Colonial laws for the press: An insult to press freedom<\/p>\n
The South Jakarta District Court sentenced the chief editor of
\nthe Rakyat Merdeka daily, Karim Paputungan, to five months in
\njail on Tuesday for printing a caricature that defamed Akbar
\nTandjung, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
\nchairman of the Golkar Party. The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti
\nspoke with human rights activist and noted lawyer Todung Mulya
\nLubis about the case. The following is an excerpt of the
\ninterview.<\/p>\n
Question: How do you see the five-month sentence for the chief
\neditor of Rakyat Merdeka?<\/p>\n
Answer: The issue is not the sentence itself, but using laws
\nfrom the colonial era in a time of a free press, which is an
\ninsult to the press and to press freedom.<\/p>\n
The verdict confirms the tendency of more repressive press
\nregulations. The press community must be more solid and work
\ntogether with the Press Council to advocate for the scrapping of
\nthe colonial era (defamation) clauses in the Criminal Code.<\/p>\n
I'm not saying that the press can't be brought to trial --
\nthey're not all professional -- but (complainants filing
\nlawsuits) should use the Press Law (which among other things
\nregulates the right of reply).
\nDon't judges know about the 1999 Press Law?<\/p>\n
They must know, which just shows they are a mere extension of
\nthe powerful. Judges should understand that public accountability
\nfor officials and businesspeople is absolute and it can only be
\nachieved through a free press.<\/p>\n
This (the trial) is ironic. This is a valuable lesson but
\nunfortunately the judges did not refer to the available
\njurisprudence on media cases.<\/p>\n
There was the case of Time magazine, which (former president)
\nSoeharto sued (in 2001, in relation to a story about his alleged
\npersonal wealth). The court decision was very good, it described
\nthe press as a means of public control and said media coverage
\nfor the public could not be considered an insult; and though a
\ncaricature may be considered insulting, it must be accepted as a
\nconsequence of criticism of the abuse of power.<\/p>\n
Satire or parody is a share of the political elite that they
\nmust accept. Maybe the caricature in Rakyat Merdeka (portraying
\nAkbar without a shirt) was very cynical, but our political elite
\nshould be mature (about such satire).
\nPresident Megawati Soekarnoputri is suing the same daily under
\nthe clause in the Criminal Code on insulting the head of state.<\/p>\n
This is very unfortunate; the press will face more and more
\nsuch lawsuits, but again it is an insult to use clauses from the
\ncolonial era today for the press (The chief editor of Tempo
\nmagazine, Bambang Harymurti, and two otherTempo journalists also
\nface defamation charges from a prominent businessman.)
\nAre all of these lawsuits because of the upcoming elections, with
\npoliticians seeking to protect their reputations?<\/p>\n
Not only that, it's because the government is getting more
\nsophisticated. It will no longer apply press bans or revoke press
\npublishing permits (which are no longer required). It will use
\nlegal proceedings to crush the press.<\/p>\n
Therefore it is the task of all of us to remind the judiciary
\nthat judges should not become an extension of repressive powers.<\/p>\n
Judges are not obliged to refer to jurisprudence, but it would
\nvery ignorant of them not to do so.<\/p>\n
There is also the case of the Garuda daily in Medan which
\nreached the Supreme Court (which ruled in favor of the daily in
\nthe late 1970s). The Court ruled that a free press is not
\nabsolute, it is always illusive because there is no absolute
\ntruth in media coverage. So as long as the court can prove that
\nthere is no malicious intent and reckless disregard on the part
\nof the media, the press cannot be found to be wrong. Demanding
\nabsolute truth from the press is the same as killing press
\nfreedom.<\/p>\n
How many inaccurate reports have there been on the war in Iraq
\nand also the war on Aceh? As long as minimum journalistic
\nstandards have been met, and as long as there is no proof of
\nmalicious intent, the coverage can be accepted.
\nWhy do we have these clauses on \"hate speech\" and defamation in
\nthe first place?<\/p>\n
They were created by the Dutch colonial rulers to crush the
\nindependence movement, and were targeted at the natives.<\/p>\n
A press can indeed be subjective and a caricature can indeed
\nbe demeaning, but in an increasingly mature political climate
\npeople should be more mature. Caricatures should be accepted as a
\npart of life among the elite. There have been so many highly
\ncynical caricatures in the world media, such as those on
\n(Britain's prime minister) Tony Blair, but the media was not put
\non trial.<\/p>\n
Which other country has such sedition laws? Do they belong in
\ncountries aspiring to democracy?<\/p>\n
Britain used to have such laws but they were scrapped them a
\nlong time ago.<\/p>\n
We are in a transitional period, and we came from a time of
\nrepressive government. So this is a golden opportunity to at
\nleast eliminate those clauses (in their use against the press).
\nMeanwhile, judges must take up a radical attitude and not apply
\n(inappropriate) laws of the colonial era.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/colonial-laws-for-the-press-an-insult-to-press-freedom-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}