Colonial laws for the press: An insult to press freedom

The South Jakarta District Court sentenced the chief editor of the Rakyat Merdeka daily, Karim Paputungan, to five months in jail on Tuesday for printing a caricature that defamed Akbar Tandjung, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Golkar Party. The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti spoke with human rights activist and noted lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis about the case. The following is an excerpt of the interview.

Question: How do you see the five-month sentence for the chief editor of Rakyat Merdeka?

Answer: The issue is not the sentence itself, but using laws from the colonial era in a time of a free press, which is an insult to the press and to press freedom.

The verdict confirms the tendency of more repressive press regulations. The press community must be more solid and work together with the Press Council to advocate for the scrapping of the colonial era (defamation) clauses in the Criminal Code.

I'm not saying that the press can't be brought to trial -- they're not all professional -- but (complainants filing lawsuits) should use the Press Law (which among other things regulates the right of reply). Don't judges know about the 1999 Press Law?

They must know, which just shows they are a mere extension of the powerful. Judges should understand that public accountability for officials and businesspeople is absolute and it can only be achieved through a free press.

This (the trial) is ironic. This is a valuable lesson but unfortunately the judges did not refer to the available jurisprudence on media cases.

There was the case of Time magazine, which (former president) Soeharto sued (in 2001, in relation to a story about his alleged personal wealth). The court decision was very good, it described the press as a means of public control and said media coverage for the public could not be considered an insult; and though a caricature may be considered insulting, it must be accepted as a consequence of criticism of the abuse of power.

Satire or parody is a share of the political elite that they must accept. Maybe the caricature in Rakyat Merdeka (portraying Akbar without a shirt) was very cynical, but our political elite should be mature (about such satire). President Megawati Soekarnoputri is suing the same daily under the clause in the Criminal Code on insulting the head of state.

This is very unfortunate; the press will face more and more such lawsuits, but again it is an insult to use clauses from the colonial era today for the press (The chief editor of Tempo magazine, Bambang Harymurti, and two otherTempo journalists also face defamation charges from a prominent businessman.) Are all of these lawsuits because of the upcoming elections, with politicians seeking to protect their reputations?

Not only that, it's because the government is getting more sophisticated. It will no longer apply press bans or revoke press publishing permits (which are no longer required). It will use legal proceedings to crush the press.

Therefore it is the task of all of us to remind the judiciary that judges should not become an extension of repressive powers.

Judges are not obliged to refer to jurisprudence, but it would very ignorant of them not to do so.

There is also the case of the Garuda daily in Medan which reached the Supreme Court (which ruled in favor of the daily in the late 1970s). The Court ruled that a free press is not absolute, it is always illusive because there is no absolute truth in media coverage. So as long as the court can prove that there is no malicious intent and reckless disregard on the part of the media, the press cannot be found to be wrong. Demanding absolute truth from the press is the same as killing press freedom.

How many inaccurate reports have there been on the war in Iraq and also the war on Aceh? As long as minimum journalistic standards have been met, and as long as there is no proof of malicious intent, the coverage can be accepted. Why do we have these clauses on "hate speech" and defamation in the first place?

They were created by the Dutch colonial rulers to crush the independence movement, and were targeted at the natives.

A press can indeed be subjective and a caricature can indeed be demeaning, but in an increasingly mature political climate people should be more mature. Caricatures should be accepted as a part of life among the elite. There have been so many highly cynical caricatures in the world media, such as those on (Britain's prime minister) Tony Blair, but the media was not put on trial.

Which other country has such sedition laws? Do they belong in countries aspiring to democracy?

Britain used to have such laws but they were scrapped them a long time ago.

We are in a transitional period, and we came from a time of repressive government. So this is a golden opportunity to at least eliminate those clauses (in their use against the press). Meanwhile, judges must take up a radical attitude and not apply (inappropriate) laws of the colonial era.