[FULL] Blak-Blakan Pihak Taman Safari & OCI soal Kasus Dugaan Penganiayaan Eks Pemain Sirkus

Summary

This discussion centers on the allegations of human rights violations within the Oriental Circus Indonesia (OCI), including exploitation and abuse of children. Taman Safari Indonesia's Vice President, Barata Mardi Kusno, asserts that OCI and Taman Safari are separate entities, despite shared ownership. Legal representative Muhammad Saleh argues that the two are interconnected, citing past reports from Komnas HAM. The conversation touches on a 1997 Komnas HAM recommendation regarding child exploitation within OCI and ongoing disputes over accountability, with a call for justice for the abused children and clarification on legal responsibility.

Takeaways

• 😀 OCI (Oriental Circus Indonesia) and Taman Safari Indonesia are legally separate entities, although they share the same ownership.
• 😀 OCI allegedly exploited circus performers, including children, during its operations, leading to accusations of human rights violations.
• 😀 The Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) issued a recommendation in 1997, addressing these concerns, specifically involving OCI.
• 😀 Taman Safari Indonesia denies any involvement in OCI's alleged human rights abuses, stating that OCI operated independently and was not part of Taman Safari's activities.
• 😀 The legal dispute centers on whether OCI’s former performers can direct legal claims against Taman Safari Indonesia or its individual owners.
• 😀 Cak Saleh, representing OCI performers, argues that the shared ownership of Taman Safari and OCI makes them directly accountable for the alleged abuses.
• 😀 The 1997 Komnas HAM recommendation points to exploitation, including child labor, but there has been no follow-up action from those responsible, according to Cak Saleh.
• 😀 Taman Safari Indonesia asserts that any legal actions should be directed toward OCI or its individual owners, not Taman Safari itself as a corporate entity.
• 😀 The discussion includes the suggestion of a boycott against Taman Safari Indonesia due to its connection with the alleged mistreatment of circus performers.
• 😀 There is potential for further hearings or investigations involving Taman Safari Indonesia, with the Indonesian parliament (DPR) possibly reviewing the case.

Q & A

What is the main issue discussed in the transcript?

The main issue discussed is the alleged human rights violations, including abuse and exploitation, related to the activities of Oriental Circus Indonesia (OCI). This controversy involves both the circus and Taman Safari Indonesia, which the circus performers claim are connected despite the companies being separate entities.

How does Taman Safari Indonesia respond to the accusations?

Taman Safari Indonesia denies any involvement with the human rights violations claimed by the OCI performers. They assert that Taman Safari and OCI are two distinct entities, despite both having the same founders, and that Taman Safari has no direct ties to the exploitation claims.

What is the significance of Komnas HAM's 1997 statement in this case?

Komnas HAM's 1997 statement is significant because it highlights the human rights violations that occurred with OCI performers, particularly the exploitation of children. The statement is referenced in the discussion as it led to recommendations that were never fully implemented, which the legal representatives of OCI are trying to address.

What stance does Cak Saleh take regarding the responsibility of Taman Safari Indonesia?

Cak Saleh argues that, despite Taman Safari Indonesia and OCI being legally separate entities, they are owned by the same individuals, making Taman Safari responsible for the human rights violations. He suggests that the responsibility should lie with the owners, not just the specific companies.

What is Taman Safari Indonesia’s position on the connection between OCI and Taman Safari?

Taman Safari Indonesia maintains that there is no connection between OCI and Taman Safari. They emphasize that OCI operated as a separate entity, and any claims or legal actions should be directed towards OCI or its individual owners, not Taman Safari Indonesia itself.

Why does Cak Saleh emphasize the involvement of Taman Safari Indonesia’s owners?

Cak Saleh points out that the owners of both OCI and Taman Safari are the same, which he argues makes Taman Safari indirectly responsible for the abuses that occurred within OCI. He asserts that the accountability lies with the owners, not the separate entities.

How does the issue of human rights violations relate to the physical location of Taman Safari Indonesia?

The location of Taman Safari Indonesia is significant because it was mentioned that some of the alleged abuses took place at their facilities, specifically that OCI performers were allegedly mistreated while working at Taman Safari, despite OCI not officially being part of Taman Safari's operations.

What was the response of Taman Safari Indonesia to the 1997 Komnas HAM recommendations?

Taman Safari Indonesia acknowledges the 1997 Komnas HAM recommendations but insists that those recommendations were directed at OCI, not Taman Safari. They maintain that the company has always operated within legal boundaries and has not committed any human rights violations.

What is Cak Saleh's perspective on the legal actions and the role of individual owners?

Cak Saleh believes that legal actions should target the individual owners of OCI and Taman Safari, rather than the organizations themselves. He stresses that the owners are the ones responsible for the exploitation of the performers, particularly the children involved in OCI’s operations.

What is the potential legal outcome of this situation?

The legal outcome could involve further investigations and possibly the enforcement of the 1997 recommendations by Komnas HAM, potentially leading to compensation or justice for the abused performers. There may also be legal consequences for the owners, depending on how the case develops.