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.
Critics slam closed-door meetings on ITE Law revision
Lawmakers defend closed-door meetings on ITE Law revision, citing sensitive discussions and other technicalities.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Members of the Corruption Eradication People’s Committee rally outside the State Palace on Jan. 8, 2019, to demand that the government abolish articles in the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Law they deem to be a threat to freedom of expression. (JP/Seto Wardhana)
A
ctivists lambast the House of Representatives for deliberating the limited amendment of the 2016 Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law behind closed doors and call for a more transparent process.
House Commission I, overseeing communication and information, held a series of meetings with the government to amend at least seven articles in the ITE Law that have been legally annulled by the new Criminal Code (KUHP) passed earlier this year.
The articles stipulate provisions regarding defamation, obscenity and hate speech on the internet.
But the meetings took place behind closed doors, barring members of the public and the press from observing the deliberation on several articles deemed problematic.
Politicians in Commission I defended the decision to make the meetings private, citing sensitive issues that might be misinterpreted by the public, such as the discussion of ethnicity when deliberating defamation articles.
“We can’t have in-depth discussions on sensitive things if we make these open meetings,” said House Commission I deputy chairman Abdul Kharis Almasyhari of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) on Wednesday.
Read also: Lawmakers try to water down draconian provisions in cyberlaw
