Rights Watch in frustration: ‘The way Indonesia sets up funding of the police and military is one grand national extortion racket.’ [40]
  
  Furthermore, such payments to state security forces have resulted in a number of controversies and problems, including accusations of corruption and human rights abuses by the paid agencies. An example is the disputed employment of the Indonesian military to protect Freeport’s [41] mining operations in Indonesia’s eastern region of Papua (formerly known as Irian Jaya) since the 1970s. The military was at the same time fighting against a rebellion for Papuan independence and allegations of corruption and excessive violence against the local population by the Indonesian military in Papua surfaced. [42] Another example are the allegations against Exxon Mobil, of having “paid and directed government forces who committed atrocities while protecting the oil company’s facilities” in Aceh. [43] The case received international attention when the International Labour Rights Fund filed charges under the US Alien Tort Claims Act against Exxon Mobil on behalf of 11 Acehnese who accused the Indonesian military guarding the oil company’s installations of murder, rape and the kidnapping of local residents. [44]