An alternative to press banning

An alternative to press banning

By Aleksius Jemadu

JAKARTA (JP): Since R. Hartono assumed office as minister of
information, there has been a good deal of discussion in our mass
media on whether the government could be persuaded not to use its
power to revoke press publishing licenses (SIUPP). The new
minister of information said that as long as the national press
could cooperate with the government and put national interests
above those of individuals or groups there would be no revocation
of press licenses. But in the eyes of the government, the
stipulation on the revocation of publishing licenses is still a
necessary instrument to restrain the irresponsible use of press
freedom in Indonesia.

There are three areas where interaction could determine the
evolution of a free and responsible press in Indonesia. This
includes the government, the press and the public. The three
areas have different, if not conflicting, interests. On top of
that, they have to face different demands from their respective
internal and external environments. The government is concerned
about at least two things. First, it has to maintain public order
and political stability. Second, it is eager to maintain its good
image at the domestic and international levels. Sometimes it is
not easy to distinguish between the two interests.

We cannot deny that the Indonesian press industry today is
facing tremendous challenges. It can be said that the press has
become an embodiment of different missions. It has to function
not only as a publication with a social mission, but also as a
business enterprise which must produce a profitable return on
investment.

Another challenge our national press has to face is severe
competition among its members. As such, the press is under
constant pressure to improve the quality of its service to its
customers. Newspapers, magazines and television networks have to
develop their respective competitive advantages in presenting
information to the public. In order to integrate the two
missions, those working in the press are required to increase
their professionalism in serving the public's need for accurate
and objective information.

Therefore, the national press is responsible not only to the
government, but also to the increasingly critical public. On top
of that, society demands professionalism from the national press
as people's political awareness increases. Indonesians do not
only need accurate information on policy issues which might have
far-reaching consequences for society, but also sharp analyses of
what is going on in our political and economic systems.

A critical public could reject any newspaper or magazine which
has an indifferent attitude to social and economic problems in
society. In this regard, press workers would consider the
stipulation on the revocation of publishing licenses a great
constraint for the development of a national press that may
satisfy the needs of its readers.

It is often argued that the Indonesian press has a strategic
role as a channel of political communication between the
government and the people. In a situation where formal political
institutions such as political parties, parliament and mass
organizations cannot function effectively, people would regard
the press as an alternative instrument for communicating their
aspirations.

Given its strategic role as a pillar of democratization, we
would agree that the press should be free from the fear of being
banned by the government. It would be naive to expect that the
press should publish only the good aspects of our political and
economic realities. But the question is can a mechanism be found
by which a free and responsible press can be guaranteed without
relying on repressive measures that might hinder its growth
toward professionalism? Would it be possible to find other types
of punishment that are less fatal to the survival of the errant
press?

Before we answer these questions it is necessary to develop
several arguments on which the abolishment of the stipulation on
the press bannings can be based. First, revocation of publishing
licenses is unfair punishment because it victimizes the
journalists and employees of a press publishing company,
regardless of whether or not they were involved in violating the
press law. It would be fair if the punishment was applied only to
the individuals who made the mistake. Collective punishment
through the revocation of publishing licenses could lead to the
victimization of those who cannot be held responsible for the
mistakes of their colleagues.

Second, press bannings could create a negative precedent,
which might become an obstacle in building a constructive
interaction between the press and the government. Too many
restrictions imposed upon the press would not be a good political
education for the people. The spread of rumors and gossip in the
community is mainly due to the fact that the press cannot satisfy
the needs of the people for complete information on certain
political issues. We should not let people get their information
from irresponsible sources. The government and the press can work
together in developing a responsible information system.

Third, press bans could tarnish the image of the government,
both at home and abroad. Moreover, in this era of globalization,
democratization can be said to be a universal trend. The
development of a country's press freedom is an important criteria
to measure the progress of its democratization.

We could agree with the Minister of Information Hartono who
suggested that there must be sincere and open dialog between the
government and the press, so that the two may be able and willing
to understand each other. Informal contacts between press workers
and government officials can be very useful in building mutual
understanding and cooperation. As far as press freedom is
concerned, we cannot stay the same. It is necessary to change to
improve the quality of our national press. But do we have the
political will to manage such change in a democratic manner?

The writer is director of the Parahyangan Center for
International Studies (PACIS) at Parahyangan Catholic University,
Bandung.

Window A: Given its strategic role as a pillar of democratization,
we would agree that the press should be free from the fear of
being banned by the government.

Window B: Informal contacts between press workers and government
officials can be very useful in building mutual understanding and
cooperation.