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.