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.
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse