Limitations on national press might continue<\/p>\n
By Suwiryo Ismail<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The New Order government has tightly limited
\npress activities under the banner of a \"free but controlled
\npress\" since the 1970s.<\/p>\n
After the closures of Tempo, Editor and Detik magazines in
\n1994, however, the government has considered press license
\ncancellations unpopular because critics argued such action was
\nunconstitutional and created a bad international image.<\/p>\n
The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) ad hoc Committee I
\nconfirmed early this month that revocation of press licenses is
\nunconstitutional. The committee, therefore, recommended the
\namendment of Law No. 21\/1982 concerning the press and the
\ncancellation of an information ministry decree allowing the
\nrevocation of press licenses.<\/p>\n
However, such a development would not guarantee that
\nrepression against the press would end. Besides the threat of
\nlicense revocation, the government can control the press using
\nother measures.<\/p>\n
State agencies, like bureaucratic and military institutions,
\ncan resort to repressive actions to control the press, including
\n\"open persuasion\", telephone calls, physical violence,
\nintimidation of journalists or the assignment of social groups to
\ncreate counter public opinion.<\/p>\n
The government can also influence the politics within the
\npress world through the coopting of outsiders into professional
\ninstitutions like the Indonesian Journalist Association, the
\narrangement of editorial organizations and the positioning of
\ninfluential people as shareholders in media organizations.<\/p>\n
The government can distract the press' attention from critical
\nissues by publicizing publicly attractive apolitical issues.<\/p>\n
Any move toward greater freedom of the press -- a universally
\nrecognized value in democratic countries -- could be easily
\nmisinterpreted by the authorities.<\/p>\n
Such misinterpretations usually result when authorities
\nbelieve the press reports news irresponsibly. Government
\nauthorities, ever vigilant in maintaining the country's
\nstability, impress upon news reporters that a free flow of
\nsensitive information could create mass hysteria and instability.<\/p>\n
Authorities also confront press freedoms when news concerns
\nthe interests of the President and his family, political
\nstability and security -- including the dual function of the
\nArmed Forces -- and sensitive issues arising from ethnic,
\nreligious, racial and inter-group tensions.<\/p>\n
For almost 25 years, these government misinterpretations of
\nthe press resulted in the closure of several news organizations,
\nincluding Harian Indonesia Raya in the 1970s, Prioritas and Sinar
\nHarapan in the 1980s, and Monitor and the publications mentioned
\nbefore in the 1990s.<\/p>\n
Those organizations' licenses were revoked through the
\ncommerce code, even though freedom of the press should have been
\ngoverned by the publications code which is under the domain of
\nthe courts.<\/p>\n
In defending their political hegemony, government authorities
\nhave systematically excluded the mass media from politics in
\norder to remain the exclusive mobilizer of public opinion.<\/p>\n
The press faces a dilemma because, on the one hand, it is
\npressured by the government to limit its political reporting,
\nwhile on the other hand, it is required by the people to uphold
\ntheir universal interests -- democratic values, transparency,
\nequality, social and legal sovereignty, human rights and
\nenvironmental protection.<\/p>\n
The public also looks to the press to play the role of
\nwatchdog over the government -- a role not carried out
\neffectively by the legislature.<\/p>\n
The roles of the press are not easy to fulfill because the New
\nOrder government's exclusive political system has alienated the
\npress from public interests. The government's authorities demand
\nthat the press, as a medium for political communication, must be
\ndeveloped to create social harmony.<\/p>\n
The control of the press not only affects the interest of the
\npress itself but also hinders the freedom of the public to
\ncommunicate and express themselves.<\/p>\n
The public, for example, has lost opportunities to use the
\npress as a means of expression, particularly in disclosing facts
\nand ideas which are different from those announced or expressed
\nby officials. Another result of government control of the press
\nis that the public has had limited access to political
\ninformation, including information on the government's
\naccountability in organizing general elections.<\/p>\n
In the long term, the government's influence over the press,
\nwhich has extended to press self-censorship, will lead to
\nnegative social impacts. If monologues from the political elite
\nfill the reports of the press, then the press will not be able to
\nfacilitate public participation in the process of social change.<\/p>\n
Thus, the press is challenged to act as an agent of social
\nchange, offering the communication of ideas and facts free from
\ngovernment influence.<\/p>\n
Will the issues of social change deliberated by the political
\nelite in the MPR be discussed and communicated in a way
\ninfluenced by the government?<\/p>\n
If all modes of public communication are limited, should
\nsocial change be expressed in revolutionary ways? Such a scenario
\nwould indeed cost society a great deal.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former journalist now working for the
\nFoundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institution.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/limitations-on-national-press-might-continue-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}