Government and the House in favor of media restriction

Government and the House in favor of media restriction

Bimo Nugroho, Director Institute for the Studies on
Free Flow of Information (ISAI), Jakarta, bimo@isai.or.id

The Indonesian media is under threat of a ban that was
initiated by the government, who formulates bills, and by the
House of Representatives (DPR), who passes them. There are three
aspects that indicate this threat from the legislature.

First, a proposal to revise the Press Law, which resulted from
a consideration that the media has gone too far.

Second, a broadcasting bill that entitles the state
administration to determine the allotment of television and radio
frequencies.

And third is the fact that a secrecy bill was given priority
over a bill on the freedom to access information.

When the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) protested against
pornography on several television programs, it gave rise to the
demand to revise the Press Law as well. The suggestion was once
raised a couple of months ago by Aisyah Amini, a member of the
House of Representatives. Despite a public debate on the issue,
the proposal to revise the Press Law is furtively circulating.

Pornography has nothing to do with the Press Law, but the
political elite is reportedly fed up with harsh criticism
delivered by the media and journalists. This sentiment was most
evident in a statement issued by Amien Rais when he formally
launched his homepage: "As a public figure, I often felt that my
interviews with the media were to a great extent distorted at
times by our journalists." It is probably true. There are many
journalists who are not professional. However, professionalism
can be improved on by offering workshops and improving media
management.

In short, for the time being, the Press Law does not need any
revision. It is better for the members of the legislature to
focus their energy on completing their "homework", which is
deliberating on the mounting pile of bills.

The broadcasting bill, which entered its final deliberation in
May 2002, is the second aspect warning of a threat of a ban. The
core issue in this matter is who owns the right to revoke a
broadcasting license, and how great is the authority of the
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission.

The most recent draft of the articles in the broadcasting bill
gives great authority to the Ministry of Transportation and the
State Ministry of Communications and Information to issue and
revoke broadcasting licenses of television and radio stations
when essentially, frequency modulation is public property, not
private property, of which its management is under the authority
of the government.

Therefore, in this case, the role of the state is aimed at
public interest and prosperity. If, however, the legislature
passes the bill, control over the frequency modulation by certain
governmental departments -- as mandated by the broadcasting bill
-- will undoubtedly open the door to a threat of a ban on, in
this case, radio and television, by the authorities.

This is only the political negative consequences.
Economically, the control of frequencies by the state
administration could give an opportunity to corruption, collusion
and authority manipulation to gain benefits for private or group
interests. Past experience from the Soeharto era has proven that
when publishing licenses were controlled by the Ministry of
Information, state officials and their families could manipulate
their authority to gain money or stocks.

It is advised that members of the legislature study the laws
of other countries. In several nations, the frequency regulation
is mandated to an independent broadcasting commission, whose
members are elected by the legislative and inaugurated by the
executives, either the president or prime minister.

South Africa, a country that is younger than Indonesia, has a
media community that is owned by the Independent Broadcasting
Authority (IBA). In June 2000, the IBA, along with other
independent media organizations, established the Independent
Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA).

In the United States, there is also the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Meanwhile, France has the Council Superieur de
l'Audiovisuel (CSA).

The third precursor is the secrecy bill, which was given
priority over the freedom to access information bill. As
announced by the secretary of the House of Representatives, there
are more than 40 draft laws awaiting deliberation in House
sessions. The secrecy bill ranks 17th, and the freedom to access
information bill ranks 30th. Both bills oppose each other. If the
secrecy bill is passed first, then the deliberation of the
freedom to access information bill will be based on it. Thus, the
coverage of the freedom to access information will be restricted
by the secrecy interest.

Normally, the secrecy of the state is an exception to the
freedom to access information. Therefore, the freedom to access
information bill should be deliberated on beforehand to guarantee
the public's right to search, obtain and distribute information
that has to be provided by the state administration. After the
bill is passed, the legislature can deliberate afterwards on the
exceptions as regulated in the secrecy bill.

It can be broadly concluded that the freedom of the press
pendulum is swinging back to a restricted press. The restriction
has been developed structurally and the state's supra-structure
is responsible for this.

If the main agent of the restriction was previously the
executive, especially Soeharto, then currently it is the
legislative. It is ironic. Why are the members of the House, who
were elected to liberate the reform process, adopting a media-
oppressing paradigm?