Pits and Poisoned Apples--projects 2010:
1.musik distro--Indonesia crust, hardcore, grindcore, d-beat and punk-rock CDs, introductory artikels...etc.
2.collective babysteps--interviewing collective houses.
3.Mass Control:Taiwan Invasion--funding via T-shirts sablon, patches and albums.
Police is the problem
2010.06.10(Thursday)
For many reasons Pits and Poisoned Apples haven't post new articles for a while, mainly because lots of things happened, and one of them was my backpack being stolen during a gathering, which contained the passport. Shit happened, and it hurt when you became the one who had to go to Jakarta and listen to everyone's talking bad about Indonesians. That's right, when you came to the Indonesia government, there's nothing for free. For instance, I ended up spending three days for a stupid police report(for applying for a new passport,) and went between different police stations, imagine what would happened if I paid some "fee?" Things were much easier, I guess. When I spent almost all my money to get here, the Taiwanese officer was so concerned my safety, for I live in the collective house(which of course I did not tell him), he even offered staying in his place for being afraid of raiding by the police. Nevertheless, I still could not get a new passport. it simply throws the problem back to the immigration, for approving my visa. Well done!
Police do not solve the problem: they are the problem. Police is a state corporation itself, which robs people with authorized violence and power. How you justify your fear when you are the one who try tolerating them with bribery, and depending on them to protect your ownership? we do not fix and justify the problem at the same time.
For many reasons Pits and Poisoned Apples haven't post new articles for a while, mainly because lots of things happened, and one of them was my backpack being stolen during a gathering, which contained the passport. Shit happened, and it hurt when you became the one who had to go to Jakarta and listen to everyone's talking bad about Indonesians. That's right, when you came to the Indonesia government, there's nothing for free. For instance, I ended up spending three days for a stupid police report(for applying for a new passport,) and went between different police stations, imagine what would happened if I paid some "fee?" Things were much easier, I guess. When I spent almost all my money to get here, the Taiwanese officer was so concerned my safety, for I live in the collective house(which of course I did not tell him), he even offered staying in his place for being afraid of raiding by the police. Nevertheless, I still could not get a new passport. it simply throws the problem back to the immigration, for approving my visa. Well done!
Police do not solve the problem: they are the problem. Police is a state corporation itself, which robs people with authorized violence and power. How you justify your fear when you are the one who try tolerating them with bribery, and depending on them to protect your ownership? we do not fix and justify the problem at the same time.
印尼蘇門達臘農民對抗油棕樹、國營企業
原文標題"37 years fighting to farm - oil palm conflicts get hot in indonesia，"首次刊登於2010年1月4日Libcom.org。文章說明印尼農民抗爭的歷史背景。文中農民抗爭發生在蘇門達臘的得里沙登區，距離棉蘭市車程兩小時。註解為譯者所加，主要補充5月11日前抗爭的最新情勢。
"在佔領期間，當企業無法運作時，短暫的自由出現，而人們必須決定如何充分地使用這個自由。"
油棕：隨著資本主義商品化持續為印尼與馬來西亞鄉村區域帶來災難，這個惡名昭彰的單一作物也將東亞亞諸島轉為一個超大種植園。雨林倒下，油田取而代之。遠在城市內的政客對此視而不見，並持續宣傳這個「全新且環保」的生質能源同時，越來越多的樹木倒下。然而，油棕種植帶來的影響並不僅限於生態。無論是地上長出的棕欖油，或是地下開採的石油，哪裡有油，哪裡就有衝突。在印尼蘇北省，一個油棕種植園幾乎就是一個戰區。油棕樹種在偷來的土地上，而農夫們正奮力一搏地奪回自己的土地。
2009年，11月22日星期天。約莫20個人(註1)聚集在親手搭建的竹篷內。竹篷位於油棕種植園的入口，就在他們正在爭取的土地邊界上。525公頃的土地屬於農民─土地所有權屬於他們，並經最高法院裁定確認：這些土地確實屬於農民。即便如此，當天下午討論內容，仍是如何找出最佳方式，持續土地佔領。時間並不站在他們這邊。明日行動必須展開。
這是一個嚴肅的討論，因為潛在的危險攸關生死。過去幾個月，企業雇用流氓、警察和軍隊替他們工作：一瞬間，佔領土地可能引發大屠殺(註2)。目前參與行動的人數不多，從第一階段的佔領行動開始，並非所有農民都挺身支持。最後一次奪回土地的嘗試遭遇驅逐之後，佔領行動花了一段很長的時間，重新建立行動的動力。人們在哪？難道他們不再相信成功的可能性？
這場曠日費時的戰役始於1972年，恐怖的蘇哈托獨裁政權才剛剛開始。525公頃的土地從農民的手中被偷走，然後送給國營企業─PTPN II(印尼國營第二種植園公司)。農民的作物被踐踏，家園被燒作灰燼。
人們抱怨並要求PTPN II賠償。企業開出的金額顯得不符比例(註3)，並且附帶一個條件：他們必替PTPN II工作，否則他們將被打為共產黨員。當然農民拒絕了，卻正中企業的下懷(註4)。在當下的歷史點上，被貼上共產黨員的標籤的人們無處可藏。早在獲得英美兩國支持的七年之前，蘇哈托將軍掌權，立即(顯然獲得這兩個西方強國的同意)屠殺五十萬名印尼共產黨員。接下來的20年間，他的軍事獨裁讓人民活在恐懼之中，大屠殺的威脅籠罩任何企圖抵抗的個人。
接著是1998年的經濟崩潰，但革命在更早的幾年之間已蠢蠢欲動。起義迅速地擴散至整個群島，逐漸地蘇哈托被迫下台。在蘇哈托政權跌落後的頭幾年間，各種新的運動在印尼每個地方開花，各地人民把握機會，再次試著改變過去的不正義，並邁向一個不同的未來。在蘇門達臘北部，許多土地被徵收的社區開始開始嘗試奪回土地。28年在種植園或工廠內替別人作牛作馬的日子，或是在街上兜售商品勉強糊口的生活，並未澆熄重回農人生活的欲望(註5)。其中一個社區，便是得利沙登區(Deli Serdang Regency)被稱作 Persil IV、即525公頃土地的合法擁有者們。
運動的頭幾年間抗爭現場在法庭內，但毫無進展。更公允地說，沒有實質的效果。即便取得技術上勝利，農民依然無法自由地在自己的土地上耕作。印尼最高法院裁決農民擁有土地，然而當PTPN II上訴後，法院卻又判決地上作物屬於企業。那時區域內所有土地都被油棕覆蓋，這個即將將改變未來印尼經濟的神奇作物。
如果人民擁有土地但企業擁有油棕樹，那麼究竟誰有權在土地上耕作？答案不會出乎太多人的意料：誰的力量大，權力就屬於誰。企業和警察、軍隊以及當地幫派聯手，又一次地將農民阻檔在自己的土地之外。那些農民在油棕樹之間種植的作物─即便法院清楚地判決他們擁有這樣的權力─就這樣被輾平。
冷戰結束，新的戰爭開始，但壓迫的形勢卻未曾改變。印尼尚未走出蘇哈托新秩序政權下大屠殺和種族淨化的陰影。今日，太多掌權政客和將軍都曾參與過去那段歷史。因此，印尼國營企業挾著大屠殺的威脅，在偷竊得來的土地收割利益，卻未受到任何懲罰。
2006年Persil IV要求鄰近大學學生的支持；農民和學生共同作出決定，不再對法院抱持錯誤的期望，因為正義是屬於有權有錢的人。他們將焦點轉向直接行動。在過去法律戰的時期，佔領土地也曾發生，但現在它成為奪回土地的主要策略。一個全新的、更加沒有階級結構的組織成立了：Pesil IV農民運動(GerakanTani Persil IV Deli Serdang)。八名學生選擇住在社區以及佔領的土地上，除了表示支持抗爭，也嘗試阻擋當局的侵略。
2007年，PTPN II雇用人員摧毀農民種植在油棕樹間的作物。幾個月後，他們田間的辦公室在無人的情況下被燒為灰燼。經歷這事件後，農民開始失去耐心，爆發多次公開衝突。
然而就運動而言，這股動能推動了2007年末一直到2008年一段更長時間的佔領行動。農民種植各種作物：可可亞、辣椒、玉米、木薯以及橡膠樹。油棕樹被毀掉，在毫無個性的單一作物種植園中，創造一個混亂卻富饒、而且自由的區域。
在佔領期間，當企業無法運作時，短暫的自由出現，而人們必須決定如何充分地使用這個自由。在如何處置油棕的果實的議題上，出現一些分歧。社區一部分的人傾向收割企業的果實，然後自行販賣。但另外一部分的人拒絕這個想法。他們堅決地相信，偷取這些果實只會導致對於油棕樹的依賴，因此削弱抵抗行動的戰鬥性。
這些人相信打擊PTPN II的方法就是殺死油棕樹。他們嘗試各種方法─包括在油棕樹的根部試著點火，雖然有效速度卻很慢。電鋸因為聲音太大，太容易引起注意。最後他們不情願地接受了使用毒藥作為唯一能夠大規模摧毀油棕樹的有效方式。但是他們試著選擇能夠殺死油棕卻不會毀掉土地的毒藥。
2008年的佔領行動，最終遭遇100多名企業雇用的暴民驅逐。他們追打人們、再一次燒毀他們的棚屋、砍倒人們種植的作物。從此之後高張的威脅一直存在，警告人們不要嘗試新的行動。每個晚上幾乎都有暴民在路上騎乘摩托車，在地上拖著刀子，發出刺耳的噪音以及一條條紅色火光，用以嚇唬人們。
在Persil IV抗爭的過程中，多次傳出暴力事件。2003年加里(Jali)先生在衝突中，兩隻手臂受到重傷。他被迫待在醫院好幾個月，因為當時他的手臂內有許多鐵屑，至今雙手的行動依然不便。2006年警察駕駛拖曳車，駛向一群正在捍衛自己土地的婦女們。
這些事件非常嚴重，但其他村子的情況更加慘烈。2008年，鄰近的Bintang Bulan村，阿迪 蘇里安托(Adi Surianto)在警察和公司保全的虐待下死亡。PTPN II亦控制該村的土地。幾個月前，Kecamatan Salapian，棉蘭市的另一頭，一名男子在佔領行動間發生的衝突中，遭遇刺殺身亡。我向當地從事人權運動的NGO探聽其他案例，他們表示衝突多到幾乎無法紀錄。以農夫的身分生活本身就是一場戰爭。每個人都知道風險；依然，他們戰鬥。
一年多的時間，佔領行動無法持續，士氣開始萎靡。許多學生必須回去完成課業，但是壓迫的程度依然高張。那些仍有能量戰鬥的人，必須先說服其他人戰鬥的價值，但運動現況卻沒有突破(註6)。在第二階段的佔領過程中，曾有超過一百人參與佔領行動，企業此時也無法得其門而入。人們沒有閒情逸致去打一場持久戰。這次，他們必須勝利，而人們無不同意，唯一的方式就是武裝戰鬥，並且盡快殺死油棕樹。許多出於善意的宣傳行動、法庭內的抗爭、平和的佔領行動，但唯一一次農民接近成功的案例，是他們全面宣戰的時候：對企業秀出長刀、砍倒油棕樹。這是一條危險的路線，但Persil IV的人們沒有其他選擇。他們奪回土地、以弓箭捍衛社區，並在最短時間內摧毀油棕樹。
根據棉蘭當地一個從事土地抗爭的NGO員工，幾乎每個蘇門達臘北部的油棕樹種植場，都有社區被企業洗劫，而每一個案例中，這些社區仍然為了奪回土地在抗爭。同時間許多土地佔領行動正在進行，並且都涉及裝備齊全的警察、軍隊和私人雇用的暴民，捍衛企業投資。
一些和油棕樹面積迅速擴張的相關問題，越來越為東南亞以外的人們所知曉，大部分是因為一些國際知名的NGO發起行動，要求人們注意毀林的速度。他們確實也會將焦點放在侵犯人權之上，但當故事散佈到世界各地的時候，有些事實卻失去人們的注意：這些侵犯人權的案例是在人民爭奪土地的抗爭情境下發生的。蘇門達臘北部的人們決定重返1998年，再次挺身奪回自己的土地，以極大的勇氣和毅力抵抗至今。他們冒著極高的風險，但是為了重回一個相對安全、屬於農民自治的生活，依然認為這是值得的。
註解：
1. 該油棕樹種植園位於距離棉蘭市車程兩小時的得利沙登區。Persil IV是2004年農民向高等法院爭取525公頃的土地時，法院判決書內對於該片土地的指稱，後來這場運動被稱為Persil IV。當時於法庭內爭取土地的農民數目，共計94人；1972年這片525公頃的土地，共計有250名土地所有人。
5. 根據5月11日的訪問對象表示，即便目前相較之前更為民主，再次打法律戰，要求PTPN II賠償並非沒有機會。但抗爭中的人們最終希望的，還是拿回自己的土地。原因是：在城市或工廠內工作並不穩定，特別是他們在蘇哈托時代都被貼上共產黨的標籤，至今企業對此仍有相當的顧忌。有一塊屬於自己的土地意味著：更為穩定的經濟來源，土地也可傳給子孫。
6. 參與運動多為家中年長一輩，年輕一代進入城市工作，社區在經濟上支持參與抗爭的農民。也有農民進入油棕樹種植園工作，一日八小時共50000印尼盾(約台幣180元)，但不是替PTPN II工作。PTPN II基於不信任的原因，並不雇用Persil IV運動內的農民。
"在佔領期間，當企業無法運作時，短暫的自由出現，而人們必須決定如何充分地使用這個自由。"
油棕：隨著資本主義商品化持續為印尼與馬來西亞鄉村區域帶來災難，這個惡名昭彰的單一作物也將東亞亞諸島轉為一個超大種植園。雨林倒下，油田取而代之。遠在城市內的政客對此視而不見，並持續宣傳這個「全新且環保」的生質能源同時，越來越多的樹木倒下。然而，油棕種植帶來的影響並不僅限於生態。無論是地上長出的棕欖油，或是地下開採的石油，哪裡有油，哪裡就有衝突。在印尼蘇北省，一個油棕種植園幾乎就是一個戰區。油棕樹種在偷來的土地上，而農夫們正奮力一搏地奪回自己的土地。
2009年，11月22日星期天。約莫20個人(註1)聚集在親手搭建的竹篷內。竹篷位於油棕種植園的入口，就在他們正在爭取的土地邊界上。525公頃的土地屬於農民─土地所有權屬於他們，並經最高法院裁定確認：這些土地確實屬於農民。即便如此，當天下午討論內容，仍是如何找出最佳方式，持續土地佔領。時間並不站在他們這邊。明日行動必須展開。
這是一個嚴肅的討論，因為潛在的危險攸關生死。過去幾個月，企業雇用流氓、警察和軍隊替他們工作：一瞬間，佔領土地可能引發大屠殺(註2)。目前參與行動的人數不多，從第一階段的佔領行動開始，並非所有農民都挺身支持。最後一次奪回土地的嘗試遭遇驅逐之後，佔領行動花了一段很長的時間，重新建立行動的動力。人們在哪？難道他們不再相信成功的可能性？
這場曠日費時的戰役始於1972年，恐怖的蘇哈托獨裁政權才剛剛開始。525公頃的土地從農民的手中被偷走，然後送給國營企業─PTPN II(印尼國營第二種植園公司)。農民的作物被踐踏，家園被燒作灰燼。
人們抱怨並要求PTPN II賠償。企業開出的金額顯得不符比例(註3)，並且附帶一個條件：他們必替PTPN II工作，否則他們將被打為共產黨員。當然農民拒絕了，卻正中企業的下懷(註4)。在當下的歷史點上，被貼上共產黨員的標籤的人們無處可藏。早在獲得英美兩國支持的七年之前，蘇哈托將軍掌權，立即(顯然獲得這兩個西方強國的同意)屠殺五十萬名印尼共產黨員。接下來的20年間，他的軍事獨裁讓人民活在恐懼之中，大屠殺的威脅籠罩任何企圖抵抗的個人。
接著是1998年的經濟崩潰，但革命在更早的幾年之間已蠢蠢欲動。起義迅速地擴散至整個群島，逐漸地蘇哈托被迫下台。在蘇哈托政權跌落後的頭幾年間，各種新的運動在印尼每個地方開花，各地人民把握機會，再次試著改變過去的不正義，並邁向一個不同的未來。在蘇門達臘北部，許多土地被徵收的社區開始開始嘗試奪回土地。28年在種植園或工廠內替別人作牛作馬的日子，或是在街上兜售商品勉強糊口的生活，並未澆熄重回農人生活的欲望(註5)。其中一個社區，便是得利沙登區(Deli Serdang Regency)被稱作 Persil IV、即525公頃土地的合法擁有者們。
運動的頭幾年間抗爭現場在法庭內，但毫無進展。更公允地說，沒有實質的效果。即便取得技術上勝利，農民依然無法自由地在自己的土地上耕作。印尼最高法院裁決農民擁有土地，然而當PTPN II上訴後，法院卻又判決地上作物屬於企業。那時區域內所有土地都被油棕覆蓋，這個即將將改變未來印尼經濟的神奇作物。
如果人民擁有土地但企業擁有油棕樹，那麼究竟誰有權在土地上耕作？答案不會出乎太多人的意料：誰的力量大，權力就屬於誰。企業和警察、軍隊以及當地幫派聯手，又一次地將農民阻檔在自己的土地之外。那些農民在油棕樹之間種植的作物─即便法院清楚地判決他們擁有這樣的權力─就這樣被輾平。
冷戰結束，新的戰爭開始，但壓迫的形勢卻未曾改變。印尼尚未走出蘇哈托新秩序政權下大屠殺和種族淨化的陰影。今日，太多掌權政客和將軍都曾參與過去那段歷史。因此，印尼國營企業挾著大屠殺的威脅，在偷竊得來的土地收割利益，卻未受到任何懲罰。
2006年Persil IV要求鄰近大學學生的支持；農民和學生共同作出決定，不再對法院抱持錯誤的期望，因為正義是屬於有權有錢的人。他們將焦點轉向直接行動。在過去法律戰的時期，佔領土地也曾發生，但現在它成為奪回土地的主要策略。一個全新的、更加沒有階級結構的組織成立了：Pesil IV農民運動(GerakanTani Persil IV Deli Serdang)。八名學生選擇住在社區以及佔領的土地上，除了表示支持抗爭，也嘗試阻擋當局的侵略。
2007年，PTPN II雇用人員摧毀農民種植在油棕樹間的作物。幾個月後，他們田間的辦公室在無人的情況下被燒為灰燼。經歷這事件後，農民開始失去耐心，爆發多次公開衝突。
然而就運動而言，這股動能推動了2007年末一直到2008年一段更長時間的佔領行動。農民種植各種作物：可可亞、辣椒、玉米、木薯以及橡膠樹。油棕樹被毀掉，在毫無個性的單一作物種植園中，創造一個混亂卻富饒、而且自由的區域。
在佔領期間，當企業無法運作時，短暫的自由出現，而人們必須決定如何充分地使用這個自由。在如何處置油棕的果實的議題上，出現一些分歧。社區一部分的人傾向收割企業的果實，然後自行販賣。但另外一部分的人拒絕這個想法。他們堅決地相信，偷取這些果實只會導致對於油棕樹的依賴，因此削弱抵抗行動的戰鬥性。
這些人相信打擊PTPN II的方法就是殺死油棕樹。他們嘗試各種方法─包括在油棕樹的根部試著點火，雖然有效速度卻很慢。電鋸因為聲音太大，太容易引起注意。最後他們不情願地接受了使用毒藥作為唯一能夠大規模摧毀油棕樹的有效方式。但是他們試著選擇能夠殺死油棕卻不會毀掉土地的毒藥。
2008年的佔領行動，最終遭遇100多名企業雇用的暴民驅逐。他們追打人們、再一次燒毀他們的棚屋、砍倒人們種植的作物。從此之後高張的威脅一直存在，警告人們不要嘗試新的行動。每個晚上幾乎都有暴民在路上騎乘摩托車，在地上拖著刀子，發出刺耳的噪音以及一條條紅色火光，用以嚇唬人們。
在Persil IV抗爭的過程中，多次傳出暴力事件。2003年加里(Jali)先生在衝突中，兩隻手臂受到重傷。他被迫待在醫院好幾個月，因為當時他的手臂內有許多鐵屑，至今雙手的行動依然不便。2006年警察駕駛拖曳車，駛向一群正在捍衛自己土地的婦女們。
這些事件非常嚴重，但其他村子的情況更加慘烈。2008年，鄰近的Bintang Bulan村，阿迪 蘇里安托(Adi Surianto)在警察和公司保全的虐待下死亡。PTPN II亦控制該村的土地。幾個月前，Kecamatan Salapian，棉蘭市的另一頭，一名男子在佔領行動間發生的衝突中，遭遇刺殺身亡。我向當地從事人權運動的NGO探聽其他案例，他們表示衝突多到幾乎無法紀錄。以農夫的身分生活本身就是一場戰爭。每個人都知道風險；依然，他們戰鬥。
一年多的時間，佔領行動無法持續，士氣開始萎靡。許多學生必須回去完成課業，但是壓迫的程度依然高張。那些仍有能量戰鬥的人，必須先說服其他人戰鬥的價值，但運動現況卻沒有突破(註6)。在第二階段的佔領過程中，曾有超過一百人參與佔領行動，企業此時也無法得其門而入。人們沒有閒情逸致去打一場持久戰。這次，他們必須勝利，而人們無不同意，唯一的方式就是武裝戰鬥，並且盡快殺死油棕樹。許多出於善意的宣傳行動、法庭內的抗爭、平和的佔領行動，但唯一一次農民接近成功的案例，是他們全面宣戰的時候：對企業秀出長刀、砍倒油棕樹。這是一條危險的路線，但Persil IV的人們沒有其他選擇。他們奪回土地、以弓箭捍衛社區，並在最短時間內摧毀油棕樹。
根據棉蘭當地一個從事土地抗爭的NGO員工，幾乎每個蘇門達臘北部的油棕樹種植場，都有社區被企業洗劫，而每一個案例中，這些社區仍然為了奪回土地在抗爭。同時間許多土地佔領行動正在進行，並且都涉及裝備齊全的警察、軍隊和私人雇用的暴民，捍衛企業投資。
一些和油棕樹面積迅速擴張的相關問題，越來越為東南亞以外的人們所知曉，大部分是因為一些國際知名的NGO發起行動，要求人們注意毀林的速度。他們確實也會將焦點放在侵犯人權之上，但當故事散佈到世界各地的時候，有些事實卻失去人們的注意：這些侵犯人權的案例是在人民爭奪土地的抗爭情境下發生的。蘇門達臘北部的人們決定重返1998年，再次挺身奪回自己的土地，以極大的勇氣和毅力抵抗至今。他們冒著極高的風險，但是為了重回一個相對安全、屬於農民自治的生活，依然認為這是值得的。
註解：
1. 該油棕樹種植園位於距離棉蘭市車程兩小時的得利沙登區。Persil IV是2004年農民向高等法院爭取525公頃的土地時，法院判決書內對於該片土地的指稱，後來這場運動被稱為Persil IV。當時於法庭內爭取土地的農民數目，共計94人；1972年這片525公頃的土地，共計有250名土地所有人。
2. 2010年5月11日前往社區時，最新消息是：一名男子在一個月前遭到企業雇用的暴民刺殺身亡。這也導致目前運動的情勢非常緊繃。
3.1972年PTPN II僅對地上的種植作物作出補償，並不包括經搶奪得來的土地。
3.1972年PTPN II僅對地上的種植作物作出補償，並不包括經搶奪得來的土地。
4. 企業脅迫農民簽署讓渡文件，甚至假造農民的簽名。
5. 根據5月11日的訪問對象表示，即便目前相較之前更為民主，再次打法律戰，要求PTPN II賠償並非沒有機會。但抗爭中的人們最終希望的，還是拿回自己的土地。原因是：在城市或工廠內工作並不穩定，特別是他們在蘇哈托時代都被貼上共產黨的標籤，至今企業對此仍有相當的顧忌。有一塊屬於自己的土地意味著：更為穩定的經濟來源，土地也可傳給子孫。
6. 參與運動多為家中年長一輩，年輕一代進入城市工作，社區在經濟上支持參與抗爭的農民。也有農民進入油棕樹種植園工作，一日八小時共50000印尼盾(約台幣180元)，但不是替PTPN II工作。PTPN II基於不信任的原因，並不雇用Persil IV運動內的農民。
May 4th, 2010, in memory of an sudden end of a story
Excuse a thief, dear street warrior
for again walking off with a life story
When they've left you broke without
TV
Mobil
Rumah and Rupiah
kretek and meal
sky and everyday
stale Life.
Though you are just twittering
"those fuckin' Chinese"
when he signals "sorry no free ride today"
with disdain and fear.
A story in which characters are not even recognized.
not fade but plummet, crushed.
Two faces I see in the gig
a young lady
with a baby armed in Misfits sleeves and kissed with pierced lips.
You know in my isle, streets are of police and the dickhead bosses.
Now I see a street punk mother.
No climax, twist and even a comma
how to finish a story like this?
Running into a mindless truck
at Jambi Street
no alcohol and smoking during the gig
still a living is taken
on that street.
Nowhere husband and truck driver are.
Grandma and a little child
unpaid bills
invisible frustration and helplesness.
A kindness
rejected by an angry father, shouting:
"you punks killed my daughter!"
when you are at the door
with collected money
from the plastic cups tighted upon the guitars.
A makeup from the traffic light scene.
An end of a story, and yours not.
still a drunk punk in front of the mall at the corner under the traffic light
guitar chord played and lyrics shouted everyday,
empty pocket or not.
and you tell me you pray to God for a reason I can't remember
How I wish that ashole is here with an honest walking man.
A request letter: For understanding environmental news production and action in Indonesia
Palpable the problems of establishing an Indonesia Environmental Information Center(IEIC) became during the third preparation meeting, to which not only members of Foundation of Bodhicitta Mandala, under which this IEIC is going to be built, but also local activists, most of them with much more experience in terms of rainforest issues and struggle movement,were invited. The questions were raised after I, as a Taiwan Environmental Information Association(TEIA) correspondent, finished the introductory presentation to IEIC's idea, missions and goals.
The questions are:
IEIC are mainly related to two organizations: TEIA and Bodhicitta Mandala. According the TEIA's website (and I translate), TEIA“ aims to cooperate with local citizen organizations to establish an environmental information surveillance system. IEIC would emphasizes its localization, the role as info platform and news service, in order to find a locally practicable mechanism. The operating rights is given back when IEIC is full-blown.” As a correspondent of TEIA, my mission here is to establish connection with environmental NGOs, of which TEIA has a list to send enquiry letter. I am here to recruit IEIC volunteers also.
So obvious that IEIC is not going to be workable without any understanding about Indonesia media's development history, news-production process and local alternative media situation. Aren't this those who is already taking part in the preparing of IEIC facing right now? How an environmental news is produced and then transmitted to the screen of reader's computer? The more we, who are not familiar with Indonesia media context but calling for a “local info-center,” know about this, the more we are going to have our first “possibly right” step.
It still takes me more time to understand this. Nonetheless, as palpable as these problems are, they certainly call me for my reflection upon Taiwanese (alternative) media, and its news-production process.
As a reporter for an alternative media for one and a half year, the clarification of the meaning of media-activist, independent media, and all forms of social-movement-related media always comes into my mind, or occurs as a debate among coworkers and friends. How did I get my news resource? Taking a report concerning local farmers and fishmen against government's levying land for a technology area project for example, a reporter with a press pass is endorsed the rights to go into and audit the environmental impact assessment committee (though according to Freedom of Information Act every citizen has the right to do this), but still many times an alternative media reporter is hindered by police outside EPA building( for their low media literacy they doubt my reporter ID is counterfeit.) Also, the reporter's interviewing right is given by the Constitution, the above is fought by a group of environmental reporters and NGOs during 2007 and 2008. Still, when it comes to committees have a meeting for conclusion, the reporter is not allowed to get inside.
Often with the assistance from activists being there since first time fieldwork,a chance of interviewing a local farmer involved in the levying is no problem. I write a person's story in a struggle. For instance, how a 70-year-old farmer's concern when his or her land is going to be taken over? How they lead a sustainable life here all their live? Often the story is with collected information exposed at what I thought are some appropriate spots.
I really call this an environmental news, uh? It is like that everything is delivered in front of my desk and within a day a 4000-word story pops out. Then I think of the story of SAM, a Burma VJ(video journalist), when he describes in an Skype interview how risky the process is from taking video on streets to smuggling footage through Thai/Burma border. Real military threats they have to endure. And how about going into a rainforest? Spying the logging? Communicating with local villagers? photocopying dirty secret of big corporation? How IEIC, if we are seriously enough to produce valuable rainforest news to our readers, reach these news source? How IEIC is going to support and protect our reporters? What is the situation a reporter would face when he or she is involved into investigating an environmental issues?
This problem is related to verification. Before our reporting crew emerges, our content are mainly depend upon other media agency. At the same time it is a feeling of distrust to media that fills the meeting last time. It is said that often a local reporter, with comparably low salary, “cuts and copys” info on the internet. This also related to disappointment about NGOs in Indonesia, when many of them received huge funding from Europe especially German but actually achieve little and are “incorporated into bigger capitalist mechanism,” when many of NGOs leaders become politicians and entrepreneurs. The real local voices are hidden. This distrust still needs more time and interviewing local activists to clarify the historical backgrounds of Indonesia local NGOs. To what extend alternative media can cooperate with NGOs? Which are the reliable NGOs and which is not?
Financial structure. We also talks about the difference in terms of how funding can support a project. This reminds of how HK's donation to Green Peace can also feed GP, China. International NGOs in Taiwan? Donation to seemly activist groups instead of charity foundation or any religious groups? TEIA always has problems with the donating sources. It is not a secret they undertake governmental projects. Coolloud, the medium for Taiwanese social movement, often faces cutting-short in terms of its finance. Some alternative media apply for governmental subsidy, or under the umbrella of the academic. For more than ten years Pots struggles to survive via selling ads and feeds on school budge, which becomes less and less every year. The rule for editor room is reporters has the right to write whatever she or he wants even if it pissed ad customers. Nevertheless, I have to admit the visible and invisible pressure and restriction simply exists; when you understand how this media is worried about its financial resources, a reporter simply would not reject any proposal from ad department. I am also politely reminded that if “I continue to write social movement issues, it is difficult to sell ads.” But it is like when we think of funding, it simply seems much difficult to do it in this way. multi donating sources is, in short, not reliable. How is the possibility here? I would very much like to know.
For many questions I would like to listen to your opinions, because this seems the very basic process before IEIC has its first step: realizing and understanding the situation. How many alternative media here in Sumetera Ultra? Do we have any chance to make connection with them? What are voices and ideas always forgotten in environmental news in the past...etc. I would leave these questions to you, my friends, and humbly invite you to shoot everything you want, including under what circumstances IEIC is possible?
Sincerely.
Willy Chen. May 4th,2010.
The questions are:
- The organizational structure of IEIC. Whether it would be an autonomous project or it would be a project under Bodhicitta.
- The funding source. It is solely from Bodhicitta or multi-sources.
- The economic backup for its workers. Could IEIC provide material support and salary for its reporters and other workers?
- The safety issue of reporters. While it could be very dangerous processing any investigative reports, facing the threat from both government and corporations, what is IEIC's protection plan for reporters?
- The credibility of IEIC reporters. Should TEIA or Bodhicitta release legal documents to IEIC? IEIC's legal status. The questions of the effectiveness of IEIC's reporting ID.
- How IEIC ensures the truth of its information when media agency itself “copy and cut” resources on the internet without reality-checking process.
- The Freedom of Information in Indonesia. The difficulties for reporters to investigate environmental issues, especially getting useful data from government and corporation.
- The fundamental political stand of IEIC.
IEIC are mainly related to two organizations: TEIA and Bodhicitta Mandala. According the TEIA's website (and I translate), TEIA“ aims to cooperate with local citizen organizations to establish an environmental information surveillance system. IEIC would emphasizes its localization, the role as info platform and news service, in order to find a locally practicable mechanism. The operating rights is given back when IEIC is full-blown.” As a correspondent of TEIA, my mission here is to establish connection with environmental NGOs, of which TEIA has a list to send enquiry letter. I am here to recruit IEIC volunteers also.
So obvious that IEIC is not going to be workable without any understanding about Indonesia media's development history, news-production process and local alternative media situation. Aren't this those who is already taking part in the preparing of IEIC facing right now? How an environmental news is produced and then transmitted to the screen of reader's computer? The more we, who are not familiar with Indonesia media context but calling for a “local info-center,” know about this, the more we are going to have our first “possibly right” step.
It still takes me more time to understand this. Nonetheless, as palpable as these problems are, they certainly call me for my reflection upon Taiwanese (alternative) media, and its news-production process.
As a reporter for an alternative media for one and a half year, the clarification of the meaning of media-activist, independent media, and all forms of social-movement-related media always comes into my mind, or occurs as a debate among coworkers and friends. How did I get my news resource? Taking a report concerning local farmers and fishmen against government's levying land for a technology area project for example, a reporter with a press pass is endorsed the rights to go into and audit the environmental impact assessment committee (though according to Freedom of Information Act every citizen has the right to do this), but still many times an alternative media reporter is hindered by police outside EPA building( for their low media literacy they doubt my reporter ID is counterfeit.) Also, the reporter's interviewing right is given by the Constitution, the above is fought by a group of environmental reporters and NGOs during 2007 and 2008. Still, when it comes to committees have a meeting for conclusion, the reporter is not allowed to get inside.
Often with the assistance from activists being there since first time fieldwork,a chance of interviewing a local farmer involved in the levying is no problem. I write a person's story in a struggle. For instance, how a 70-year-old farmer's concern when his or her land is going to be taken over? How they lead a sustainable life here all their live? Often the story is with collected information exposed at what I thought are some appropriate spots.
I really call this an environmental news, uh? It is like that everything is delivered in front of my desk and within a day a 4000-word story pops out. Then I think of the story of SAM, a Burma VJ(video journalist), when he describes in an Skype interview how risky the process is from taking video on streets to smuggling footage through Thai/Burma border. Real military threats they have to endure. And how about going into a rainforest? Spying the logging? Communicating with local villagers? photocopying dirty secret of big corporation? How IEIC, if we are seriously enough to produce valuable rainforest news to our readers, reach these news source? How IEIC is going to support and protect our reporters? What is the situation a reporter would face when he or she is involved into investigating an environmental issues?
This problem is related to verification. Before our reporting crew emerges, our content are mainly depend upon other media agency. At the same time it is a feeling of distrust to media that fills the meeting last time. It is said that often a local reporter, with comparably low salary, “cuts and copys” info on the internet. This also related to disappointment about NGOs in Indonesia, when many of them received huge funding from Europe especially German but actually achieve little and are “incorporated into bigger capitalist mechanism,” when many of NGOs leaders become politicians and entrepreneurs. The real local voices are hidden. This distrust still needs more time and interviewing local activists to clarify the historical backgrounds of Indonesia local NGOs. To what extend alternative media can cooperate with NGOs? Which are the reliable NGOs and which is not?
Financial structure. We also talks about the difference in terms of how funding can support a project. This reminds of how HK's donation to Green Peace can also feed GP, China. International NGOs in Taiwan? Donation to seemly activist groups instead of charity foundation or any religious groups? TEIA always has problems with the donating sources. It is not a secret they undertake governmental projects. Coolloud, the medium for Taiwanese social movement, often faces cutting-short in terms of its finance. Some alternative media apply for governmental subsidy, or under the umbrella of the academic. For more than ten years Pots struggles to survive via selling ads and feeds on school budge, which becomes less and less every year. The rule for editor room is reporters has the right to write whatever she or he wants even if it pissed ad customers. Nevertheless, I have to admit the visible and invisible pressure and restriction simply exists; when you understand how this media is worried about its financial resources, a reporter simply would not reject any proposal from ad department. I am also politely reminded that if “I continue to write social movement issues, it is difficult to sell ads.” But it is like when we think of funding, it simply seems much difficult to do it in this way. multi donating sources is, in short, not reliable. How is the possibility here? I would very much like to know.
For many questions I would like to listen to your opinions, because this seems the very basic process before IEIC has its first step: realizing and understanding the situation. How many alternative media here in Sumetera Ultra? Do we have any chance to make connection with them? What are voices and ideas always forgotten in environmental news in the past...etc. I would leave these questions to you, my friends, and humbly invite you to shoot everything you want, including under what circumstances IEIC is possible?
Sincerely.
Willy Chen. May 4th,2010.
The Eve of May Day: Taiwanese Touch Panel Screen Workers Still Fight for Their Basic Rights
In the Eve of May Day this year, Young Fast Optoelectronics(YFO) workers still struggle for their very basic rights. According to LabourStart, "YFO is one of the major manufacturers for touch panel screens in the world; its buyers include: Samsung, LG, HTC and Google." Despite "posting a record-high profit last year(almost NTD$3000,000,000)" the working condition is worse than ever: the average monthly working hours are about 270 to 300 hrs. The labors, including the so-called "interns"(who in fact are child workers who is under the age of 16), female workers and 200 immigrant workers, endured 12-hour standing in front of control panel, overtime work without payment, exposure to toxic and bust on union workers. The average salary of a YFO worker is NTD.2,2000, shockingly low when the extremely poor working condition is considered.
Now the Young Fast Optoelectronics Trade Union (YFOTU) is demanding:
- Reinstatement of the illegally-dismissed union officers and members;
- Resolution to the labour dispute through dialogue with YFOTU and NAFITU; and
- The government forms a joint-committee from different ministries and take thorough investigation about the working conditions and labour rights abuses, and prevent repetition of labour rights abuse in YFO.
They also urge an action of sending letter to President of ROC, the company contracting with YOF, such as GOOGLE, HTC and Vodafone.
Please Send Your Message at LabourStart(here)
Also Factsheet of YFO(here)
