'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.