'Time' vs. Soeharto<\/p>\n
Although still open to appeal, the Central Jakarta District
\nCourt's decision to reject former president Soeharto's
\nmultibillion dollar lawsuit against the American newsmagazine
\nTime can rightly be called a victory for press freedom in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
In its ruling, the court decided on Tuesday to throw out the
\nex-president's lawsuit on the grounds that it lacked evidence and
\nthat the Time report did in fact not constitute a defamation of
\ncharacter.<\/p>\n
Time magazine, in a cover story dated May 24, 1999, reported
\nthat Soeharto's family had stashed away some US$15 billion,
\npresumably amassed during his 32 years in power. The money, the
\nreport said, was invested in real estate and other assets in
\nseveral countries from Great Britain to New Zealand.<\/p>\n
The report also said shortly after the former autocrat's
\ndownfall in May 1998, some $9 billion of the money was hurriedly
\ntransferred from Switzerland to Austria.<\/p>\n
At the time it appeared, the report created quite a stir in
\nIndonesia, affirming, as it were, what Indonesians had long
\nsuspected but were unable to prove. The magazine sold out in a
\nmatter of hours after its appearance and had to be reprinted.<\/p>\n
The Soeharto family reacted by filing a defamation lawsuit for
\nRp 280 billion for material damages and Rp 180 trillion for
\nnonmaterial damages.<\/p>\n
Time magazine, however, said it stood by its report, saying it
\nwas based on meticulously researched facts and interviews. For
\nhis part, Soeharto's lawyer, Juan Felix Tampubolon, said he would
\nappeal the court decision, which he said was unfair because it
\nconsidered merely the \"journalistic aspects\" of the case.<\/p>\n
The case, though barely reported by the Indonesian media, puts
\nthe spotlight on one particular question concerning press freedom
\nin Indonesia: How far can the media go in revealing what it knows
\n-- or believes it knows -- about abuses committed by state
\nofficials without risking its neck?<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, reforms notwithstanding, the law still often
\nsides with those who are in power. Under the old colonial law,
\ncriticism of someone in high office -- say, the president of the
\nRepublic -- could be taken to amount to the intentional spreading
\nof hatred against the government. Hence the name haatzaai
\nartikelen, (\"hate-sowing\" articles of law).<\/p>\n
In the past, this provision effectively kept the media from
\nreporting abuses committed by state officials, especially those
\nin the higher echelons of the bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Though seldom used at present, the possibility of such a
\nbacklash still hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of
\nnewspaper editors.<\/p>\n
What Indonesia needs is a law to protect the free flow of
\ninformation. Under such a law, public figures in particular would
\nbe required to watch their actions, knowing that they are
\nconstantly kept under surveillance by the watchful eyes of the
\nmedia.<\/p>\n
In the case of public officials, even in cases where the media
\nturns out to be wrong, it cannot be sued in a court of law unless
\nmalicious intent can be proved.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia's case, it may take a while for this country to
\nmove in that direction. Even so, the media can take heart in
\nknowing that in this country, too, the judiciary is gradually
\nturning itself into an independent institution.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/time-vs-soeharto-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}