No Telkom staff involved in phone tap: Nasution

BANDUNG (JP): President of state-owned telecommunications company PT Telkom Asman Akhir Nasution insisted there was little possibility Telkom officials were involved in the reported taping of a phone conversation between President B.J. Habibie and Attorney General A.M. Ghalib.

He said here on Sunday that the phone tap, if there was one, must have occurred outside of the main telephone station, which was guarded by Telkom officials at all times.

"For certain state installations, such as the telecommunications network for the President, the main distribution frame facility within the central station is kept in a special room guarded by intelligence officers," he said. "They have the key. Even I, the president of the company, cannot enter."

"The facility is guarded 24-hours a day, so there is small possibility that the tap was there," he said.

In the telephone network, up to 20 numbers are grouped in one distribution point box. From this facility, the network continues on to a bigger cable house -- which may consist of up to 2,400 numbers. From this second point, primary cables go to a central exchange station regulated by a main distribution frame.

Meanwhile, experts differed on whether Panji Masyarakat weekly violated journalistic ethics by publishing the transcript of the purported conversation between Habibie and Ghalib, where the two discussed the investigation into former president Soeharto.

Veteran journalist Atmakusumah Astraatmadja said the weekly was only carrying out an investigative report, while his colleague, Mochtar Lubis, said the weekly was wrong to run the story without confirmation from Habibie or Ghalib.

"Panji did not violate the Journalistic Codes of Ethic," said Atmakusumah, who is the director of the Dr. Soetomo Press Institute.

"The press is here to educate the public about affairs they should know about, and it is entrusted with the task of always presenting something new," Atmakusumah was quoted by Antara as saying.

He said the purported conversation contained information the public had a right to know about.

However, Mochtar said on Friday, "Journalists must know the limit, the extent to which they can or cannot go to publish information. Particularly if it concerns the state's interests."

The journalists should have first confirmed the recorded conversation was authentic, and if the two men involved were ready to be exposed, Mochtar stated.

Also on Saturday, renowned press observer Ashadi Siregar from Gadjah Mada University warned the press of being manipulated by parties wishing to achieve their own political ends.

"Most of the time, the press is dancing to other people's tunes... and the press has often fallen victim itself in the end," he told The Jakarta Post by phone from Yogyakarta.

Asked if Panji's journalists should protect their news sources, Ashadi said, "Yes, if they were sure they had not fallen into any (political) engineering behind the leakage of the information."

Atmakusumah, however, expressed concern over the possibility that the weekly would be pressured into revealing its source.

"That would be damaging for the Indonesian press and for the campaign to accelerate investigate reporting," he said.

Uni Zulfiani Lubis, the acting chief editor of Panji, was questioned by police last week but refused to the reveal the source of the recording.

Mochtar said the journalists could be brought to court and charged with divulging classified information.

Legal expert Andi Muis said in Ujungpandang, South Sulawesi, both Habibie and Ghalib could file either criminal or civil charges against the weekly if it continued to refuse to reveal its source.

However, the weekly is only doing what is known as the international journalistic practice of investigative reporting, he acknowledged.

He pointed out that Indonesia did not have a law on the publication of stories derived from phone taps.

Minister of Justice Muladi said last Thursday the taping of any phone conversation was against 1964's telecommunications Law No. 5 and the 1982 Nairobi Convention, which categorized such actions as crimes.

The person responsible for such a violation may be sentenced to up to five years in jail, he said. (43/27/29/01/aan/gis)