Photo: Mansfield Pro Fellows blog
Throughout 2024, the IX Government, through the Secretary of State for Toponymy and Urban Organization Affairs (SEATOU), has implemented a sweeping campaign of eviction, demolition and confiscation aimed at clearing illegal urban settlements and preventing unlicenced economic activities. SEATOU’s actions have provoked widespread controversy and have deeply divided Timorese public opinion. A major incident occurred in Kampung Baru on 23 October, in which SEATOU and PNTL officials engaged in a mass brawl with street vendors, and a PNTL officer discharged his service weapon, reportedly wounding a vendor. In light of this incident and the ongoing controversy regarding SEATOU’s campaign, Fundasaun Mahein (FM) has written the following article analysing the Government’s actions and their implications for human rights and social stability in Timor-Leste.
Since the beginning of the current campaign, SEATOU’s actions have provoked significant debate and divided the Timorese public. On one hand, those citizens who support SEATOU’s actions believe that informal structures and street vendors should be removed as they cause traffic jams, improperly dispose of waste and contribute to untidy and unhygienic conditions in public spaces. They see the Government’s efforts as a necessary step toward improving order, safety and cleanliness. Some support the implementation of tough measures as they believe that Timorese are “stubborn” (ulun to’os) people who will only respond to threats of – or actual – violence.
These perspectives may also be driven, in part, by the fact that tens of thousands of people have settled on land without legal authorisation, especially during periods of conflict and upheaval such as 1999 and 2006. These large-scale, uncontrolled movements of people have resulted in the proliferation of urban slums along with huge numbers of land disputes, which remain a major driver of social conflict and court cases until today. As a result, many believe that it is important to remove those who have settled on land “illegally”, once and for all.
On the other hand, a significant portion of the population disagrees with SEATOU’s methods and the Government’s broader approach to enforcing urban management rules. While most recognise that informal vendors and settlers are technically breaking the law, critics argue that the violent tactics used to enforce eviction orders and “clear” urban spaces of vendors are excessive and have led to human rights violations and social conflict. Many others are simply dismayed by the aggression shown by state forces towards their fellow citizens who are seen as struggling to survive in a difficult economic situation.
FM acknowledges the problems associated with informal construction, illegal occupation of land and uncontrolled street vending; however, we find SEATOU’s heavy-handed approach deeply troubling. The brutality displayed toward ordinary people reveals authoritarian tendencies and a disregard for basic human rights. The violence not only harms people’s wellbeing and dignity but risks undermining social and political stability, while damaging the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of many.
The public discourse justifying the use of violence is also worrying. Statements suggesting that state forces are justified in using violence because “otherwise people won’t listen” contradict the principles of a Democratic Republic founded on the rule of law and respect for human dignity. Indeed, they are reminiscent of the Indonesian military dictatorship, a state which justified brutality and violence in the name of order and stability. Moreover, FM fears that the normalization of state violence to impose order sets a dangerous precedent for future interactions between the state and citizens.
For FM, SEATOU’s campaign also highlights the profound failure of successive governments to address the root causes of informality and precarity in this country. As we pointed out in a previous article, unregulated street vending, squatting and related social ills are symptoms of deeper structural problems – namely, the lack of modernisation of the economy and society. Since independence, Timor-Leste’s policy makers have failed to significantly advance the modernisation process through meaningful investments in human resources, basic infrastructure, industrial development, and key systems and technologies such as waste management, telecommunications and e-governance. Instead, they have focused most of their energy on competing for power, “blocking” the efforts of the opposing side, and, when in power, implementing megaprojects or schemes that enrich elites and buy political support.
SEATOU’s campaign also reflects the elitism and inconsistency which has characterised Timor-Leste’s governance since independence. Although FM has made this point many times, we believe it is worth repeating: SEATOU’s aggressive enforcement of “law and order” contrasts sharply with the impunity enjoyed by Timor-Leste’s political and economic elites. While ordinary citizens are chased, beaten and have their houses demolished and goods destroyed, elites enjoy immunity for far greater violations of the law. Meanwhile, harmful practices such as dangerous driving, improper waste disposal, substandard construction and severe noise pollution are everyday occurrences across the country. Aside from sending SEATOU to harass vendors and demolish houses built on “state land” and installing public bins in some areas (most of which are constantly overflowing due to a lack of regular collection), the Government has so far failed to meaningfully tackle these anti-social behaviours. Nor has it provided any mechanism for reporting such practices, even though they arguably pose a much more serious threat to public health and safety than street vending.
FM sees a fundamental difference between crimes that cause direct harm to others, such as dangerous driving, theft or violence, and “crimes” like informal settlement and street vending, which are commonplace in developing countries with weak rule of law and widespread informality. In such contexts, criminalizing people for engaging in informal activities, which are often driven by economic necessity, is counterproductive and inhumane. The solution to informality lies in growing the formal sector to create legitimate employment opportunities and strengthening the implementation of rules and procedures across all levels of society, including within the government itself. In this regard, it is important to note that informality does not just exist in Timor-Leste’s streets, markets or bairros – it permeates the state as well. For instance, even basic bureaucratic processes often require leveraging personal contacts within government offices. This reality illustrates the futility of the state’s attempts to eradicate informal activities using brute force while informal practices remain deeply ingrained across society, including within the state administration. Only by addressing these systemic issues through a comprehensive approach can Timor-Leste reduce informality and strengthen the rule of law.
Sadly, SEATOU’s actions in the lead-up to the Pope’s visit suggest that politicians are more concerned with presenting a sanitised image to the world than addressing the root causes of poverty and informality. Indeed, the Government adopted similar tactics ahead of the 2016 CPLP conference in Dili, when informal vendors were forcibly removed to create an illusion of order and modernity. As illustrated by the fact that street vendors and informal markets always return in the same places after they are chased away, these superficial measures, while offering temporary cosmetic improvements, do nothing to resolve the underdevelopment which fuels informal practices. The continuation of this approach despite its obvious ineffectiveness points to leaders’ lack of seriousness to engage in the more complex and challenging work of building a modernised economy and society.
In conclusion, Fundasaun Mahein firmly believes that violence and other heavy-handed tactics are not the solution to informality and associated problems. Chasing away street vendors, confiscating goods and demolishing structures without addressing the underlying causes of informality only leads to injury, anger and social conflict. We therefore call on the Government to reconsider the approach to urban management which relies on physical force. Brutal enforcement of the “rule of law” is not only leading to human rights violations but also provoking division and conflict within society. Rather than relying on violence to terrorise the poor into compliance, leaders should engage in self-reflection to assess their own responsibility for the current situation facing this country. Only by addressing the root causes of informality and poverty can Timor-Leste become a more modern, orderly country. State violence will only breed discontent and resentment; when combined with the Government’s continued failure to create the conditions for a prosperous future, this is certain to lead to this country to disaster.
