Soeharto vs Time?

Soeharto vs Time?

Unless Soeharto and his lawyers are bluffing, we could soon
have an intriguing trial pitting the former president against the
New York-based Time magazine. Wherever the lawyers chose to file
their lawsuit, Jakarta or New York, Soeharto vs Time surely would
generate a lot of interest, not just here, but also abroad.
Imagine, the former despot of the world's fourth largest country
suing one of America's most renowned and reputable magazines. If
such a court case did not grab headlines across the world, it
would at least provide irresistible material for writers like
John Grisham.

Soeharto and his lawyers have threatened to take criminal and
civil action against the magazine for its "Suharto Inc." cover
story in its Asia edition published last week. The magazine said
Soeharto and his family amassed a US$15 billion fortune during
his 32 years in power, much of which they had stashed abroad.

Soeharto denies owning any assets abroad, but the denial does
not extend to his children's possessions. Time claims to have
proof that the $9 billion in funds transferred from a Swiss bank
to an Austrian bank moments after Soeharto's resignation in May
last year belongs to the former first family. Soeharto also
denied the allegation. His lawyers called the article libelous
and Soeharto described it as "cruel slander". Time says it stands
by its story.

No longer president, Soeharto is not necessarily powerless,
especially if his purported wealth truly exists. The former first
family certainly have the resources for a lengthy and costly
litigation, which this case would most likely be. Soeharto, for
example, has retained for some time now eight of Indonesia's top
lawyers to handle the government's investigation into his wealth.

It is uncertain, however, whether Soeharto and his children
are prepared for the barrage of media publicity that such a
trial, in Jakarta or New York, would generate. It is less certain
whether the Soehartos are prepared to disclose their real wealth,
something a court would likely demand in order for them to prove
that they did not own any assets abroad. And what if Time has the
evidence to back up its story?

If the case does go to trial, it will help bring out the truth
about the wealth of Soeharto and his family. In this case, Time
would have done Indonesia a great service. The nation has been
dismayed, if not bemused, by the melodrama played out by
President B.J. Habibie and Attorney General Andi M. Ghalib as
they have pretended to go after the wealth of Soeharto and his
family these past 12 months. Time has done Ghalib's job, and it
has done it better.

A Soeharto vs Time trial in Jakarta also would provide an
interesting case study for the Indonesian media on how far
investigative journalism is tolerated under the laws of the
country. To what extent does the libel law protect the privacy of
an individual while ensuring the media has the freedom to do its
job in serving the public's interests? Soeharto may not be in
power, but he is still an important public figure who should be
subject to public scrutiny through the media.

Investigative journalism is a relatively new concept in
Indonesia. When Soeharto was in power, few media institutions
dared practice investigative journalism because the government
could simply close them down at any time. With Soeharto out of
the picture and the nation enjoying unprecedented press freedom,
a number of magazines which have the resources have begun the
practice of in-depth reporting. Irrespective of the fact that
Time is an American magazine, an Indonesian trial, if the case
reaches that stage, would set a major precedent in the law
regarding the practice of journalism in Indonesia.

The American press enjoys stronger protection under its First
Amendment. The burden of proof in a U.S. libel case involving a
public figure is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. Soeharto,
for example, would have to prove that he and his family did not
own any wealth abroad, that he was not corrupt and that he did
not allow his children to profit from his office. Even if he
could prove all that, he also would have to prove that there was
a malicious intent on the part of Time in printing its
allegations.

The only benefit Soeharto would enjoy by filing the lawsuit in
the United States is that more and more plaintiffs have been
awarded damages in libel suits in the U.S. in recent years. This
is because libel cases are tried by a jury, and recent decisions
by juries, to some extent, reflect increasing public animosity
toward the American press. It is, however, questionable whether
an American jury would be sympathetic toward Soeharto.

We still have to wait and see whether Soeharto vs Time ever
sees the light of the day, in Jakarta or New York. Time has
already called Soeharto's bluff and now the ball is in his and
his lawyers' court. One thing is certain, a trial is in the best
interests of the nation, and of a free press in Indonesia.