Defect in existing press law needs to be fixed

Defect in existing press law needs to be fixed

By Ignatius Haryanto

This is the second of two articles on Indonesian press law and
regulations.

JAKARTA (JP): In Indonesia, the definition of the Press
Council is confusing because, as regulated in the law of the
press, it is none other than a joint institution of the
government and the press, which are not on equal standing. In the
meantime, the Indonesian Association of Journalists (PWI) has its
own Honorary Council, the members of which are appointed by the
association itself.

The minister of information and the director general of press
and graphics development are respectively ex-officio chairman and
secretary of the Press Council. Only the position of the
executive chairman is assumed by someone from the press.

The Press Council is installed by the minister of information.
So the minister of information appoints himself chairman of the
Press Council. Moreover, the policies of the Press Council may
not necessarily be those in favor of the fate of the press
itself.

Jakob Oetama, executive chairman of the Press Council, proved
this when acting as a witness in the 1995 Tempo case. He said
that the meeting he chaired never recommended that Tempo's
publishing license be revoked, while then minister of information
Harmoko said that the Press Council had recommended to the
government that Tempo should be banned.

This case shows that the government simultaneously takes two
positions with conflicting interests: on the one hand as the
executive supervising the ministry of information, and on the
other as chairman of the Press Council which must give advice to
the government regarding matters related to its press policy.

It may therefore be said that as an institution, the Press
Council cannot be impartial in its relationship with the
government because its chairman and its secretary are government
officials. Therefore, the presence of a Press Council with such a
function is absurd.

This is typical of the many forms of state corporatism in
community life which have expanded since the beginning of the New
Order. Civil servants have their only association, parties are
fused, students silenced, workers organized in a single union and
House members kept under control. A similar situation is also
found in the press. We have the Press Council, Association of
Press Publishers and PWI. Not only have these been standardized,
they monopolize all activities of the press and individual
journalists.

That's why the consideration clause in the law of the press
refers to the press organization as "a government-approved
organization of journalists, organization of press companies,
organization of graphics press and organization of advertising
media."

What has happened to PWI is not very different. The most basic
question regarding both is what legitimacy these two
organizations have to claim that they are the only press
organizations in Indonesia. PWI always argues that it should
assume the monopoly by virtue of the Letter of the Minister of
Information No. 47/1975. However, as 22 years have elapsed since
the PWI was given this legal legitimacy, isn't it now the right
time to discuss the monopoly assumed by this professional
journalists organization?

It is expected that this professional organization of
journalists can respond better to problems related to the right
of the community to get complete information and a clear
definition of impartial coverage of "both sides".

There is an assumption that the stress in the definition of
"both sides" lies in "always giving the opinion of the government
or military officers regarding cases happening in society."

In many cases the other side of a story is frequently missing.
Take, for example, any riot. Nowadays the Indonesian press will
not carry balanced reporting of the riot's victims and
perpetrators or the opinions of observers in order that the
coverage will not in any way contain distorted information.

Therefore it is now time for the government to its role in
stipulating the policies or the membership of the professional
organization of journalists if it sincerely wishes to develop it
as a professional organization.

A government regulation exercising control of this
organization should be revoked as our society has developed its
maturity and intelligence and also because there is now an
increasing demand for an independent professional organization.

As the biggest country in Southeast Asia, Indonesia could be
an area ripe for mass media investment.

The telecommunications industry sees Indonesia as a potential
market and the mass media industry should do likewise.

However, if the format of our present law on the principles of
the press remains as it is, it may well come to pass that in an
era of liberalized trade, this press regulation will become
obsolete.

The 1984 stipulation of Government Regulation No. 20, which
allows a foreign investor to control 100 percent of a company
established in Indonesia, sparked a debate on matters related to
the national capital in the press. Harmoko, then minister of
information, was quick to reject the enforcement of this
government regulation. He had a big stake in the protection of
"the national capital" against the control of foreign investors.

The fear for foreign capital should not have been so great as
foreign investment has come into our media industry through other
ways. Why does the government maintain national capital in the
press industry? A clear answer has never been given. Does the
reason hinge on a cultural argument or is it based on a fear that
introduction of more democratic ideals will result in the press
assuming greater confidence to report facts hitherto hidden?

So what is hidden behind the protection of the national
capital must be re-evaluated. It may happen that the assumption
imagined to exist when the law was discussed as a bill is no
longer relevant.

If foreign investment needs regulating, the government could
restrict it to a maximum of 20 percent, for example, and also
stipulate that investors can hold a stake only in one print media
company and one electronic media company. In this case
transparency is required from both sides. We need ideas which
show our progressive thinking and transparency in order to
survive in the era of globalization. We should not just forbid
foreign investment without any strong reason for doing so.

This situation will pose a challenge to the professional press
organizations: Are they ready for liberalized trade and
globalization?

Press people and legal experts concerned with the press have
long put Regulation of the Minister of Information No. 01/1984 on
their agendas. A clause in this regulation -- point h of Article
33 -- does negate the stipulation in a law of a higher status,
namely the law on the principles of the press.

According to legal logic, it is unacceptable that a regulation
lower in status than the law is able reject the law itself. The
reality is that Article 33 point h has claimed many victims, the
last being the weeklies Tempo, DeTik and Editor, which were
banned in 1994.

If there is a serious endeavor now to revise the law on the
principles of the press, the provisions in this regulation of the
minister of information must also be reviewed. Or even the
controversial article referred to above must be removed because
it is not in tune with the hierarchy of our country's laws.

The writer is chairman of the Institute for Press and
Development Studies in Jakarta.