Broadcasting law

Broadcasting law

At long last, Indonesia will soon have its first broadcasting
law, following the House of Representatives' decision to endorse
the government-sponsored bill Monday. The sweeping law provides a
legal framework for the industry to operate within. It also
provides greater certainty than the present system, which is
regulated by a series of government rules. Considering the
growing importance of television, radio and other means of
broadcasting in our daily lives, the endorsement is timely.

The final version of the bill -- which was heavily scrutinized
by the House during seven months of deliberation -- deals with
many of the familiar negative excesses of television. Some might
argue that the regulations are excessive, but they reflect the
concerns of society, as well as those of the government.

The proposed law bans the promotion of communism and Marxism-
Leninism, and programs containing "violence, sadism, pornography,
mysticism, gambling and those depicting permissive lifestyles,
consumerism, hedonism and feudalism." Most of these items are
acceptable. However, some -- like "permissive lifestyles and
consumerism" -- are vague and broad, and they could invite
different interpretations.

Outside this list of don't's, the law encourages self-
regulation by the industry. It calls for the drawing up of a code
of ethics on broadcasting, and the establishment of a council to
act as the industry's watchdog. There is also the requirement
that all films must be approved by the Film Censorship Institute
before they are aired.

One would have thought that these measures, along with their
penalties, ranging from admonitions to prison terms, are
sufficient to ensure compliance. But the bill gives an overriding
power to the government to control the industry: licensing.

Under the proposed law, a broadcasting company must possess a
license to operate, which is issued by the Ministry of
Information. A license is good for five years and is renewable
subject to result of "evaluation". The bill gives the minister of
information the right to revoke the license. Broadcasting
companies therefore face the same uncertainty that newspapers and
magazines have to deal with under their 1982 Press Law -- the
prospect of losing their license, with virtually no recourse for
reprieve.

Since the bill has already been endorsed and sent to President
Soeharto for his signature before it becomes law, there is no
point at this late stage to contest the particular clause on
licensing. We have reason to believe that, in view of the sour
experience with the 1982 Press Law, some House members sought
some kind of assurances from the government that the right to
revoke broadcasting licenses would be used sparingly, if at all.

Broadcasting, like the press, is a tool of democracy. This
point unfortunately is not reflected in the bill, which places
more emphasis on the functions of broadcasting as tools of
information, education and entertainment. Revoking the license of
a television or radio station, as we have seen with the
revocation of press licenses, will have far-reaching consequences
for the nation's democracy.

The House gave the government quite a run for its money in the
deliberation of the bill on broadcasting. The final version that
was endorsed Monday looked very different from the one the
government submitted in May. The House did not have everything
its way in the face of the omnipotent government. But we hope
House members will continue to monitor the implementation and the
interpretations of the law. Their task is not over, by any means,
with Monday's endorsement. They should see to it that, on the
question of licensing, broadcasting companies do not suffer the
same fate that their colleagues in the print media did with the
1982 Press Law.