'Tempo' did not intend to 'defame' Tomy
'Tempo' did not intend to 'defame' Tomy
Leony Aurora , The Jakarta Post/Jakarta
Tempo weekly journalist Ahmad Taufik and editor Teuku Iskandar
Ali claimed to have had no intention to defame business tycoon
Tomy Winata through a disputed article Is Tomy in Tenabang? in
the magazine's March 3 to March 9, 2003, edition.
In a defense statement titled I am a Journalist, Ahmad told
the hearing at the Central Jakarta District Court that, in
accordance with the journalistic code of conduct to cover both
sides, he had confirmed the information that he received.
"If I had wanted to commit defamation why did I ask the
reporters to confirm (the information) with Tomy Winata? I would
simply have printed it. The outcome would have been the same
anyway," said the 39-year-old journalist.
Separately, Iskandar told the court that he respected
scavengers for being honest workers. "I am a kind of scavenger --
a news scavenger," said the 68-year-old editor. "I have not found
any dictionary that gives scavenging a negative connotation," he
added.
The libel trial began with the article, which said that rumors
had it that a proposal of Rp 53 billion (US$5.71 million) to
renovate Tanah Abang textile market in Central Jakarta had been
submitted to the city administration by someone linked to Tomy
Winata prior to the fire that razed the market in February 2003.
Although the article printed Tomy's denial that such a
proposal existed, and was supported by statements from the
municipality's mayor Hosea Petra Lumbun and the president of then
city market operator PD Pasar Jaya, Syahrir Tanjung, the
businessman accused the journalists of defaming him.
Tomy also objected to being called a "big scavenger", a term
added between quotation marks by editor Iskandar after he had
edited the article.
The prosecution has demanded a two-year jail term for Ahmad
and Iskandar, as well as for Tempo chief editor Bambang
Harymurti, for violating Article 14 of Law No. 1/1946 on
publishing false material and deliberately provoking public
unrest, in addition to violating articles 310 and 311 of the
Criminal Code on defamation.
Defense lawyers once again criticized the use of these laws
instead of Law No. 40/1999 on the press.
Article 14 of Law No. 1/1946, added the defense, dealt with
false material. The disputed article included a question mark at
the end of the heading and started off with the words "rumors
have it", and therefore should have been considered a "truth-
seeking" report.
"The law specifically differentiates between what is
intentionally misleading and what is lacking in precision, as
Article 15 deals with the latter type of report," said the
lawyers in their 158-page defense statement.
The defense requested the judges postpone their verdicts, to
await the outcome of three complaints filed with the police --
one on the alleged counterfeiting of documents concerning
evidence in the case by Adj. Sr. Comr. Tito Karnavian and Adj.
Comr. Ponadi, and two on perjury allegedly committed by Tomy and
Petra Lumbun.
"The conclusion of these cases will influence highly our
judicial decision," they said.
Presiding judge Suripto adjourned the trial until Sept. 2, to
hear prosecutors' final arguments.