Sejarah Petrus, Para Penembak Misterius di Era Orde Baru

Summary

This video delves into Indonesia's controversial 'Petrus' (Penembak Misterius) policy during President Soeharto's New Order era. Aimed at eradicating crime, this extrajudicial operation targeted alleged criminals, especially street thugs and gangsters, with deadly force. While it reduced crime, it also sparked widespread criticism, both domestically and internationally, due to its human rights violations. The narrative explores the complex interplay of power, crime, and governance during this period, highlighting the moral and legal debates surrounding such drastic measures. Ultimately, the video asks whether such methods could ever be justified in modern-day Indonesia.

Takeaways

• 😀 The 'Petrus' operation, or 'Penembak Misterius,' was a controversial initiative under President Soeharto's New Order regime to eradicate criminals without judicial process.
• 😀 The operation targeted individuals deemed 'preman' (gangsters) based on their physical appearance, such as tattoos and long hair, which were associated with criminal behavior.
• 😀 The government's goal was to reduce crime rates, particularly in urban areas like Jakarta and Semarang, where criminal activity such as robbery, rape, and murder was on the rise.
• 😀 Petrus involved extrajudicial killings, where suspects were kidnapped, tortured, and executed by unidentified assailants, with their bodies displayed publicly as a deterrent.
• 😀 Political figures and gangsters often had close ties, with gangsters being used for political purposes, including stirring up trouble during election campaigns.
• 😀 The public was unsure who was included in the government's list of criminals, as it was not specified, leading to confusion and fear among the people.
• 😀 The operation was not limited to gangsters—innocent people, such as farmers, public servants, and anyone with a similar name to a target, were also sometimes victims of Petrus.
• 😀 Despite Petrus's ability to reduce crime, the operation faced significant backlash, both domestically and internationally, with human rights groups like Amnesty International condemning the killings.
• 😀 President Soeharto denied any direct responsibility for the extrajudicial killings, claiming they were a necessary step to maintain public order and deter crime.
• 😀 The operation was officially ended in 1985 after mounting international pressure and domestic protests, with estimates of over 1,000 people killed during the operation.

Q & A

What is the 'Petrus' operation discussed in the video?

The 'Petrus' operation, short for 'Penembak Misterius' (Mysterious Shooter), was an extrajudicial campaign by the Indonesian government in the 1980s to eliminate criminal elements, particularly preman (thugs), without trial. It involved killing suspected criminals, often in public, and became infamous for its brutal methods.

Why was the Petrus operation initiated during President Soeharto's regime?

The operation was initiated as a response to the rising crime rates in Indonesia, particularly in urban areas like Jakarta and Java. The government sought to reduce crime through extreme measures, including extrajudicial killings, as the legal system was seen as too slow to address the growing problem.

How did the government identify targets for the Petrus operation?

Targets were identified based on physical appearance, such as having long hair, tattoos, and visible scars, which were seen as indicators of being criminals or members of gangs. This method was criticized for being discriminatory and targeting a broad group of people.

What was the public and international reaction to the Petrus operation?

The operation faced significant criticism both domestically and internationally. While some saw it as effective in reducing crime, others, including human rights organizations like Amnesty International, condemned it for violating basic human rights and lacking due process. The operation attracted pressure from the international community to end the killings.

What impact did the Petrus operation have on crime rates in Indonesia?

The operation did lead to a temporary reduction in crime rates, particularly in cities like Yogyakarta and Semarang, where criminal activities, including robbery and violent crimes, decreased. However, it did so at the cost of numerous lives, many of which were those of innocent people wrongly identified as criminals.

What were the main criticisms of the Petrus operation?

The main criticisms were that it was extrajudicial, lacked legal due process, and disproportionately targeted people based on physical appearance. The operation also resulted in numerous innocent victims, including people who were not criminals but simply shared physical traits with suspects.

Who were some of the key figures involved in the implementation of the Petrus operation?

Key figures involved included President Soeharto, who approved the operation, and military officers like Letkol M. Hasbi, who led the initial crackdown in Yogyakarta. Intelligence agencies and the police also played significant roles in executing the operation.

How did the government justify the use of extrajudicial killings during the Petrus operation?

The government justified the use of extrajudicial killings as a necessary measure to restore public order and reduce crime. They claimed that the traditional legal process was too slow and ineffective in addressing the urgency of the crime wave at the time.

What happened to the Petrus operation after 1985?

The Petrus operation was officially halted in 1985 due to mounting criticism and international pressure. By that time, over 1,000 people had been killed, with many innocent individuals among the victims. The operation's termination came after significant debate and opposition within Indonesia and abroad.

What broader political implications did the Petrus operation have during Soeharto's presidency?

The Petrus operation highlighted the authoritarian nature of President Soeharto's regime, where stability and control were prioritized over individual freedoms and human rights. It also showed the extent to which the military and intelligence agencies were involved in maintaining order, often through violent means.