Colonial laws for the press: An insult to press freedom

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.