I met Richard Ness, the head of a gold mining company Newmont Minahasa Raya, through this blog.
I posted a piece here in November 2005 asking the question: Did Newmont Do It?
I was referring to Buyat Bay in northern Sulawesi, Indonesia, and allegations that the beautiful bay had been polluted by mine tailings.
About a year after I posted the piece Richard emailed me, including comment that: “What has come out from court ordered resampling of the bay is that the Waters of Buyat are cleaner than on average, the Atlantic, Pacific and English Channel.”
Last week Richard Ness was in court again pleading his innocence. He opened his 13 hour testimony in Manado, Indonesia, with comment that:
“I beg the court’s indulgence if at some points throughout this document that my writing depicts some anger, frustration, pity, and in some cases even contempt for some of the issues raised. I hope that the Honorable Panel of Judges can understand that these expressions of emotion are not directed at this court or the Honorable Panel of Judges, but rather at the subject matter or the individuals under discussion.
This Panel of Judges has been searching for the truth and I express my respect
to the Honorable Panel for your patience and the work they have undertaken
towards separating reality from pretense and facts from illusions. I have to
state that I have been treated very fairly before this court in an effort to find the
real truth and while the trial can be deemed fair, the investigation, examination,
indictment and the charges against me are certainly not fair or justified!The allegation that Buyat Bay is polluted is a sham, and only supported by
falsehood and error.There were several opportunities to correct this travesty before the indictment was issued, but each time the opportunity was lost. If the law had been followed from the beginning, there would never have been an indictment; if the Prosecution had examined the evidence, there would have never been charges or a sentencing request and I would not have needed to write this pledoi [testimonial].
Although one can reflect back on what could have been but the reality is I am seated before this court, defending myself of a crime that never occurred.”
[Read the complete transcript by clicking here]
Richard Ness claims there is no evidence to suggest Buyat Bay was ever polluted by mine tailing from Newmont Minhasa Raya and that the case against him is a fabrication orchestrated by environmental NGOs supported by naïve western journalists including New York Times journalist Jane Perlez.
The same day the New York Times published its feature by Ms Perlez, the World Health Organisation published a detailed technical report which concluded that Buyat Bay was not contaminated by mercury or cyanide and that levels of mercury among villagers were not high enough to cause poisoning and that the health effect of mercury and cyanide poisoning were not observed among Buyat Bay villagers.
This was the first of several reports, including a detailed report by Australia’s CSIRO and another by the Indonesian Ministry of Environment, which directly contradicted an initial Indonesian police report and found the bay to be unpolluted.
Richard’s testimony brings to a close what has been a long and acrimonious trial. A judgment is expected within the month.
Here are some links to recent media reports:
PT Newmont Boss Begins Defence in Indonesia
Resource Investor – Herndon,VA,USA
St. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) — Newmont executive Richard Ness, on trial in Indonesia for allegedly polluting Buyat Bay, read his ‘pledoi’ to the court … http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=28339
INDONESIA: Indonesia Newmont boss says no complaints on mining
CorpWatch.org – Oakland,CA,USA
PT Newmont Minahasa Raya, which operated a gold mine in North Sulawesi province, and its president director Richard Ness face charges over allegations the …
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14317
Newmont Indonesia boss rejects pollution charges
Reuters AlertNet – London,England,UK
PT Newmont Minahasa Raya (NMR), which once operated in Indonesia’s North Sulawesi province, and its president director Richard Ness face charges over … http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/JAK52760.htm
Indonesian blogger, Ong Hock Chuan, invites Walhi, one of the NGOs that launched the initial attack against Richard Ness, to explain how “activist NGOs on the whole make Indonesia a better or worse place to live and do business”: http://theunspunblog.com/2007/01/25/open-invitation-to-businesses-and-indonesian-ngos-to-respond/#comment-6058
Richard’s son Eric has commented at his blog that: The actions of some of the NGOs portrayed in this documentary (Mine Your Own Business) parallels my Dad’s experience in this Buyat Bay case. People like Rignolda and Raja Siregar have utilized well-planned misinformation campaigns and lies in the name of environmentalism. Dr. Jane Pangemanan did not hesitate to misrepresent the illnesses in the Buyat Bay community as mercury poisoning. Such allegations were decisively disproved by the WHO, CSIRO and other governmental reports. These individuals have been discredited now in the court. But the salient question is: will these NGOs resort to these methods again? I plan to continue this debate further in the weeks to come. The time has come for NGOs to become more thoughtful, and more truthful in their campaigns. Read more:
http://richardness.org/blog/buyatbayandngoaccountability.php
And for more information on Richard Ness: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001697.html .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Just heading you all off at the pass: There’s always a bad egg spoiling it for everyone else. Without solid evidence, let’s not blindly extrapolate to NGO’s in Australia. Avoid making uselessly vague references to NGOs or NFP’s (which includes the IPA). All the best to Richard for a fair trial but in the interests of decent representation let’s hope that Jennifer or the IPA don’t manipulate his circumstances and misrepresent (the majority?) decent NGOs in the corporate funded IPA campaign to undermine environmental organisations.
“The time has come for NGOs to become more thoughtful, and more truthful in their campaigns”.
Unlike the corporate lobbysts, shining transparent beacons of innocence guiding us towards freedom and justice for all.
Anyone got any updates on the Mt Isa situation? No evidence that Dr was lying.
I wonder how much Richard has had to pay the jaksas, lawyers, translators, in addition to his prison food and board. Proving one’s innocence in Indonesia is a costly exercise, and not exactly a “truthful” one in itself. Rignolda and Raja Siregar along with the police may have their own agendas, such as compensation. It is not the NGOs that should be persecuted here, but rather the individuals. I believe that is the way it would work with other organisations, or are only NGOs the ones requiring more truth and thought?Fairness in court and fairness on this blog. Now wouldn’t that be nice.
la pantera rosa apologist for the ends justify the means
def is that supposed to be a sentence or is it a meaningless random assortment of words? Try not to distort things.
Travis makes the same point about individuals that I made then deleted as my post was long.
Being precise and accurate with the facts includes the capacity and organisational basis of the individuals and organisations involved. Even defness and rogness doesn’t excuse ignorant gesticulating.
The actions of the ENGO and environmental activists described in the Buyat Bay case are so similar to the case of alleged poisoning of Oysters in Georges Bay , near St Helens Tasmania that is a clear pattern emerging.
It must be more than a coincidence that claims of pollution can be made, and continue to be made despite independent evidence to the contrary.
The use of a gullible media to broadcast these false claims also appears common ground.
Anti forest activists and ENGOs in Tasmania seized on a report by a marine researcher Dr Scammell and medical practitioner Dr Bleaney that claimed oyster deaths were linked to chemical sprays used to protect plantations.
Despite an independent review of their report by an environmental health expert, Dr Ricci finding no basis for the claims (see http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LBUN-63C9LL?open) Channel Nine and other media have continued to give credibility to their claims.
A quick search of the web will also show that the claims are still circulating as if fact.
Whilst the forest industry has been hung, drawn and quartered in the court of public opinion over this incident, luckily no one has had to endure the nightmare of a legal trial.
ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON ENRON
GREENPEACE GREENPEACE GREENPEACE
AWB AWB AWB AWB AWB AWB AWB AWB
Though the campaign led by WALHI and a few other smaller NGOs is in large part responsible for the grueling legal battle my Dad, Richard Ness has been facing, I don’t consider my self to be anti-NGO. However, it has become apparent after months of testimony that these NGOs targeted my Dad by using lies, unsubstantiated facts and faulty science. In the case against my Dad, part of the campaign was led by WALHI, the Indonesian chapter of Friends of the Earth. This is no small organization, and the individuals from WALHI who were at the forefront of the Buyat Bay campaign were senior members. It doesn’t seem to me that their actions can be attributed simply to their individual character. There is indeed a broader organizational strategy involved here that finds it acceptable to build a campaign based on misinformation.
I nonetheless still believe that NGOs have an important and essential role in fostering awareness of environmental issues and shaping better public policy. I also agree with La Pantera Rosa that one should not generalize about NGOs because in reality the community of NGOs in all countries is very diverse. But I disagree with her that cases of irresponsible or even malicious behavior by NGOs should be viewed simply as errant acts of a few, isolated individuals. Based on the numerous conversations I have had over the last two years, recent information that has come out on other “questionable” environmental campaigns (i.e. the Rosia Montana), as well as my experiences growing up in Indonesia, I have come to think that there is a broader pattern of irresponsible behavior by NGOs. Perhaps this discussion will shed some more light on the challenge of parsing rogue NGOs from the authentic ones.
Thanks Eric. It’s only natural, being in your situation, that you would hear more than the usual number of similar stories. Doesn’t make it an accurate representation of NGO’s and NGO staff in other countries such as Australia. Indonesia is far from a mature democracy.
I could talk your ears off about executive corruption, and I’ve heard plenty of extra stories to add in, but those experiences aren’t necessarily representative. Oh perhaps they are. Abuses of power happen all over the place, we just hope the system has sufficient checks and balances and holds individual and organisations accountable – ideally with an independent judiciary and independent, competitive media. There are some people who think any means justifies their ends in EVERY playground. Right, left, central, distributed, green, red, govt, private, religious, secular. Necessary casualties of war, some see it. Who cares to nominate a national, global or prominent organisational role model of ethical conduct?
That you posing as deb harry pinky pants? what a dreamer
When people feel disenfranchised by their governments, or suffer from a sense of social detachment, or find themselves among an angry minority, the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are there for them.
The NGOs are non-governmental. They are not elected; if they were elected, they would reflect the views of the majority of citizens. They are not elected; therefore, they offer a minority the vision of joining an elite force motivated by principles which supersede democracy. They are not elected; so they are answerable only to themselves.
In other words, every NGO is a petty dictatorship, that wants to be a big dictatorship.
If you have purchased shares in General Motors Corporation, you have a vote. If you are a member of Greenpeace, you have no vote at all.
NGOs should all be painted with the same brush and bear the color of iniquity. The name says it all. They have no accountability and therefore are inherently corrupt.
Oh Schillsy – the USA isn’t a democracy – in recent time you’d had elections with less than 50% turnout. And even when you get most of the votes chads, dimples and who you know can still get you over the line. What a sham democracy. Sounds like you’re living in a fascist regime where only the privileged run the show. And you don’t even have any royalty – how crap is that?
I see in Schiller’s comments the first turn to fascism by wanting to block the right to free assembly and free association.
Eric Ness – best of luck to your father getting true justice in Indonesia. Not always easy.
Luke the expert, *the USA isn’t a democracy*
less than 50% turnout? why, did you know that in the US voting is not compulsory? Do you think that forcing voters to the ballot box is the definition of *democracy*?
Saddam had record turnout and record votes, he must (have) been the torchbearer of democracy.
You are a dill Done
Jennifer do the IPA donors vote for board members/policy? If not, the IPA is inherently corrupt too. It’s got zero transparency – even its directors apparently don’t know who collects their paycheck. So are private companies and the self-employed corrup too then. Schiller probably thinks that NGO’s are exempt from all legal requirements, do not need to be legally formed, are never transparent, are free to do anything they please and do not allow their members to freely vote against them by withdrawing their financial or other support.
Corporations have hierarchical chains of control, can use improper influence over governments (especially in a weak democracy and in less wealthy countries where governments are financially weak and desperate for investment) and pay for covert lobbyists and marketing campaigns to obscure good science. Those shareholders who vote (limited influence on some of the board) are a minority not usually those who provide the labour in the same company or those on the receiving end of negative externalities. The fatcats managing the workers’ pension funds often support cost savings by cutting workers and shifting labour offshore. The voting shareholder are vulnerable to loss of voting powers eg (sometimes hostile) takeovers against their wishes, particarly by private equity these days (no votes or transparency there!) MNC’s are highly skilled at shuffling operations to the least regulated country where they pay bribes as taxes and lower labour standards to increas margins. Corporations have minimal transparency and try to increase profits by dodging social responsibilities and reducing competition to acheive oligopoly or monopoly market conditons where possible. Companies pay lawyers to dodge and undermine legal obligations (today’s eg Tristar) or do the minimum and not 1 dime more so all businesses are inherently corrupt then.
Been sucking those lemons again Schiller? So “every NGO is inherently corrupt”, and yet governments and corporations, because they are elected, are not? How does that logic work Schiller? If that is the case, and those that are elected are “accountable”, then that should make it doubly despicable if they are proven to be corrupt.
Eric, I would think that a good example of
irresponsible behaviour at the moment would be
http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/24-01-2007/86712-indonesia_volcano-0
Individuals associated with Enron and AWB scandals going/likely to go to jail. But individuals associated with Greenpeace, Wahli, ‘hockey stick’, Rosia Montania scandals not even investigated.
Oh they have voluntary elections do they. I never knew that Rog. (!?!)
Anyway Rog so you’re now contradicting Schiller saying that voting isn’t a good indicator of representation. Thanks for playing and getting your player out.
As for AWB – weeelll – no pollies will suffer I’m sure.
As for Hockey Stick – well there’s no charge to answer.
So as often we learn that broad sweeping generalisations don’t always fit the data.
If Phil (who also posts as Luke)was more consistent he might, in my opinion, recognise that there is a charge to answer for on the ‘hockey stick’ and people will go to jail over AWB. So I repeat, corporate bosses go to jail for fraud, while environmental activists tend to win awards.
On the issue of deception: Deborah and La Pantera Rosa are the same person and Phil and Luke are also one and the same. Is this not a form of deception … for the one person to post under two names… and why do they do it? Is there a perceived advantage? My dictionary includes the following words against ‘deceit’: to bluff, cover-up, fake, pretence, ruse, sham, hoax, trick.
Come on Jen – hands up if you were conned or even near being conned. Does nobody have a sense of humour anymore. What is a con is some of the dishonest claims being made. Playing as a sock puppet usually involves some subterfuge, manevolence and a direct intent to deceive.
I suggest your outrage is bluff in itself !
And if you’re still in the mood for discussion, I could say so Mann et al have been criticised for their choice of stats (well gee let’s lock up our solar friends too). But maybe I was just trying to wreck the thread and cause a Hockey Stick row. No I’m just suggesting we don’t get seriously diverted.
We have a dresdful situation with Richard Ness’s predicament – so should we not be concentrating on that as opposed to generalities that all NGOs are sus. I now defer to those progressing that discussion
When Green Fundamentalists team up with Islamic Fundamentalists, as they did to get Richard Ness, that is a pretty formidable alliance. And not a shred of accountability in either case. The former get to Heaven for their actions, while the latter are idolised and showered with money and awards for theirs.
So the ‘Hockey Stick’ has nothing to answer for.
Well, if the IPCC and it’s Lead Author, Mann, were a public corporation in Australia, they would be facing criminal charges, and their directors, possible jail terms.
‘Readers are warned to approach this identity with caution and always keep a big stick handy.’
‘When Green Fundamentalists team up with Islamic Fundamentalists, as they did to get Richard Ness’
Sid I assume you know the Indonesians involved are Islamic Fundamentalists, not simply muslims or even Christians (which do happen to exist in Indonesia)? If you don’t know, then you are being prejudice.
Sid also wrote ‘And not a shred of accountability in either case, ‘ whilst Eric wrote ‘These individuals have been discredited now in the court.’ I don’t think any of us will know if they have been more than discredited as a result of this, and as the verdict is not in, there may be further consequences for them to face. Trial by blog is typical here.
It astounds me how Jennifer can compare ‘hockey stick’ and Greenpeace to AWB and Enron, but then given her tirade about Luke/Phil and La Pantera/Deborah?, maybe not. The constant backlash against these two for using names that are perhaps not their own whilst ignoring others who do the same illustrates the rationale of personal prejudice mirrored against anything environmental. It is not about what these people write, but rather who they are, in the eyes of Jennifer, Rog and so many others here. Fundamentalism indeed. Fairness in court for Richard Ness, and fairness on this blog. I hold grave doubts either will be accomplished.
A rule at this weblog is that you stick with one identity and use an email address that works. Also unless you have new information to add, best to limit your contribution to 2-3 posts in any 24 hour period. I reserve the right to delete comments and/or edit them. Cheers,
I commend Jennifer for the rule that posters should stick to one identity, and restrict postings to two to three each 24 hr.
If a contributor uses up to three identities, as some contributors apparently do,then they can post up to nine postings a day. Pretty clever!
Jennifer,
I would expect, given your email to me, you will delete Sid’s 2:25 post.
Libby, Your earlier comment (now deleted) was encouraging others to break the few rules at this blog. As I have written to you/emailed, if you want some discussion of ‘the rules’, then write me a blog post and we can start a new thread. Instead of snipping, do something constructive, I’m happy to faciliate the discussion but not at this thread.
Travis, if you want to accuse specific posters of acting with personal prejudice you must supply the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing the same.
Rog, if you are referring to my comment re Sid’s Green Fundamentalists/Islamic Fundamentalists, read what I wrote again. In fact I would like Sid to supply the evidence he knows these people are Islamic Fundamentalists. If he can and they are, that’s fine. But I find the apparent presumption that because they live in Indonesia and have these views they must therefore be Islamic Fundamentalists, which in the current climate hold negative connotations, prejudicial. I have found no evidence in what has been written thus far to indicate that these people are Islamic Fundamentalists, and this is what I am basing my assumption, re Sid’s comment, on.
To read between the lines Rog, I don’t like people from certain backgrounds being labelled, particularly when there is a lot of negative press and feeling about the label.
“Well, if the IPCC and it’s Lead Author, Mann, were a public corporation in Australia, they would be facing criminal charges, and their directors, possible jail terms.” – Sid are you a nut case?
“It’s lead author” – one person – jeez you’re obviously clueless too.
And where did your rainfall analysis go Sid – notice you did a runner.