Foreign capital could revive media

By Ignatius Haryanto

JAKARTA (JP): Freedom of the press is an important indicator of just how far Indonesia has gone in its attempt to improve its democratic system through political reform. It would be important, then, to take a look at how the Habibie administration has dealt with the mass media in its first two months in power.

A month ago, members of the press were surprised when the new information minister, Mohammad Yunus, issued a number of decrees allowing greater press freedoms. The move won the minister kudos from many elements of society.

First he recognized the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) as a professional journalistic organization beside the hitherto sole government-sponsored Indonesian Association of Journalists (PWI),

Yet other decrees simplified the procedures for obtaining a press publication license (SIUPP) and reduced the frequency required for private commercial radio stations to relay news reports from the government-run Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI).

The minister also planned to consolidate regulations dealing with the mass media -- including print media, radio, television and film -- into only one law. On top of this, he is pressing to revise the law on press principles and the law on broadcasting affairs.

These advances, however, were slightly marred by two cases in early July.

The first was related to President B.J. Habibie's proposal that journalists should hold licenses. PWI secretary-general Parni Hadi said after a meeting between Habibie and the Association of Newspaper Publishers (SPS) on July 10 that the President had made an analogy between the need for licensing journalists and licenses required for practicing physicians.

The second was State Minister for Investments Hamzah Haz's announcement on July 15 that the mass media was closed to foreign investment. The presidential decree also covers the film, land transportation, forest concession and fishery sectors.

What significance do these two cases carry in the framework of the government's reform of the media sector, a drive which the minister of information himself initiated?

Should journalists be required to possess a license before reporting something newsworthy? Such an idea must be introduced by a professional journalistic organization since it is the journalists themselves who should take care of their own affairs. If the requirement came from the government, people would suspect that the move was a new method to control the country's mass media.

Answers to the following questions, however, may help clarify the matter.

* Is it necessary for a reporter to possess a license before carrying out a reporting assignment?

* Is there any guarantee that this would not be a government tool to control the media?

* Is it appropriate to compare journalism to the medical or legal profession which require operating licenses?

Referring to the first question, a media company, of course, must know that their employees are professional and well qualified. Once a company employs a reporter, what else is needed to provide recognition of his or her journalistic qualifications?

It is worth noting that freelance journalism has yet to gain popularity and recognition in Indonesia. Foreign media companies, in fact, rely on freelance reporters very much for exclusive reports. It will be interesting to see if freelance journalism is allowed to develop here since the government may fear that it may not be able to control such reporters.

It is also important to ask whether a reporting license is really needed or not. I suspect the idea stems from a fear that media reports may harm the interests of a reporter's source. Such interests, though, can be protected through the journalistic code of conduct and civil and criminal law.

The journalistic code of conduct was drawn up by journalists themselves with the help of other elements of society. If necessary, this code can be reviewed every two or three years to keep it abreast with societal developments pertaining to interactions the media has with the community and the government.

During a workshop focussing on a preliminary bill to amend the mass media law held at Horison Hotel in North Jakarta from June 17 to June 19 by the Ministry of Information and the University of Indonesia's post-graduate program on communication sciences, many of the participants argued that the code of conduct and civil and criminal laws were more than enough to accommodate any complaints about media reports.

If necessary, a publication can be brought to court for alleged careless reporting or defamation. In such instances, however, it would not be necessary to ban the publication or revoke its SIUPP.

Should a licensing system be adopted, there would be no guarantee that it would not be abused by the government to curb press activities.

Doctors and journalists are obviously two different professions. Medical doctors require formal training. They also have more freedom in pursuing their career in that they can serve patients privately without having to work for certain institutions.

Unlike doctors, reporters work in a team. Reports published in the print media or aired on the TV or radio are a collective product. The chief or executive editor takes full responsibility for such reports.

One does not need special education to become a journalist. University students of any background may become journalists as long as they are willing to learn and acquire the skills required in the profession. Besides, a journalist cannot put up a sign in front of his or her house announcing that he or she will take orders to write news reports and articles.

We must honestly admit that the ban on foreign investment in the country's media sector is a highly conservative policy.

The reality today is that most of Indonesia's media publications have collapsed due to the monetary crisis. The country's press is feeling the pinch as soaring newsprint and production prices have forced retail price increases and reductions in the number of pages published. The question is: how much longer can these press organizations hold out under such conditions?

Perhaps foreign investment should be considered instead of thoughtlessly discarding it as an option.

Who exactly is threatened from the possible presence of foreign investments in the media sector? The oligopolistic media owners, local media organizations or the government?

As the era of trade liberalization approaches, Indonesia must stop shielding its mass media under the pretense of national identity or cultural uniqueness.

While specific regulations would be needed, the presence of foreign capital in the country's media sector would not only help revive the industry, but it would also introduce a new journalistic climate. Foreign investments would, for instance, help improve editorial management, news coverage, writing skills and the way the industry thinks on the international scale.

It must be admitted, though, that the presence of foreign capital may serve as a Sword of Damocles. On the one hand, it may provide financial and technological assistance to the local media, but on the other it may also pose as an enemy to press freedom because the logic of global capital is none other than the logic of the accumulation of capital.

We need to debate this subject while referencing the experience of other countries. We need to look at logical arguments, not presumption. Unless such a debate is held, Indonesia may find itself hiding behind the wall of narrow-minded nationalism, a situation which would alienate the country from the rest of the world.

It should be noted that many newspaper executives indicated recently that they would welcome foreign investments. They even said that such a move could improve the industry through sound competition.

Habibie's administration can gain credibility only if it consistently carries out a reform agenda, listens to the people's aspirations and refrains from repeating the mistakes of its predecessor.

The writer works for the Institute for Press and Development Studies.