Editorials
Wednesday, May 20, 1998

Suharto’s resignation
may not be enough

PRESIDENT Suharto should have declined to run for a seventh term in the election held last March by his rubber-stamp legislature, which re-elected him unanimously. That decision might have averted the mass protests and riots that have brought his regime to the brink of collapse. Suharto's announcement that he would step down after introducing political reforms and holding parliamentary elections did not satisfy his opponents, who called for his immediate resignation.

The question now is whether the protests will continue. If so, there is a threat of more violence with the alternative consequences of a police crackdown or the violent overthrow of the regime, with no indication that its successor would be an improvement. The path laid out by the president for an orderly transition to a new government would be more desirable but his proposal appears to have come too late to placate the protesters.

If so, Indonesia could experience considerably more turmoil with no clear outcome in sight. It may be too much to hope that cooler heads will prevail. The riots in Jakarta and other cities, if they continue, could leave the economy in shambles. Foreign companies and embassies have been evacuating their expatriates, fearing the worst. As usual, the Chinese merchants are the looters' victims. Racial hatred discredits the rioters.

This is an ironic ending to the career of Suharto, who came to power in another chaotic period more than 30 years ago. Then an army general, he led forces that crushed an attempted coup in 1965 believed to have been inspired by the Chinese Communists. Two years later he succeeded Sukarno.

Since then Indonesia has prospered, experiencing spectacular economic growth in recent years. But the decades of stable -- though authoritarian -- government and increasing wealth came to a crashing halt with the collapse of the national economy last August along with those of other Asian nations with booming economies. Part of the problem lay with government corruption, with Suharto and his family in the forefront.

Suharto dragged his feet in implementing reforms demanded by the International Monetary Fund in return for a financial bailout, thereby delaying the release of funds. Still oblivious to the need for reform, the president accepted another term in March.

In this turbulent situation, the U.S. should be urging both sides to refrain from violence and negotiate. By announcing his resignation, Suharto has made a huge concession to his opponents. They should respond in a responsible manner.

Election debates

THE U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the right of public broadcasters to exercise discretion in deciding whom to invite to participate in candidate debates. The high court overruled a lower court decision that threatened to turn such debates into incomprehensible free-for-alls.

Marginal candidates insist that their exclusion from debates violates their free-speech rights, but forcing stations to allow them on the podium would infringe on the stations' own First Amendment rights.

The case arose when the Arkansas Educational Television Network refused to permit independent congressional candidate Ralph Forbes to appear in a debate between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Forbes, a former American Nazi Party member who now calls himself a Christian supremacist, sued the five-station network, claiming the decision was based on his views. The network maintained he was excluded because was not a viable candidate.

The Supreme Court ruled a quarter century ago that private broadcasters, even though regulated by the government, could not be forced to open their facilities "on a nonselective basis to all persons wishing to talk about public issues." Public broadcasters, because of their quasi-government status, were denied similar control. Thus, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Arkansas debate was a limited public forum for all candidates who, like Forbes, had qualified to be on the ballot.

However, programming of public stations often is structured to be independent of and even adversarial to government. Turning public television -- and radio, for that matter -- into public forums as that term is defined legally would render their candidate debates unmanageable and might result in their elimination. Public-access channels, such as Hawaii's 'Olelo, serve the need for public forums accommodating all comers.

The Supreme Court ruling will create a challenge for third parties and independent candidates to show their viability in arguing for their place in election debates to be shown on public television. Journalistic discretion, not government requirements, will be applied in making that decision.

Hospital bungling

BECAUSE of a policy forbidding staff members of a Chicago hospital to leave the building to treat injuries, a 15-year-old boy with gunshot wounds lay untended for 30 minutes a few steps from its doors.

The youth, an innocent bystander in a gang shooting, was wounded while playing basketball near Ravenswood Hospital. He was carried to the hospital entrance by friends but left near the doors. A police officer finally brought the boy into the hospital, but he died an hour later.

Subsequently the hospital's chief executive officer announced that the policy had been revoked and the staff had been instructed to provide treatment to anyone in the vicinity if no paramedics or medical technicians were available.

The change would not have been necessary if people had used common sense. The original policy could not have been intended to apply to such an emergency. You have to wonder about the judgment of people who would let a dying person go untended just outside the hospital doors, policy or no policy.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor