Defect in existing press law needs to be fixed<\/p>\n
By Ignatius Haryanto<\/p>\n
This is the second of two articles on Indonesian press law and
\nregulations.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In Indonesia, the definition of the Press
\nCouncil is confusing because, as regulated in the law of the
\npress, it is none other than a joint institution of the
\ngovernment and the press, which are not on equal standing. In the
\nmeantime, the Indonesian Association of Journalists (PWI) has its
\nown Honorary Council, the members of which are appointed by the
\nassociation itself.<\/p>\n
The minister of information and the director general of press
\nand graphics development are respectively ex-officio chairman and
\nsecretary of the Press Council. Only the position of the
\nexecutive chairman is assumed by someone from the press.<\/p>\n
The Press Council is installed by the minister of information.
\nSo the minister of information appoints himself chairman of the
\nPress Council. Moreover, the policies of the Press Council may
\nnot necessarily be those in favor of the fate of the press
\nitself.<\/p>\n
Jakob Oetama, executive chairman of the Press Council, proved
\nthis when acting as a witness in the 1995 Tempo case. He said
\nthat the meeting he chaired never recommended that Tempo's
\npublishing license be revoked, while then minister of information
\nHarmoko said that the Press Council had recommended to the
\ngovernment that Tempo should be banned.<\/p>\n
This case shows that the government simultaneously takes two
\npositions with conflicting interests: on the one hand as the
\nexecutive supervising the ministry of information, and on the
\nother as chairman of the Press Council which must give advice to
\nthe government regarding matters related to its press policy.<\/p>\n
It may therefore be said that as an institution, the Press
\nCouncil cannot be impartial in its relationship with the
\ngovernment because its chairman and its secretary are government
\nofficials. Therefore, the presence of a Press Council with such a
\nfunction is absurd.<\/p>\n
This is typical of the many forms of state corporatism in
\ncommunity life which have expanded since the beginning of the New
\nOrder. Civil servants have their only association, parties are
\nfused, students silenced, workers organized in a single union and
\nHouse members kept under control. A similar situation is also
\nfound in the press. We have the Press Council, Association of
\nPress Publishers and PWI. Not only have these been standardized,
\nthey monopolize all activities of the press and individual
\njournalists.<\/p>\n
That's why the consideration clause in the law of the press
\nrefers to the press organization as \"a government-approved
\norganization of journalists, organization of press companies,
\norganization of graphics press and organization of advertising
\nmedia.\"<\/p>\n
What has happened to PWI is not very different. The most basic
\nquestion regarding both is what legitimacy these two
\norganizations have to claim that they are the only press
\norganizations in Indonesia. PWI always argues that it should
\nassume the monopoly by virtue of the Letter of the Minister of
\nInformation No. 47\/1975. However, as 22 years have elapsed since
\nthe PWI was given this legal legitimacy, isn't it now the right
\ntime to discuss the monopoly assumed by this professional
\njournalists organization?<\/p>\n
It is expected that this professional organization of
\njournalists can respond better to problems related to the right
\nof the community to get complete information and a clear
\ndefinition of impartial coverage of \"both sides\".<\/p>\n
There is an assumption that the stress in the definition of
\n\"both sides\" lies in \"always giving the opinion of the government
\nor military officers regarding cases happening in society.\"<\/p>\n
In many cases the other side of a story is frequently missing.
\nTake, for example, any riot. Nowadays the Indonesian press will
\nnot carry balanced reporting of the riot's victims and
\nperpetrators or the opinions of observers in order that the
\ncoverage will not in any way contain distorted information.<\/p>\n
Therefore it is now time for the government to its role in
\nstipulating the policies or the membership of the professional
\norganization of journalists if it sincerely wishes to develop it
\nas a professional organization.<\/p>\n
A government regulation exercising control of this
\norganization should be revoked as our society has developed its
\nmaturity and intelligence and also because there is now an
\nincreasing demand for an independent professional organization.<\/p>\n
As the biggest country in Southeast Asia, Indonesia could be
\nan area ripe for mass media investment.<\/p>\n
The telecommunications industry sees Indonesia as a potential
\nmarket and the mass media industry should do likewise.<\/p>\n
However, if the format of our present law on the principles of
\nthe press remains as it is, it may well come to pass that in an
\nera of liberalized trade, this press regulation will become
\nobsolete.<\/p>\n
The 1984 stipulation of Government Regulation No. 20, which
\nallows a foreign investor to control 100 percent of a company
\nestablished in Indonesia, sparked a debate on matters related to
\nthe national capital in the press. Harmoko, then minister of
\ninformation, was quick to reject the enforcement of this
\ngovernment regulation. He had a big stake in the protection of
\n\"the national capital\" against the control of foreign investors.<\/p>\n
The fear for foreign capital should not have been so great as
\nforeign investment has come into our media industry through other
\nways. Why does the government maintain national capital in the
\npress industry? A clear answer has never been given. Does the
\nreason hinge on a cultural argument or is it based on a fear that
\nintroduction of more democratic ideals will result in the press
\nassuming greater confidence to report facts hitherto hidden?<\/p>\n
So what is hidden behind the protection of the national
\ncapital must be re-evaluated. It may happen that the assumption
\nimagined to exist when the law was discussed as a bill is no
\nlonger relevant.<\/p>\n
If foreign investment needs regulating, the government could
\nrestrict it to a maximum of 20 percent, for example, and also
\nstipulate that investors can hold a stake only in one print media
\ncompany and one electronic media company. In this case
\ntransparency is required from both sides. We need ideas which
\nshow our progressive thinking and transparency in order to
\nsurvive in the era of globalization. We should not just forbid
\nforeign investment without any strong reason for doing so.<\/p>\n
This situation will pose a challenge to the professional press
\norganizations: Are they ready for liberalized trade and
\nglobalization?<\/p>\n
Press people and legal experts concerned with the press have
\nlong put Regulation of the Minister of Information No. 01\/1984 on
\ntheir agendas. A clause in this regulation -- point h of Article
\n33 -- does negate the stipulation in a law of a higher status,
\nnamely the law on the principles of the press.<\/p>\n
According to legal logic, it is unacceptable that a regulation
\nlower in status than the law is able reject the law itself. The
\nreality is that Article 33 point h has claimed many victims, the
\nlast being the weeklies Tempo, DeTik and Editor, which were
\nbanned in 1994.<\/p>\n
If there is a serious endeavor now to revise the law on the
\nprinciples of the press, the provisions in this regulation of the
\nminister of information must also be reviewed. Or even the
\ncontroversial article referred to above must be removed because
\nit is not in tune with the hierarchy of our country's laws.<\/p>\n
The writer is chairman of the Institute for Press and
\nDevelopment Studies in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/defect-in-existing-press-law-needs-to-be-fixed-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}