{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1037449,
        "msgid": "broadcasting-law-1447893297",
        "date": "1996-12-11 00:00:00",
        "title": "Broadcasting law",
        "author": null,
        "source": "JP",
        "tags": null,
        "topic": null,
        "summary": "Broadcasting law At long last, Indonesia will soon have its first broadcasting law, following the House of Representatives' decision to endorse the government-sponsored bill Monday. The sweeping law provides a legal framework for the industry to operate within. It also provides greater certainty than the present system, which is regulated by a series of government rules.",
        "content": "<p>Broadcasting law<\/p>\n<p>At long last, Indonesia will soon have its first broadcasting<br>\nlaw, following the House of Representatives' decision to endorse<br>\nthe government-sponsored bill Monday. The sweeping law provides a<br>\nlegal framework for the industry to operate within. It also<br>\nprovides greater certainty than the present system, which is<br>\nregulated by a series of government rules. Considering the<br>\ngrowing importance of television, radio and other means of<br>\nbroadcasting in our daily lives, the endorsement is timely.<\/p>\n<p>The final version of the bill -- which was heavily scrutinized<br>\nby the House during seven months of deliberation -- deals with<br>\nmany of the familiar negative excesses of television. Some might<br>\nargue that the regulations are excessive, but they reflect the<br>\nconcerns of society, as well as those of the government.<\/p>\n<p>The proposed law bans the promotion of communism and Marxism-<br>\nLeninism, and programs containing \"violence, sadism, pornography,<br>\nmysticism, gambling and those depicting permissive lifestyles,<br>\nconsumerism, hedonism and feudalism.\" Most of these items are<br>\nacceptable. However, some -- like \"permissive lifestyles and<br>\nconsumerism\" -- are vague and broad, and they could invite<br>\ndifferent interpretations.<\/p>\n<p>Outside this list of don't's, the law encourages self-<br>\nregulation by the industry. It calls for the drawing up of a code<br>\nof ethics on broadcasting, and the establishment of a council to<br>\nact as the industry's watchdog. There is also the requirement<br>\nthat all films must be approved by the Film Censorship Institute<br>\nbefore they are aired.<\/p>\n<p>One would have thought that these measures, along with their<br>\npenalties, ranging from admonitions to prison terms, are<br>\nsufficient to ensure compliance. But the bill gives an overriding<br>\npower to the government to control the industry: licensing.<\/p>\n<p>Under the proposed law, a broadcasting company must possess a<br>\nlicense to operate, which is issued by the Ministry of<br>\nInformation. A license is good for five years and is renewable<br>\nsubject to result of \"evaluation\". The bill gives the minister of<br>\ninformation the right to revoke the license. Broadcasting<br>\ncompanies therefore face the same uncertainty that newspapers and<br>\nmagazines have to deal with under their 1982 Press Law -- the<br>\nprospect of losing their license, with virtually no recourse for<br>\nreprieve.<\/p>\n<p>Since the bill has already been endorsed and sent to President<br>\nSoeharto for his signature before it becomes law, there is no<br>\npoint at this late stage to contest the particular clause on<br>\nlicensing. We have reason to believe that, in view of the sour<br>\nexperience with the 1982 Press Law, some House members sought<br>\nsome kind of assurances from the government that the right to<br>\nrevoke broadcasting licenses would be used sparingly, if at all.<\/p>\n<p>Broadcasting, like the press, is a tool of democracy. This<br>\npoint unfortunately is not reflected in the bill, which places<br>\nmore emphasis on the functions of broadcasting as tools of<br>\ninformation, education and entertainment. Revoking the license of<br>\na television or radio station, as we have seen with the<br>\nrevocation of press licenses, will have far-reaching consequences<br>\nfor the nation's democracy.<\/p>\n<p>The House gave the government quite a run for its money in the<br>\ndeliberation of the bill on broadcasting. The final version that<br>\nwas endorsed Monday looked very different from the one the<br>\ngovernment submitted in May. The House did not have everything<br>\nits way in the face of the omnipotent government. But we hope<br>\nHouse members will continue to monitor the implementation and the<br>\ninterpretations of the law. Their task is not over, by any means,<br>\nwith Monday's endorsement. They should see to it that, on the<br>\nquestion of licensing, broadcasting companies do not suffer the<br>\nsame fate that their colleagues in the print media did with the<br>\n1982 Press Law.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/broadcasting-law-1447893297",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}