Why did Hawarti describe Lapindo’s demand for proof of ownership or sworn oath as “all kinds of stories and tricks”?

In the compensation process, was Lapindo’s request for proof of land ownership reasonable? After disasters, what verification methods could be used to prevent fraud without putting the exclusive burden of proof on individual victims?

Aburizal Bakrie states that Lapindo paid only 20 percent of the claims it recognized, explaining, “We stopped paying when we faced financial difficulties in 2008. We were the richest family in Indonesia. We are nobody now.” How is the system designed to allow owner and shareholders to benefit from the company’s successes while letting them off the hook for financial obligations when things go badly? Who assumes the risk of corporate errors? What would need to change to make the system more fair?

After ten years, Hawarti receives her compensation payment. She is pleased that that she’ll be able to fund her daughter’s education. Did you find this small victory to be satisfying (or cathartic)? Why or why not?

Survivors say they are fighting for “justice.” What might justice for survivors look like in this situation?

A reporter asks Aburizal Bakrie what he learned from the mudflow. He answers, “It’s done. It’s been resolved… Your questions are boring.” What would you like him to say? How does his dismissal of the reporter serve his interests?

The government granted Lapindo permission to begin drilling again, arguing that the company must be able to generate revenue in order to repay loans related to mudflow victim compensation. Activists question why the government would risk another accident. If you were the responsible official, would you grant the permit? What would you want to know before making your decision?