These findings identify information occlusion regarding the events happening on Rempang Island, including:
First, after the acts of violence in Rempang, Batam, the Police issued an official statement. In one of them, Head of the National Police’s Community Services Bureau Brigadier General Ahmad stated that there were no casualties in the Rempang incident.
However, investigations prove that the statement was in grave error. For two days, September 11-12, 2023, the National Solidarity for Rempang investigation team attempted to collect data on the number of victims affected by the violent incident and found that at least 20 people were physically and psychologically affected.
Second, based on the data collected, 11 victims from SMPN 22, including ten students and a female teacher, were taken to Embung Fatimah Hospital. Most of the other student victims were taken to the Marine Hospital by the Armed Forces.
Third, during the clash, the National Police haphazardly fired tear gas at the protesters and the people in the vicinity. Evidence of reckless tear gas use was evident when the tear gas was fired at a location near the gates of Junior High School 22 Galang and Elementary School 24 Galang.
Fourth, after the protest at BP Batam, 28 people were detained by the Barelang Police, and 15 people were arrested by the Riau Islands Police.
The findings above depict discrepancies between the official Police statement and the facts on the ground. Human rights violations, such as the use of violence by the authorities and tear gas near educational facilities, are the main issues identified from this incident.
Information openness and transparency regarding compensation were also severely lacking. For example, BP Batam only made two outreach sessions to affected residents – a process considered lacking inclusiveness and one-directional. The outreach was made through informal WhatsApp invitations, asking local residents to bring documents showing their land ownership.
This shows that the Batam municipal government and BP Batam only impart one-way information, neglecting the public’s right to obtain public information as mandated in Public Information Openness Law 14/2008.