'Time' vs. Soeharto

'Time' vs. Soeharto

Although still open to appeal, the Central Jakarta District
Court's decision to reject former president Soeharto's
multibillion dollar lawsuit against the American newsmagazine
Time can rightly be called a victory for press freedom in
Indonesia.

In its ruling, the court decided on Tuesday to throw out the
ex-president's lawsuit on the grounds that it lacked evidence and
that the Time report did in fact not constitute a defamation of
character.

Time magazine, in a cover story dated May 24, 1999, reported
that Soeharto's family had stashed away some US$15 billion,
presumably amassed during his 32 years in power. The money, the
report said, was invested in real estate and other assets in
several countries from Great Britain to New Zealand.

The report also said shortly after the former autocrat's
downfall in May 1998, some $9 billion of the money was hurriedly
transferred from Switzerland to Austria.

At the time it appeared, the report created quite a stir in
Indonesia, affirming, as it were, what Indonesians had long
suspected but were unable to prove. The magazine sold out in a
matter of hours after its appearance and had to be reprinted.

The Soeharto family reacted by filing a defamation lawsuit for
Rp 280 billion for material damages and Rp 180 trillion for
nonmaterial damages.

Time magazine, however, said it stood by its report, saying it
was based on meticulously researched facts and interviews. For
his part, Soeharto's lawyer, Juan Felix Tampubolon, said he would
appeal the court decision, which he said was unfair because it
considered merely the "journalistic aspects" of the case.

The case, though barely reported by the Indonesian media, puts
the spotlight on one particular question concerning press freedom
in Indonesia: How far can the media go in revealing what it knows
-- or believes it knows -- about abuses committed by state
officials without risking its neck?

In Indonesia, reforms notwithstanding, the law still often
sides with those who are in power. Under the old colonial law,
criticism of someone in high office -- say, the president of the
Republic -- could be taken to amount to the intentional spreading
of hatred against the government. Hence the name haatzaai
artikelen, ("hate-sowing" articles of law).

In the past, this provision effectively kept the media from
reporting abuses committed by state officials, especially those
in the higher echelons of the bureaucracy.

Though seldom used at present, the possibility of such a
backlash still hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of
newspaper editors.

What Indonesia needs is a law to protect the free flow of
information. Under such a law, public figures in particular would
be required to watch their actions, knowing that they are
constantly kept under surveillance by the watchful eyes of the
media.

In the case of public officials, even in cases where the media
turns out to be wrong, it cannot be sued in a court of law unless
malicious intent can be proved.

In Indonesia's case, it may take a while for this country to
move in that direction. Even so, the media can take heart in
knowing that in this country, too, the judiciary is gradually
turning itself into an independent institution.