A decision by Indonesia's top court to award ex-dictator Suharto millions of dollars in a defamation suit calls the judiciary's integrity into question and imperils press freedom, activists and analysts warned on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court ordered US-based Time magazine to pay US$106 million in damages to Suharto on Monday for publishing an article in 1999 that alleged the former president squirrelled away billions of dollars abroad.
Time said in its story that it had traced some US$15 billion in wealth accumulated by Suharto and his six children following a four-month investigation across 11 countries.
This allegedly included US$9 billion in cash transferred from a Swiss to an Austrian bank shortly after Suharto stepped down in May 1998.
The court also ruled that Time must apologize to 86-year-old Suharto, who has never stood trial over persistent allegations of massive corruption during his 32-year rule.
The ruling showed the Supreme Court was out of touch with "the new situation now prevailing in Indonesia," said Amiruddin, a campaign coordinator for Elsham, a private policy institute.
Suharto's downfall ushered in an era of reform to the world's fourth most populous nation, but many have been disappointed over the pace of change in some areas -- such as the judiciary, where Suharto's shadow still looms large.
"We can only surmise that the characteristics of many of the Supreme Court judges have not changed from, let us say, 10 years ago. They continue to put Suharto on a pedestal, as he if he was a god," Amiruddin said. "The only way [to instigate change] is to inject young blood into that institution."
Fadjroel Rachman, who heads an Indonesian research group working to uncover Suharto's crimes, said he feared the "scandalous" decision may color other court action underway against Suharto and his youngest son, Tommy.
State prosecutors are bringing a civil suit against Suharto over alleged corruption related to some foundations he chaired. They are seeking US$1.5 billion in returned assets and damages.
Tommy, meanwhile, is facing criminal and civil graft-related suits.
"The Supreme Court is being used to save corruptors ... The individuals in the Supreme Court behind this case are Suharto's proteges," Rachman said.
He noted that head judge Bagir Manan, who was on the three-judge panel ruling in Suharto's favor, had cut a jail term Tommy was serving for ordering the murder of a judge.
Manan was also on a panel that quashed the conviction of a pilot for murdering a high-profile activist critical of Suharto-era abuses.
"This is suspicious," Rachman said.
Supreme Court judges -- at most, 60 -- are selected by a judicial commission and approved by parliament. They retain their post until retirement.
Gunawan Muhammad, former editor of the Tempo weekly news magazine, said that the impact of the decision was to cast "the Supreme Court itself in a bad light," adding that it was also a worrying move for press freedom.
Frans Hendra Winata, a member of the national commission of law, described the ruling as a significant setback for a formerly shackled press which has flourished since Suharto's demise.
The press "will not be able to help efforts to eradicate corruption and with this verdict, it is now clear on whose side the Supreme Court is ... The press will now think twice before reporting on corruption," he said.
Julia Fromholz from Human Rights First, a New York-based organization, said the decision stood in stark contrast to the failure to bring rights cases from Suharto's era to trial.
"The courts have long failed to hold past and current officials accountable for their actions, but this decision even further highlights the persistence of impunity in Indonesia," she said.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
RSS