On Sept. 16, judges at Indonesia's Central Jakarta Court sentenced me to one year in prison. As the editor-in-chief of Tempo Weekly news magazine, I am guilty, according to the court, of defaming a business tycoon named Tomy Winata by implying his possible involvement in a fire at Jakarta's South-East Asia textile market, and of fomenting riots by disseminating lies. Does my case, and others like it, portend the end of yet another short-lived experiment with democracy in Indonesia?
The "riot" that I allegedly fomented occurred in March last year, when almost 200 thugs claiming to be Winata's followers attacked Tempo's office, threatened to burn down the building, harassed staff and injured one reporter. Trying to help resolve the situation peacefully, I was persuaded to negotiate at the Central Jakarta Police Station, but found to my horror that the mob leaders controlled the station. I was punched and kicked as the police looked the other way.
Fortunately, many journalists came to our rescue with tape recorders and cameras rolling. Their broadcasts caused a public outcry, which forced our parliament to organize a public hearing. The national and Jakarta police chiefs were called and, under massive public pressure, the leaders of the mob were criminally charged. But Winata himself eluded police investigation, merely by claiming publicly that his followers acted without his prior knowledge and consent.
He then filed criminal charges, against Ahmad Taufik, who wrote the article, Teuku Iskandar Ali, who edited it, and me. The yearlong court proceedings were marked by a series of suspicious developments, all favoring Winata.
First, the case built by the police and state prosecutor contained documents that were so blatantly falsified that the police indicted two officers. But the court rejected our request that proceedings be delayed until the legality of the state's case could be clarified. The case against the officers involved appears to be going nowhere. On the contrary, one of them has been promoted to command the newly formed (and US-funded) Jakarta Anti-Terror Unit. The other has reportedly been sent to the police staff school for advanced training.
Then, in the sixth month of the case, the head judge in the three-judge panel was suddenly promoted to become the head of a city court an hour from Jakarta. One of my lawyers noted that in his 35 years experience at the court, he had never seen a head judge replaced in an ongoing case. In fact, despite her promotion, the judge continued to preside over another case in the same building. A judge who had previously ruled against Tempo in Winata's civil suit filled her vacancy.
Finally, when Winata testified, he perjured himself by denying that Tempo had interviewed him. A recording of the telephone interview was played in court; sworn testimony was heard from the reporter who conducted the interview and from two editors who witnessed it; the official record from the telephone company was submitted as evidence of the call and an expert witness concluded that the voice on the recording belonged to Winata.
But the judges denied Tempo's request that Winata be arrested and tried for perjury, telling us to report it to the police, which we did. The judges then denied our request for a postponement of the court decision until Winata's perjury case was resolved.
Given such flawed proceedings, my conviction and prison sentence come as no surprise. But I remain hopeful that we will prevail in the end, when higher courts hear Tempo's appeal. Indonesia's courts are cleaner at the top, and the Head of the Supreme Court is a staunch advocate of democracy and press freedom.
Tempo's case could become a landmark victory for our democracy, like the US Supreme Court's famous decision in the New York Times versus Sullivan. By raising the bar for defamation charges, that decision ensures that US journalists can hold public officials accountable.
No country knows better than Indonesia that free speech and a free press are proven indicators of democratic development, and that criminalizing journalists is an early symptom of authoritarianism. Indonesia was a liberal democracy in the 1950s, before president Sukarno, supported by the military, began a crackdown on the press in 1956. With critical voices silenced, consolidating unchecked power became easier and, in July 1959, Sukarno decreed the beginning of "Guided Democracy."
For the first few years after Sukarno's fall in 1966, all the benefits of genuine democracy, including freedom of the press, were restored (except for the communists). But president Suharto's regime began another press crackdown in the early 1970s, ultimately banning various media and jailing many journalists. With the press under control, other political rights were quickly curtailed and Indonesian democracy failed again.
Since Suharto's fall in 1998, Indonesia has become the third largest democratic country in the world and the largest democratic Muslim community in history. Two parliamentary elections and two direct presidential elections -- including the latest presidential run-off -- have been free, fair, and peaceful, proving that Islam and democracy can coexist.
Democracy's enemies, however, never rest. Radical Islamic groups have engaged in indiscriminate bombings, while groups with strong authoritarian tendencies have made inroads into President Megawati Sukarnoputri's inner circle.
But Megawati has just been defeated in her bid for reelection. Will president-elect Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono continue to prosecute journalists? Will my conviction, and the trials and convictions of other journalists, mark the beginning of the end of Indonesia's hard-won third democracy?
The answer lies in the support that Indonesian pro-democracy activists can generate domestically and internationally. To lose Indonesia -- a potential beacon of hope to all pro-democracy activists in the world Muslim community -- would be a terrible defeat.
Bambang Harymurti is the editor-in-chief of Tempo Weekly. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS