Press law needs improvement<\/p>\n
By Ignatius Haryanto<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on Indonesian press law and
\nregulations.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): In its recent conference in Pontianak, the
\nIndonesian Journalists Association (PWI) expressed the need to
\nimprove the press law.<\/p>\n
Law No. 1\/1984 on the press, passed by the minister of
\ninformation, has always been a hurdle to people in the press.<\/p>\n
Our first press law, Law No. 11\/1966, was signed by then
\npresident Sukarno and state secretary Mochammad Ichsan on Dec.
\n12, 1966. Six months later, the law was revised into Law No.
\n4\/1967, which was signed by then acting president Soeharto.<\/p>\n
In the revised law, a stipulation in the old law requiring
\nthat \"printed matter, the content of which may disturb public
\norder, should be seized\" was removed.<\/p>\n
Fifteen years later the House of Representatives revised this
\nlaw into Law No. 21\/1982, which in many respects altered the
\nsubstance of the previous law and introduced the press
\npublication business license (SIUPP).<\/p>\n
This law basically attempted to replace terms peculiar to the
\nOld Order with those belonging to the New Order. The term \"a
\nmeans for mass mobilization\", for example, was replaced with \"a
\nmeans to set development in motion\" and the term \"guards of the
\nrevolution\" with \"guards of the Pancasila ideology\" and so on.<\/p>\n
The SIUPP substitute to the publication permit (SIT) in the
\nold law was welcomed with relief by the press as it was thought
\nthe change would put an end to two different interests, namely
\nmatters related to the code of publications, previously regulated
\nthrough SIT, and those connected with the code of enterprises,
\nwhich SIUPP introduced.<\/p>\n
However, things are not that simple. There has been a deep
\nwound inflicted on the press during the New Order as no fewer
\nthan 40 publications have had their SIT revoked.<\/p>\n
Since the introduction of the SIUPP in 1982, no fewer than 6
\npublications (Prioritas, Sinar Harapan, Monitor, Tempo, Detik and
\nEditor) have had their SIUPP revoked. More publications have had
\ntheir SIUPP revoked due to irregular publication. Every year
\nabout 10 publications have their SIUPP revoked because they fail
\nto publish regularly.<\/p>\n
During the discussion on the amendment of the law on the
\npress, even House members were doubtful whether a SIUPP was the
\nsame as a SIT, which was revocable.<\/p>\n
In fact, the government gave a flexible answer to this
\nquestion: \"The presence of the SIUPP is based on the intention
\nand framework of carrying out better fostering (of the press),
\nparticularly with respect to the business of the press.<\/p>\n
\"SIUPP provisions will, with greater certainty, aim to bring
\ninto reality press publications implemented by press companies in
\nthe form of statutory bodies and will prioritize an ideal
\nattitude and regulate jointly on the basis of the principle of
\ntogetherness as in a family.\"<\/p>\n
The licensing system was unknown during Dutch colonialism.
\nThis system was first adopted in Indonesia during the Japanese
\noccupational period. In independent Indonesia, this licensing
\nsystem was not adopted until October 1958, when the government
\nstrove to block opinions about a rebellion taking place in
\nSumatra and Sulawesi. At the time, this system was implemented by
\nmilitary authorities in Greater Jakarta.<\/p>\n
In a state of emergency at the time, the government feared
\npress reports would only cause restlessness among members of the
\ncommunity. Only radios and newspapers were the community's source
\nof information. However, it is yet to be proved whether mass
\nmedia reports can spur the community into action harmful to the
\nstate.<\/p>\n
This logic, however, continued until the period of power
\ntransition in 1966. Although the law stipulated that to publish a
\nnewspaper no publication permit would be needed and no censorship
\nwould be imposed, it turned out that the licensing system
\ncontinued to be enforced.<\/p>\n
The first law of the press mentioned a transitional regulation
\nwhich made it possible for a publication licensing system to be
\nenforced. However, this transitional period took 16 years before
\nSIUPP was finally introduced in 1982.<\/p>\n
An essential matter which must be rediscussed in the planned
\nimprovement of the press law concerns several institutes and
\norganizations related to the press. We have the Press Council.<\/p>\n
In Western Europe, a press council is in fact part of a
\njournalist association and has a respectable position when
\nmeeting the government for problems pertaining to press-related
\npolicies.<\/p>\n
The writer is chairman of the Institute for Press and
\nDevelopment Studies, in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/press-law-needs-improvement-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}