Conglomerates Influence in Indonesian Media
The Trouble with SMSPolice are suspected of illegally tapping a cellphone, but the National Police Chief has denied ordering it.
METTA Dharmasaputra never imagined he would someday be in the news. Last Monday, following the publication of Tempo’s cover story Killing Time, this magazine’s investigative editor was busy clipping some news articles when he read his own name and initials in a number of media reports.
What upset Metta was that the reports had him ignoring summonses by the police as a witness in the embezzlement case of PT Asian Agri funds, a subsidiary of Raja Garuda Mas owned by Sukanto Tanoto. In fact, up to that time, he had received no summons. Strangely, the man found guilty of the crime, Vincentius Amin Sutanto, Asian Agri’s former financial controller, had been sentenced to 11 years in prison in August. So, why was Metta being summoned as a witness?
Apparently, police had theorized that Vincent did not work alone. Metta, who was assigned in November 2006 to interview Vincent in Singapore where he was on the run from the law, was considered to have obtained much information on the case. In fact, his reports constituted the main story in the magazine’s January 15, 2007 edition. Metta also managed to convince Vincent to return to Indonesia.
Initially frightened, Vincent, who admitted he was paid an annual salary of Rp1 billion, eventually agreed to discuss his side of the story with Metta. The former Asian Agri employee hoped his sentence for embezzling US$3.1 million would be reduced if he exposed Asian Agri’s tax evasion tactics.
In Jakarta, Vincent was ‘taken’ by the police, after he testified before the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Feeling obliged to help Vincent gain his legal rights, Metta assisted Livina, Vincent’s sister, to find financial aid. Vincent himself was broke, the money he embezzled had been confiscated by the police as evidence and his family could not afford to help him. A businessman eventually offered to help out, but this later worked against Metta, who was accused of failing to maintain his neutrality in doing his job. “Since then, I was convinced I would be targeted,” said the 37-year-old journalist.
Yet, when Tempo reported the case to the Press Council, Abdullah Alamudi, head of the complaints department, declared that Metta had not violated any journalistic ethic.
Metta’s hunch was right. Suddenly, reporters covering the National Police Headquarters in Jakarta had printouts of an SMS that they had obtained from Metta’s Telkom Flexi cellphone. Apparently, PT Telkom had provided the printout to one, or a group, of police officers, as requested. But it did not appear to be an official request since there was no such request from the National Police Chief himself.
The leak of Metta’s SMS was clearly against Law No. 36/1999 on Telecommunication, and Government Regulation No. 52 on Telecommunication Services. Both regulations specify that tapping or access to information records by the telecommunication operators must be officially requested either by the Police Chief or the Attorney General. In addition, the request must be copied to the Information & Communications Minister. Yet Information & Communications Minister M. Nuh claimed no knowledge of the tapping incident.
Tapping and recording of messages and telephone calls can be justified only if the targets are defendants of cases involving corruption, terrorism and drugs. Telkom’s Director of Compliance & Risk Management, Prasetio, said no leaks were made by any Telkom personnel. He said the information requested was submitted to the “law enforcers” and that the company had fulfilled all the required conditions.
Clearly, Metta should not have been a subject of any tapping. He was only a witness summoned by the police. Yet, Adj. Sr. Comr. Aris Munandar, head of the National Police’s Monetary Fiscal and Reserves Force (AKBP) at the Directorate of Special Crimes Investigation, felt he had a reason for doing what he did. He is convinced that his request to Telkom for a printout copy of Metta’s SMS can be justified by the Criminal Code. However, it is a conviction that needs to be proven.
The Press Council, the Alliance of Independent Journalists, the Reform Indonesian Reporters Union and the Indonesian Consumers Protection Foundation have condemned the tapping. National Police Chief, General Sutanto, cited a 15-year imprisonment for anyone found guilty of illegal tapping. Sutanto denied approving the tapping and asked Metta to report the incident to the Police Professional and Security Division.
So, who circulated the printout of Metta’s SMS? Aris Munandar from the AKBP swore he was not the one. Reporters posted at Jakarta Police HQ claimed they got their copy from an internal source. “A friend of mine gave the copy to me. But he got it from somebody I’m not acquainted with,” said Edison, a Berita Kota reporter.
Coincidentally, Sukanto Tanoto’s name has been linked to a tapping that happened in 1988. It was the first tapping incident that was ever brought to court. At that time, Yazir Rangkuti, an employee of PT Inti Indorayon Utama, a company owned by Sukanto, and three employees of PT Perumtel tapped the telephone landlines of the home and office of Wibowo Ngaserin, then CEO of Bank Tani Nasional. The tapping had been going on for a whole year.
Two decades have since passed. Sukanto Tanoto is now competing with businessman Edwin Soeryadjaya to acquire PT Adaro, a coal company in East Kalimantan. Last week, the Singapore High Court announced that Sukanto Tanoto’s lawsuit against Edwin was denied.
Apparently, there have been attempts to link Metta to this case. He has been accused of selling information he received from Vincent to Edwin. “I was never asked to confirm any of this,” said Metta, referring to the information circulating about him. Metta admitted to maintaining contacts with Edwin solely to help Vincent’s sister Livina, who was then struggling to seek financial help for Vincent.
Indeed, this tapping case must be investigated to the fullest.
Adek Media, Eni Saeni
