Race Discrimination as Conflict Base of Freeport Indonesia Corporation Labor in Foucault Perspective
Label:
Sastra
by D. Jupriono
26 Desember 2012
Paper for The 3rd International Conference: Urban Mobility, Its Impacts on Socio-cultural and Health Issues, Erlangga University, December 7-8, 2012
D. Jupriono
Program Studi S-1 Ilmu Komunikasi
FISIP,
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya
In a
long time to 2012 the source of PT
Freeport Indonesia mine
labor conflict,
Timika, Papua, is
always reported in limited scope of salary difference inter labor groups. With Foucault’s
critical discourse analysis perspective, it is
found that the first trigger of conflict is labor race discrimination, namely
labor race of native Papua
( Negrid race, dark skin) and
labor race of non-native Papua
(Mongolid-Malayid race, light
skin). This race discrimination becomes biopolitic practice. Next,
the horizontal conflict is reconciled through series of dialogue under company
control, as panoptic system revelation, in
order to guarantee obedience and labor productivity at once covering reality
that Freeport
exploits very big profit, Freeport
exploitation destroys environment, and Timika people remains in poverty
Key words: race discrimination, biopolitic, critical discourse analysis, hidden elements, knowledge power
INTRODUCTION
Freeport Indonesia Corporation has become the biggest gold producing corporation in the world.Therefore, it is reasonable that PT Freeport is the biggest tax payer to Indonesia too. As a gold, copper, silver, molybdenum, rhenium mine corporation whose shares dominantly owned by Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (USA), Freeport Corporation has done exploration in Papua, precisely at Erstberg (since 1967) and Grasberg (since 1988), Tembaga Pura, Timika, Papua Province. Freeport, acting in collusion with authority (government), has taken profit as much as billion calculation, while conversely, local society only become labor who generally get violence, oppression, torment, and must stay at destroyed environment (Zainudin, 2012).
The existence of Freeport invites people from out of Papua, domestic as well as foreign citizens. By holding mine industrial activity, the existing natural primitive cultural life has to be mixed with industrial urban cultural life. This condition brings logic consequency for the birth of conflict potencial society. Freeport in fact, often causes conflict. There are local people conflict with company and security staffs; Freeport labor conflict with company; inter-labor conflict, namely native with non-native labor groups.
This thesis rises conflict news at one of Freeport mine activity locations in Timika,
Papua. This small scale conflict is very suitable to interpret from critical
discourse analysis perspective of Michel Foucault (Alba-Juez, 2009). It can be
done indeed, by applying general /descriptive discourse analysis. Descriptive
perspective however will only yield shallow result, it has not reached actual
problem. Through descriptive perspective, the news discourse “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Akibat Intimidasi Karyawan” (Freeport
Production Stops Due to Employee Intimidation) (Berita
Metro, Feb. 28, 2012: 5), example, it only
explains textual meaning that aksi
intimidasi antarkaryawan menyebabkan Freeport memberhentikan sementara
produksinya (intimidation action inter-employee causes Freeport stoping
production temporarily) (cf. Jupriono, 2012)—not more than that!
What kind of meaning can be resulted from similar news by using Foucault’s critical discourse analysis perspective, this case will be discussed. This study is focused on text analysis of Freeport labor conflict according to Foucault perspective. The main data is a news “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Akibat Aksi Intimidasi Karyawan” (Berita Metro, 28 Feb. 2012: 5). The data contains of 11 paragraphs. (To make efficiency, for next the term of paragraph will be written p; paragraph 1 will be written as p1, paragraph 2 as p2, etc.). (Data is included at the end of this article)
FOUCAULT CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Globally there are perspectives in discourse analysis, namely descriptive and critical discourse analysis. Both perspective have difference on discourse aspect focus.
Descriptive discourse analysis is often called discourse analysis—withouth word ‘descriptive’! In descriptive discourse analysis, discourse is considered as language unit which is bigger than sentence or clause (Brown & Yule, 1983). Utterance text of paragraph in descriptive perspective is normally analyzed from: (i) situational context, (ii) cohession-coherence, (iii) local and analogy interpretation principles, (iv) implicature, (v) presupposition, (vi) references, (vii) general world knowledge. Although appearing completely, discourse in this case is seen as merely linguistic phenomenon. Therefore, descriptive discourse analysis fails to get conflict dimension and hidden authority behing text: oppression, social defect, ideology, dominance-subordinate relation.
That failure can somehow be solved by critical discourse analysis. Discourse, in critical perspective, represents social reality covered with authority and conflict dominance (cf. Haryatmoko 2010; Jupriono 2010). Critical discourse analysis considers discourse as organized linguistic practice constructing social praxis (speaking, thinking, acting) to change or maintain authority dominance.
Critical discourse analysis figure who gives much attention on authority dimension specifically is Michel Foucault (1926-1984), a French authority philosopher (Kelly 2010). According to Foucault, authority spreads unlocalized, “ada di mana-mana”, meresap dalam seluruh relasi sosial; subjek kekuasaan tidak harus seorang raja, perdana menteri, atau presiden terhadap rakyatnya (“existing every where”, penetrating into whole social relations; authority subject does not have to be a king, ministry or president toward his people) (cf. Jupriono, 2011a), even it can emerge from husband and wife relation, couple of lovers, doctor-patient, psychologist-client, lecturer-student, supervisor-worker, (cf. O'Farrell, 2007), also inter students, inter labors, inter PKL (vendors), etc. it is not monopolized by anyone, not operating in knowledge relation and complex strategic situation in society. Authority is discipline order related closely with knowledge ambition, which is not always repressive, but productive. It emerges when there are difference and discrimination. Authority control is run with discipline mechanism, normalization, panoptic system, classification, and identification (Haryatmoko, 2010; 2012). This radical figure speaks about how authority is seen, accepted, practiced as truth and functionable in certain fields.
Foucault critical discourse analysis tecnique is not only different from descriptive discourse analysis, nevertheless it is also different from other critical perspectives (van Dijk, Fairclough, van Leeuwen, Mills, Fowler, and perhaps also Bourdieu). Discourse in Foucault perspective is analyzed through six steps: (1) topic selection, (2) data intensification, (3) theme identification, (4) hidden discourse element searching, (5) discourse inter-element meaning relation searching, and (6) discourse element contextualization in authority-knowledge net (Alba-Juez, 2009).
FREEPORT LABOR CONFLICT IN
FOUCAULT PERSPECTIVE
Analysis of news text “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Akibat Intimidasi Karyawan” (Freeport Production Stops Due to Employee Intimidation) through Foucault perspective in this study uses six formula steps composed by Alba-Juez (2009) as the followings.
On the step (i) topic selection, the reader is faced with several topics. The main topic, of course, is the stoping of Freeport production process due to conflict inter labors. When it is formulated according to Foucault language, this topic directly relates with authority concept spreading and productive with procedure mechanism of forbiddance, discrimination, and opposition (Haryatmoko, 2012). In Freeport corporation context, authority is not only practiced by management segment, it is also however, inter employees, namely inter employees who do strike and who do not (paragraph 3, 9, 10). Forbiddance, discrimination, and oposition procedures—it means in this area, dominance-subordinate authority relation is in operation—reflected from: employees who strikes and who do not (p3, 9, 10), Timika Regency government and PT Freeport management (p4, 5), worker union and Freeport management (p8), ans worker union and Kapolda (Regional Head Police) Papua (p11). On p9, example, conflict of both groups of labor is seen:
“... terdapat beberapa yang telah melakukan tindakan kekerasan dan intimidasi terhdap rekan-rekan mereka yang tidak mengikuti aksi mogok kerja dan terhadap penyelianya ... (p9) (Berita Metro, Feb. 28, 2012: 5)
Data Intensification (ii) conducted by comprehending main data text of news “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Akibat Intimidasi Karyawan” (Berita Metro, 28 Feb. 2012). It is followed with tracking information from other relevant text. For this case, it does not neglect the news: “Unjuk Rasa Karyawan Freeport Berujung Bentrok” (Freeport Employee Strike Ends with Riot (Fajar, 11 Okt. 2011); “Freeport Kembali Bergejolak” (Freeport Returns to Flare up), Kontan, 24 Feb. 2012; “Pekerja Bersengketa, Freeport Hentikan Produksi” (Workers Quarrel, Freeport Stops Production), Kontan, 27 Feb. 2012; “Hatta: Royalti Freeport Jangan Hanya 1%” (Freeport Royalty do not only 1%), www.tribunnews.com, 21 Feb. 2012; “Laba Freeport Mengalami Penurunan 60%” (Freeport Profit Decreases 60%), www.tribunnews.com, 21 Jan. 2012; “Freeport Indonesia”, http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki, Jan. 2012.
Theme Identification (iii), next step, toward the news texts the writer describes next themes. (a) Authority is productive: Freeport exploits benefit very much by all out exploiting Timika natural environment. (b) Authority
spreads with discrimination mechanism: Employee
Intimidation is done by native employees toward non-native employees because of
accepted labor salary difference. (c) Panoptic
technique is effective to create obedience and employee discipline: meeting series committed by Kapolda, Timika Regency Government, and PKB agreement delicately become unvisible control, which make disputing parties “compelled” to obey regulation and situation discipline.
Hidden Elements (iv) behind the main news text “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Akibat Intimidasi Karyawan” are: (a) what factors become the cause that make a group of labors
(group
I) intimidate and torment
other labor group (kelompok II); (b) what becomes the main Perjanjian
Kerja Bersama (PKB) (Cooperative Work
Agreement) XVII between PT
Freeport and Worker Union; (c) why is the news source person interviewed only Head of
Social Department, Work Force and Transmigration , Mimika Dionisius (p2-5) and the spokesman of PT Freeport, Ramdani Sirait (p7-8).
If the main data news text
is seen intensively, the cause that group I does violence toward group
II is not found explicitly. Fortunately however, (it has been mentioned 4 times), the labor group
as the doer of violence are those who several days before did strike action, while group of victims are workers who do not join strike. (p1, 3, 9, 10). This strike becomes keyword to uncover hidden
reality behind discourse; it becomes entry point for bigger problem
introduction. By asking help from the second step (data intensification), a reader will pursue to
ask: why does group I insist to do strike; what is demanded; who (from what group) actually group I is? (The reader has to be reminded, that all of these
questions are impossible to answer in main data text!). Group I does strike
because their aspiration of salary equality is never responded. The demand of group I is their work salary equality with
group II’s. Group I derives from 7 tribes of native Papua, while group II are from out of Papua. (Fajar,
11 Okt. 2011). It is interesting enough that the protest
incident ends with riot that 9 people injured and 1 person dead. (10
Okt. 2011) which remains to be main news for the next 5 months (www.tribunnews.com, 27
Feb. 2012).
What becomes the main content of Perjanjian
Kerja Bersama (Cooperative Work
Agreemet) (PKB) XVII between PT
Freeport and Worker Union of PT Freeport is next hidden elements. The content is not
certainly known. Based on standard knowledge in general, PKB should contain agreement of right, duty, responsibility,
sanction of both parties. There is other often forgotten discourse however, that forgotten one is even bigger than those which is
uncover through mass media, for example
about the empirical fact on the field that:
“Usaha pertambangan di Tanah Air hingga saat
ini lebih banyak memicu beragam masalah serius, mulai mdari pelanggaran aturan
dan hokum, konflik sosial dan horizontal, kerusakan lingkungan tidak
terkendali, hingga ujung-ujungnya tindakan kriminal dan kekerasan. Praktik
usaha ini pun belum banyak memberikan kesejahteraan nyata bagi masyarakat (Kompas, Feb. 20,
2012: 1)
Timika Freeport Corporation is also very greedy to exploit Timika nature and for many years has exploited profit in
billion. All of these run smoothly since the collusion with local officers and TNI person. Timika people—as be predictable—remains adversed in
poverty and in destroyed natural environment. It has not been counted
yet that human right violation is in it (Waidmandin, 2012).
Next hidden elements are why news source person
interviewed are only Kepala Dinas
Sosial, Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi (Head of Social Department, Work Force and
Transmigration) Mimika Dionisius
(p2-5) and spokesman of PT
Freeport, Ramdani Sirait (p7-8). It is not coincidence of course, that Berita
Metro daily news (Feb. 28, 2012) interviews both source persons. From Foucault perspective (Kelly, 2010; Haryatmoko,
2010), discourse is a practice organized and organizing autonomy
and claim of knowledge truth. Therefore, both figures in this context are considered favored by social structure
justifying them to practice autonomy and knowledge. Why Berita Metro journalist asks both figures—and not other
figures—it has become
episteme, as dominant meaning structure in this era (cf.
O'Farrell, 2007; Haryatmoko, 2012) of journalist: who mostly asked are both figures; when there
is incident,
who has to be interviewed is the spokesman, not the doer or the victim, for example.
Why is there no
investigation result discussing group I and II aspirations, while in fact both groups
involve
in conflict? It must be admitted
once more, that meaning structure operating and dominating on journalist heads (episteme)
is such that. Applied Episteme
in this era is: person
considered mostly knows ( mastering
knowledge)
is not directly involved person in a case, but the social structurally admitted ones as the knowledge holder of that
case. In Foucault perspective, knowledge is an
episteme regime organized and organizing for example in psychiatry, medic,
journalism, economy
which are able to change social constellation and is productive
(Haryatmoko, 2012).
Those three hidden
elements represent specification of Foucault concept about operating authority (O'Farrell 2007; Haryatmoko
2010). This representation indicates the beginning of level (v) determination of meaning relation of
discourse inter-element, manifested as well
as latented elements. For Foucault
(Haryatmoko 2002), authority begins from discrimination practice. It is more practiced than
possessed,
which is run from micro level as capilary pipe
(from below to above). Authority is not anymore about negative ones (opressing,
sensoring) but also productive
which derives from individuals
hegemonied by system guaranteeing obedience, normalization,
and
body discipline.
In Freeport labor conflict case, authority practice
is firstly done by group I (native
Papua) toward group II (non-native Papua). It occurs since
there is salary discrimination inter both groups. This
conflict arises in low level labor group, then diffused capillarily to vertical level,
to move various new authority practice at upper management level and institution
(spokesman of Freeport [p7], Timika Regency Government [p6], to Kapolda (Regional Police Head) Papua [p11]). When Mimika Regency Government expects report from Freeport about inter-employee intimidation case which causes
stopping production (p4, p5), when Regency
Government plans to facilitate meeting of Freeport management and Worker Union (p6), when Kapolda
Papua (Regional Head Police) conducts
meeting with Pengurus Unit Kerja Serikat Pekerja (Worker Union Department Management) of
PT
Freeport (p11), there exists
curiousity as early practice of
dominance toward object and person/other group. Authority strategy closely
relates with curiosity; curiosity means a
will to reign.
Authority attaches knowledge (Kelly
2010; cf. Haryatmoko 2010).
Michel Foucault considers that authority on any level
exists when there is difference and discrimination (class, religion,
gender, status, race, etc.).
Authority
target is social and individual body obedience, in order the
productivity increases.
Authority dominance
practice however always brings out resistance too. It happens, since according to Foucault, authority spreads unlocalized, penetrating in all
social relation and unmonopolized at all. Authority can not be separated from
knowledge ambition, it is not always repressive, but productive. Authority
control is conducted with discipline mechanism, normalization,
panoptic system,
classification, and identification.
On urban community in
cities,
authority practice
is biopolitic practice, namely social life control through regulation and discipline normalization
of population body, social guarantee, tax,
and assurance.
Authority target is individual and social obedience, in order productivity increases. Differentiating
between group I from native Papua (Negrid race, dark skin) and group II
from non-native Papua (Mongolid-Malayid race, light skin) (Suprijo, 1990) is plainly practice of body politic. Foucault (in Haryatmoko, 2012) introduces a new terminology of biopolitic, namely social life control through regulation and
discipline normalization of population body, social
guarantee, tax,
health, urbanization.
In this context
salary difference beween group I
and group II of Freeport labors can be understood as really
biopolitical praxis. Bodies are made to obey, disciplined through series of capital industry regulation (terms of entry, work hours,
production target, job description, payment, sanction,
etc.) in order to increase productivity. It always
happens, however: where it exists authority, there comes
resistance since authority spreads and derives from everywhere (Haryatmoko, 2010).
Through Foucault
perspective, therefore it can be found that the early conflict trigger is race
discrimination toward labors, namely native Papua labor race (Negrid race, dark
skin) and non-native Papua labor race (Mongolid-Malayid race, light skin). This
race discrimination is political practice of biopolitic.
Finally, the analysis of news text “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Sementara Akibat Aksi Intimidasi Karyawan” (Berita Metro, Feb. 28, 2012) from Foucault
critical discourse analysis perspective enters the finishing (vi): discourse element contextualization in authority-knowledge net. Based on previous steps (i—v), discourse
elements will be contexualized into authority and knowledge discourse totality
on Freeport labor conflict. The contextualization is
narrated as follows.
Freeport Corporation gives salary to native Papua labors far below what non-native get. This difference triggers the strike action of native Papua labors.
Since they do not support this action, non native Papua labors are
intimidated by native Papua labors. Conflict between these labors is reconciled through dialogue meeting series between both labor groups under Timika Regency Government control, PT Freeport management, and Kapolda Papua. This sustained
dialogue approach makes labors to choose obedient and finish the strike or collision inter labors and lead them to work normally, therefore productivity reincreases. Reader
public, however forgets that PT Freeport which is in collusion with several officers and some persons of TNI (Indonesian
State Army) have taken very much profit for many years by exploiting all out of
Timika land, therefore it
destroys natural environment of Timika badly, while on the other hand Timika social life
remains poorly in poverty. It is obvious that Freeport
mine exploitation is the reflection of Neoliberalism practice(cf. Indara, 2012).
Finally, different
from descriptive discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis will formulate
contextualization of discourse inter elements into conclusion: Salary discrimination based on race
difference in Freeport labor group triggers horizontal conflict which is
reconciled through dialogue series conducted under company control, therefore
it guarantees obedience and labor productivity at once covering bad impact of
exploitation and PT Freeport Indonesia
greediness and poverty of society surrounding Freeport.
CONCLUSION
Freeport mine labor conflict is very suitable
to understand from Foucault critical discourse analysis
perspective. In critical discourse analysis, discourse is
organized in linguistic practice constructing social praxis (speaking,
thinking, acting) to change or maintain authority
dominance.
Discourse always represents social reality which is full
with conflict and authority dominance. Especially
on Foucault,
critical discourse analysis focuses on relation totality
of manifested and hidden discourse elements to unclose relation of authority
dominance inter groups.
Michel
Foucault considers that authority on any level
is reflected when there is difference and discrimination (class,
religion, gender, status, race, etc.). Authority target is individual and social body obedience
in order to increase productivity.
Authority dominance
practice, however always brings resistance. It happens
because, according to Foucault,
authority
spreads unlocalized, penetrates in all
socialrelation and not monopolized by anyone. Authority relates closely with knowledge ambition, which is not always
repressive, however it is productive. Authority control is run with discipline mechanism,
normalization, panoptic system, classification, and identification.
On urban community in the
cities,
authority practice is biopolitic practice,
namely social life control through regulation and
discipline normalization of people,
social
guarantee, tax,
and assurance.
Connected with labor conflict, in a long time to 2012 the source of PT Freeport Indonesia mine labor conflict, Timika, Papua, is always reported in limited scope of salary difference inter labor groups. With Foucault’s critical discourse analysis perspective, it is found that the first trigger of conflict is labor race discrimination, namely labor race of native Papua ( Negrid race, dark skin) and labor race of non-native Papua (Mongolid-Malayid race, light skin). This race discrimination becomes biopolitic practice. Next, the horizontal conflict is reconciled through series of dialogue under company control, as panoptic system revelation, in order to guarantee obedience and labor productivity at once covering reality that Freeport exploits very big profit, Freeport exploitation destroys environment, and Timika people remains in poverty.
According to Foucault, knowledge is authority line (Haryatmoko, 2012). Therefore knowledge objectivity-neutrality is nonsense; knowledge always takes sides. The writer frankly stands on critical discourse analysis line! Perhaps, that is why, weakness in descriptive perspective is more fast found than in critical perspective.
Discourse
text is constructed for basic activity of human interaction. It always emerges in communicative occurence. In this case, there are 7 textuality standards, constitutive principles: cohession, coherence, intensionality, receptiveness,
informativity, situationality, and intertextuality (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1986: 3). Those seven textuality standards are proper
to develop in Continental European Linguistic Tradition, while in Anglo-American Linguistic Tradition the textuality
standard focuses merely on cohession-coherence of discourse
(Santoso, 2010). It is clear that descriptive perspective does
not fulfill textuality standard, on the other hand critical perspective fulfills the
standard. In
reading conflict, interpreting social defect, absolutely critical perspective
can be more expected than descriptive one.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alba-Juez, L. 2009. Perspectives on Discourse Analysis: Theory
and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge S.P.
de
Beaugrande, R.A. & W.U. Dressler, 1986. Introduction to Text
Linguistics. Ed. III. Harlow-Essex: Longman.
Haryatmoko. 2010. “Michel
Foucault Membuka Kedok Pengetahuan, Kekuasaan, dan Kebenaran”, (page.
8-13) in. Dominasi
Penuh Muslihat: Akar Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi. Jakarta: PT Gramedia
Pustaka Utama.
Haryatmoko. 2012. “Michel
Foucault dan Politik Kekuasaan: Membongkar Teknik, Mekanisme, dan Strategi
Kekuasaan”. Material of Pelatihan Analsisis Wacana Michel Foucault. UK2JT, FIB Unair, March 1,
2012.
Indara, A.L. 2012. “Praktek
Neoliberalisme Dalam Eksploitasi Hasil Tambang Di Papua”. www.log.ub.ac.id/notyoubutme/2012/07/27/praktek-neoliberalisme- Access August 17, 2012.
Jupriono, D. 2011. “Bahasa
Politik Pencitraan Presiden SBY dalam Perspektif Linguistik Kritis”, page
111-122, Prosiding Seminar Nasional
Linguistik & Sastra Dahulu, Sekarang dan Akan Datang, I.N. Azhar &
D. Ikawati A. (ed.). Surabaya: ITS Press & Prodi Sastra Inggris FISIB
Unijoyo Bangkalan.
Jupriono, D. 2012.
“Analisis Wacana Deskriptif dan Analisis Wacana Kritis: Analisis Berita Konflik
Buruh Tambang PT Freeport Indonesia”, page. 17—27 in Misnadin (ed.), Wacana Bahasa dan Sastra Bandingan sebagai
Khasanah Nusantara. Surabaya: CV Putra Media Nusantara.
Kelly,
M. 2010. “Michel Foucault”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.iep.utm.edu/foucault/(Access 20 May 2012)
O'Farrell, C. 2007. “Key concepts”. www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/index.html
(Access May 20.
2012)
Santoso, A. 2000. “Paradigma
Kritis dalam Kajian Kebahasaan”. Bahasa
dan Seni 28(2) August: 127-146.
Santoso, A.
2010. “Teori
Wacana: Dari Paradigma Deskriptif Ke Paradigma Kritis”. http://studibahasakritis.blogspot.com/2010/05/ (Access
May 20, 2012)
van de Velde, R.G.
1984. Prolegomena to Inferential
Discourse Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamin P.C.
Waidmandin, S. 2012. “ Pelanggaran Indonesia Di Papua: Mengapa Orang Papua Ingin Merdeka?”. http://phaul-heger.blogspot.com/2012/07/pelanggaran-indonesia-di-papua.html Access August 17, 2012.
Wodak, R. 2008. “The Contribution ff Critical Linguistics to the Analysis of
Discriminatory Prejudices and Stereotypes in the Language of Politics”. (p. 291–316)
in Handbook of Communication in the
Public Sphere, R. Wodak, V. Koller, V. Berlin (eds.).
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zainudin. 2012. “Aktivitas Tambang
dan Dampak Kerusakan Alam”. www.phylopop.com/2012/05 Accsess August 17, 2012.
DATA SOURCE
Berita
Metro, 22
Feb. 2012. “Desak Freeport Naikkan Royalti”, page. 1,
7.
Berita
Metro, 27
Feb. 2012. “Menata Aturan Pertambangan: Rawan KKN, Kontrol Pengawasan Lemah”, page.
5.
Berita
Metro, 28
Feb. 2012. “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Sementara Akibat Intimidasi Karyawan”, page
5.
Jawa
Pos, 22
Feb. 2012. “2011, Freeport Setor Rp 21 T”, page 5.
Kompas, 20
Feb. 2012. “Tambang Banyak Picu Masalah”, page 1,
15.
ENCLOSURE
Berita Metro Copy, Feb. 28,
2012. “Produksi Freeport Berhenti Sementara Akibat Intimidasi Karyawan”, page
5.
