How free is Indonesian press?

How free is Indonesian press?

Ong Hock Chuan, Jakarta

The 2005 Worldwide Press Freedom Index, published by Reporters
without Borders late last week, is puzzling.

Why is the press in Indonesia less free than its counterparts
in Timor Leste and Cambodia; and why is Indonesia only two
notches up from Thailand, whose government is going all out to
curb the freedom of the press?

Details of how Reporters without Borders arrived at such
conclusions are sketchy, but, according to news reports,
Indonesia seems to have been judged according to several
criteria, namely the extent to which it allows foreign
journalists to report in conflict-prone areas, such as Aceh and
Papua, the activity of online media, some provisions of the
Criminal Code and the tardiness of the police's response and
protection of journalists being intimidated by local politicians.

To be sure, these developments do contribute to securing press
freedom in a country. But one cannot help questioning whether the
weight given to such developments is fair to countries like
Indonesia. Based on the reported criteria, what Indonesia seems
to face are difficult decisions over areas with insurgent and
security problems, a nascent legislature and loose command
structures that sometimes see local chiefs not acting, or acting
overzealously over particular incidents.

Do these criteria provide an accurate snapshot of the state of
press freedom in the country? Journalists who have worked in
domestic media in countries where the press is controlled would
argue that the main determinant of press freedom in Asia lies
with the government's attitude, and therefore its actions, or
non-actions, toward the press.

Governments who hold the press in contempt have a variety of
means to curtail its freedom, the most effective of which is to
create a culture of self-censorship among the press, especially
among the local journalists who are subject to their jurisdiction
and often have nowhere else to run away to.

Intimidation is the key to creating a culture of self-
censorship. Through repressive and all-encompassing laws such as
the Internal Security Act, governments can and have thrown
critical journalists into jail without trial. Laws such as the
Internal Security Act, coupled with control of the licenses that
enable publications to stay open, make the governments all
powerful. Often, all it takes is a phone call to an editor
expressing mild dissatisfaction with a report or a journalist to
have the publication make a 180-degree turn, issue a detraction
or desist from pursuing the story.

The law can also be used to intimidate journalists. Government
ministers, their cronies or businesses strongly linked to them
can use the vast financial and manpower resources to bear on
journalists. The amounts they seek are punitive. Even if they do
not win the case they can be assured of putting the offending
journalist and their publication through the wringer, eating up
huge amounts of their time and finances. What is happening in
Thailand is a case in point.

Not all control relies on the stick, however. Carrots are part
of the arsenal of press control for some governments. Carrots
come in the form of junkets (good journalists get to go on trips
accompanying the premiers, maverick ones do not), titles
(Malaysia is particularly good at this, awarding some journalists
with not one but two Datuk-ships. A Datuk being a honorary title,
something akin to Sir in the British system) and appointments (a
neighboring country makes sure that only journalists who toe the
line are appointed to key executive positions in the nation's
media organizations).

When successful, these governments create a culture of self-
censorship in the media, a useful situation as the governments
seemingly do very little, leaving the intimidated editors to
censor their own journalists. When this happens press freedom is
lost, not because of overtly repressive or violent measures but
because the spirit of the journalists are broken.

Fortunately, the Indonesian government has chosen to take a
different tack. Over the past year, the government of Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono has chosen to give the press free reign.
Journalists and commentators are free to criticize almost
anybody, including the President himself.

And when it feels itself wronged the only measure it takes is
to write to the press requesting -- and not insisting -- that
they respect the President's right of reply. The press print
this, the issue gets a fair hearing and everyone moves on. Press
freedom is not only tolerated, it is being encouraged.

Indonesia now has a press so free it can be a model for other
Southeast Asian countries in how a free press does not
necessarily threaten the standing of the government. Part of the
reason is that SBY, unlike many of the region's leaders, has no
skeletons in his closet in the form of nepotism, corruption or
collusion (KKN) and that it is very evident to all and sundry
that the man has integrity and a real intention to work for the
country, in spite of the vested interests surrounding him.

These qualities stand out, even when he is criticized. His
standing remains largely undiminished, as recent polls suggest.
And the spotlight eventually turns to those around him who have
performed below par.

SBYs treatment of the press, where freedom is not only
tolerated but encouraged, should surely catapult Indonesia much
further up the rankings of the World Press Freedom Index. Yet it
stands at number 105, 47 notches below Timor Leste, 14 below
Cambodia and a mere two notches up from Thailand. Whatever did
the other countries do to deserve their ranking?

The writer worked for 14 years as a journalist in Malaysia,
Hong Kong and Taiwan before joining the public relation business.
He was formerly a Wolfson Press Fellow at Cambridge University.