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.