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?