William L. | Papuan Observer
Discussions on Law Number 21 Year 2001 regarding Special Autonomy for Papua need to be carried out comprehensively and not partially. This was revealed by Willem Wandik, a member of Commission V DPR RI from the Papua electoral district.
Willem reminded that the presence of the Papua Special Autonomy Law was not merely a gift from the government, but on the basis of the spirit and hard struggle of the Papuan people. According to him, Otsus Papua is presented as a middle way related to problems in Papua.
Willem said the discussion on the Papua Special Autonomy Bill was interpreted as a solution to Indonesia’s constitutional and sovereignty, so it could not be partially.
Therefore, in the formation of the Papua Special Autonomy Committee (Pansus), although this is part of the government’s initiative, it is hoped that the discussion of this special autonomy will be given more comprehensive attention, not partially.
“The discussion on Otsus comprehensively will create various solutions for improving Papua in the long term”
Meanwhile, a member of the Special Committee (Pansus) for the Bill on the Second Amendment to Law Number 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy (Otsus) for Papua Province, Yan Permenas Mandenas, said there are a number of strategic issues to be discussed related to Papua. Among other things, evaluation of the implementation of Otsus. Both in terms of authority, budget, and development achievements for approximately 20 years.
He hopes that there will be a change in format in the implementation of Papua’s special autonomy. The politician from the Gerindra Party asked the central government to periodically supervise or provide assistance to the provincial, district and city governments in Papua. So that national goals in order to accelerate development and prosperity in Papua can be achieved properly.
Besides that, evaluation of the budget is also a strategic discussion. He urged the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Attorney General’s Office, and the police to act firmly and indiscriminately in taking action against legal cases in Papua that have direct contact with the implementation of special autonomy. Especially in the context of absorption and use of the budget which according to the public there are indications of suspected corruption.
However, he agreed that the discussion on the revision of the Papua Special Autonomy Law should not be carried out in a hurry. The special committee is deemed necessary to hear input from various parties, from the Papuan regional government to the Papuan people. Yan emphasized that the Papuan people do not need to worry about the planned revision of the Special Autonomy Law.
These various inputs indicate the importance of careful discussion of the Papua Special Autonomy Law. The Special Committee for the Papua Special Autonomy Law must realize the importance of being an intermediary in realizing the Government’s desire to improve the welfare of the Papuan people.