Sun, 27 Feb 2000

Ad spotlight too harsh for some child performers?

By Gedsiri Suhartono

JAKARTA (JP): Parents, pumped with pride at seeing their children in advertisements, may not be willing to recognize the potential dangers of exposing them to the spotlight.

But educators and children's rights activists warn parents against the temptation to commercialize their children for short- term benefits, which are outweighed by the potential for long- term psychological damage.

It may seem alluring, but showbusiness is not a child-friendly environment. It demands discipline, tenacity, hard work and long hours that are not deemed suitable for any child's well-being.

"They would mostly be hanging out with adults, and therefore run the risk of living in a different world than their own. Children should interact with other children in their natural environment," said Yaumil Agus Achir, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Indonesia.

Having entered the workforce, a child performer would, among other demands, have to modify his or her activities for work responsibilities. In the process, undoubtedly they would lose countless hours of sleep, play or study to adhere to the strict shooting schedule.

In an ideal world, Yaumil contends that children should not be earning any income at all because part of childhood means being guided and preparing to be a hard worker and responsible adult.

Among other compelling reasons parents put their children up to seeking fame and fortune through advertising is to earn extra money to fill the family's coffers.

Educators and children's rights activists alike say that most parents do not realize that by doing so they have deprived their children of their rights, and perpetrated the exploitation of their own children without fully knowing the consequences.

Deputy chairman of the National Commission of Children's Rights Irwanto doubts if former child performers will be able to continue their lives as other normal children. Holistic development of emotional, psychological, educational aptitude and personality would have to succumb to stringent measures of working at a young age.

Public exposure can severely interfere with children's development. Child celebrities who are used to receiving excessive attention can crave the lack of it later on; this is among the unhealthy signs of the development process on a child's ego and self-confidence.

Once their confidence bubble has fully extended, these children tend to be excessively self-centered, narcissistic and vain. In other words, they may not be best equipped to enter adulthood.

Once the charming child outgrows its adorability, so evaporates the core of vanity. Most famous children do not continue to enjoy their fame once they enter adolescence let alone adulthood.

Such negligence evoke a sense of loss, which very likely will lead to symptoms similar to postpower syndrome but at a very young age.

"Whatever happened to Chicha Koeswoyo, or Iyut Bing Slamet? I have not heard any mention of their fame," says Irwanto, referring to two famous child singers of the 1970s.

According to Irwanto, the advertising industry knows exactly what moves the market. Cute, innocent faces rate highly in influencing consumers to purchase particular products.

Children's nondiscriminatory nature plays a big role in influencing their parents' decision-making process. From the recipient point of view, children, nondiscriminatory consumers, are not trained to consume only the "good things".

Instead, children are easily lured by new items that catch their attention, better yet goods, which come along with rewards.

There are increasing number of ads using children which bear no relevance to children's needs and scope.

"I cringe when I hear consumer-oriented messages coming from a child's supposedly innocent mouth. It just doesn't feel right," says Ibu Kasur, an educator who operates several preschools.

Some have called for more controls on the advertising industry. Some would go as far as banning children from taking part in advertising altogether.

Ibu Kasur, who used to appear on TVRI's educational programs, takes a firm stance of saying "no" altogether to children in advertising.

"Education should be a priority. Parents should know better than teaching their child to neglect education. I do not believe it for a second when parents say that shooting ads does not interfere with school schedule. Let children grow as they would, please don't turn them into a mouthpiece for commodities."

When all is said and done, where would the discussion go if the subject of the exploitation is not even aware of being exploited? The moralistic approach seems ever more futile precisely because nowhere is there any legal document which succinctly defines exploitation.

Critics have pitched in and said the circumstances should fit individual cases. Irwanto, however, believes that there is a definite line to define what is appropriate.

Economic considerations are perhaps the most obvious measurement.

"It is easy to justify the seemingly harmless sacrifices required of a child at the present state. However, what has yet to be discovered are the social and emotional disturbances in the children's later life that will prove how the two do not go together. It is just not comparable because the degree of severity is indefinite," Irwanto said.