TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Lawmakers try to water down draconian provisions in cyberlaw
Lawmakers are trying to water down a number of problematic provisions in the 2016 Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law that have often been used to criminalize online critics.
Change Size
Demonstrators rally outside the State Palace on Jan. 8, 2019, to demand that the government abolish articles in the Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law that they considered a threat to the freedom of expression. (JP/Seto Wardhana)
Lawmakers are trying to water down a number of problematic provisions in the 2016 Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law that have often been used to criminalize online critics.
Members of House of Representatives Commission I overseeing communications and information affairs, and the government, are still deliberating the latest revision to the law at the behest of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo last year, following a series of public protests over the prevailing draconian provisions. The articles include those regulating online defamation, obscenity and hate speech on the internet.
Two hearing sessions were held on Monday and Tuesday to discuss ways to bring them in line with the new, more moderate Criminal Code, which was enacted earlier this year and also regulates some articles in question.
“We want to prevent a repeat of the same problem [of the overly used articles to criminalize critics]. Why should we revise the law if we do not solve the problem?” Commission I member Dave Laksono of the Golkar Party said on the sidelines of Monday's session.
Dave stopped short of providing further details on the ongoing discussions but said he expected the deliberation at the Commission I to be completed during this sitting session before lawmakers go into recess on July 15. The revision, however, would still need to be passed by the House in a plenary session.
Commission I member Rizki Natakusumah of the Democratic Party said policymakers are attempting to provide clearer provisions to prevent “multiple interpretations” on how to enforce the law or on what constitutes a crime, “as has occurred under the existing 2016 law”.
