Rahmat Wibowo defiantly asserted that Liven and its leaders cannot legally silence former employees through defamation threats, citing Australian and Indonesian law to argue corporations lack standing, while encouraging workers to document abuses and speak truthfully.

@ Rahmat Wibowo mm aw To Liven (PT NOMNIE TECHNOLOGIES INDONESIA) the Leadership Shahrooz Chowdhury and William Wong, every company that thinks a defamation threat can silence a former employee: The law has something important to say. recently published a full legal analysis comparing corporate defamation and employment termination frameworks in Australia and Indonesia. Here is what | found and why it matters directly. In AUSTRALIA: Under Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2005, large corporations with 10 or more employees CANNOT sue individuals for defamation. Full stop. Liven's Australian parent entity is a company with well more than 10 employees. Under Australian law, it has no standing to bring a defamation action in its own name. Even if a case were filed, the plaintiff would need to prove "serious financial loss" -- a high threshold that courts filter aggressively. And if what | said is true? Truth is a complete defense. The truth is never defamatory. In INDONESIA: This is where the legal landscape just shifted dramatically. Under KUHP No. 1 Tahun 2023 (Pasal 433, in force 2026) and Mahkamah Konstitusi Putusan No. 105/PUU-XXIl/2024 (April 2025): Corporations, institutions, and government bodies CANNOT file criminal defamation complaints against individuals. Only orang perseorangan, natural persons, can be complainants under pencemaran nama baik provisions in both the KUHP and the ITE Law. The MK ruling is unambiguous: "pasal pencemaran nama baik hanya berlaku untuk perseorangan atau individu." Abadan hukum has no standing as a criminal complainant in a defamation case. Both Australia and Indonesia have now converged on the same principle: Corporations do not get to use defamation law as a weapon to silence individuals who speak truthfully about their employment experience. The only residual risk is if individual officers file complaints in their own names as natural persons who claim personal harm. That is a narrower, harder-to-sustain pathway that requires proving direct individual damage -~ not corporate reputational discomfort, lam a Co-Founder of InfraLoka. | am an Institut Teknologi Bandung alumnus. | have navigated labor disputes, filed reports with Bareskrim and Polda Metro Jaya, and produced formal legal documentation across multiple proceedings. | speak from lived experience and careful legal research, not from fear. To every former employee afraid to speak truth because of a corporate legal threat: Document everything. Know your jurisdiction. And remember, shields work best when you are still standing. Rahmatan lil alamin. #CorporateLaw #DefamationLaw #IndonesiaLaw #AustraliaLaw #EmploymentLaw #WorkerRights #UUITE #KUHP #FairWork #LaborLaw #LegalLiteracy #PHK #CrossBorderLaw #WorkplaceJustice #Hukumketenagakerjaan #HukumPidana #infraloka #MahkamahKonstitusi #PencemaranNamaBaik #Liven