President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's recent visit to Papua marked the government's renewed commitment to addressing the multitude of problems facing the local people. Papua University scholar Agus Sumule, who helped draft the law on special autonomy for Papua, shared with The Jakarta Post's Dwi Atmanta his views on the implementation of the law.

Question: Many people say special autonomy is the best solution to Papua's problems. What actually are the problems?

There are four basic problems facing Papuans. First, the yawning gap between Papua and Jakarta. Despite the exploration of natural resources like mineral, marine and forest resources, the quality of life of the Papuan people remains poor as indicated by the province's mortality rate, which is the highest, and life expectancy, which is the lowest in the country. Second, the traditional rights of Papuans have long been neglected. The history of the extraction industry in Papua cannot be separated from Jakarta's negligence of rights abuses. Third, many gross human rights violations that have occurred since 1963 in Papua remain unaddressed. Fourth, there has been debate over the history of Papua's integration with Indonesia through the Act of Free Choice in 1969. Many Papuans believe the process was unfair and far from honest. Law No. 21/2001 on special autonomy for Papua was envisioned to address the problems, one by one. It stipulates the allocation of 2 percent of the special allocation fund for Papua and the lion's share of 70 percent of the revenue from oil and gas for the province. Past human rights abuses will be settled through the Papua office of the National Commission on Human Rights and the controversy surrounding Papua's integration into Indonesia will be resolved through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. But apparently the major problems have remained unaddressed.

Why has special autonomy not gone ahead?

The government has made two basic mistakes. First, I haven't seen the central government intent on upholding the special autonomy law since it was enacted by president Megawati. It was evident in the delay of the formation of the MRP (Papua People's Council) and the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 1/2003 (on the acceleration of Papua's division into three provinces). As soon as SBY assumed power, we pushed for a media campaign to tell the new government the time had come to make amends for the mistakes. But our advice fell on deaf ears. Second, the law cannot work because the local government lacks the capacity, which is demonstrated by overwhelming practices of KKN (corruption, collusion and nepotism), while at the same time we feel the central government seems reluctant to improve conditions. Jakarta is mandated to carry out the supervision of regional governments, according to Law No. 22/2004 on regional administrations. It is as though there is some grand scheme to derail special autonomy by letting the mismanagement continue.

The government plans to review the law on special autonomy for Papua. Will the revision result in improvements?

The revision must first of all guarantee that the substance of the law will not be altered, because the problem rests with the implementation. That's why the Papua legislature has expressed opposition to the revision plan. Even the formation of West Irian Jaya cannot justify the amendment.

Such a revision must start from the bottom, which more or less is similar to the way Law No. 11/2006 on Aceh's governance was drafted. Thank God, Aceh's problems could finally be settled through a democratic process. We can do it for the Papuans, can't we? Therefore the government should let Papuans take the initiative in the revision of the law on special autonomy for Papua. The law itself stipulates that any revision to it must be done through consultation with the legislature and the MRP.

How do you see the recently issued presidential instruction on the acceleration of Papua's development?

I don't agree with it. First, the instruction, if we read it thoroughly, confirms the government's failure to uphold the special autonomy law. In the case of Aceh, the law on special autonomy status for the province was a failure and was replaced by the law on Aceh governance. It is humiliating for Papuans if the law on special autonomy for Papua is replaced with a presidential instruction. Besides, the hierarchy of our legal system does not recognize a presidential instruction according to People Consultative Assembly Decree No. 3/2000.

Second, the presidential instruction on Papua's development requires each Cabinet minister to draw up a strategy for development in Papua. So, where is the autonomy? It is obviously a form of central government intervention in Papua's autonomy.

Third, through the instruction, the government appears to be pushing for a resettlement program in Papua. It is not specifically stipulated in the instruction, but the fact that it orders the transmigration minister to deploy skilled human resources to help Papua develop agriculture means transmigration.

Fourth, the instruction offers affirmative actions that differ from those stipulated in the special autonomy law. The instruction restricts the affirmative actions to opportunities for local people to hold government, military and police posts, which worries me. Will there be a new military battalion in Papua that will treat fellow Papuans brutally? I don't know.

Fifth, the instruction is too simple compared to Law No. 21/2001. The protection of traditional rights and the settlement of past human rights abuses, for example, are absent from the instruction.

The instruction should have focused on steps to correct the ineffective implementation of special autonomy following the inauguration of the new Papua and West Irian Jaya governors, to adjust all government policies to the law and investigation into corruption cases.

Is separatism still relevant in Papua?

It's a very relevant issue to date and is worrying. People have considered special autonomy a failure and demanded talks to restore public trust in the central government. If the demand is left unheeded, they will feel they are different and look for their own way. Separatism may not take shape in an armed struggle but an intellectual revolt.

The timing is right for the government to improve the condition now that the new governors have been installed following a democratic process and the Aceh problem has been settled through talks that set a good precedent for international support for the solution to Papua's problems. The involvement of foreign parties does not mean turning the matter into an international issue, but it will instead build trust as happened in Aceh. If this golden chance is wasted, I don't know what will happen.