Information again under the control of government

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

One may have seen it coming. Perhaps not glaringly conspicuous, but the signs where there for a return to the situation where information would be controlled and restricted by the government.

The first sign was the return of the information ministry as a portfolio ministry early this year, which was met with concern that it would operate like the information ministry during the authoritarian regime of former president Soeharto, who was ousted in 1998.

The Information Ministry during the New Order regime practically controlled all the country's media, and it had sole power to grant and revoke licenses and was thus able to meddle in editorial processes.

The second sign was the ministry's ban on all broadcasters from going to air from midnight to dawn, using the excuse of conserving energy amid ballooning global oil prices.

Criticism of this move was quick, including from the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI). However, the protests quickly dissipated.

The third sign was the controversial four sets of government regulations issued recently by the ministry to provide technical implementation of Law No. 32/2002 on broadcasting.

The four are government regulations No. 49/2005 on foreign broadcasters, No. 50/2005 on private broadcasters, No. 51/2005 on community broadcasters and No. 52/2005 on subscription-based broadcasters.

Not only did the ministry grace itself with the final say on licensing issues, but it also put boundaries on content -- a clear violation of the broadcasting law, according to experts.

Among them is the prohibition on private broadcasters to relay regular news programs from foreign broadcasters, thus limiting sources of information to the public.

Old habits die hard, media analyst Hinca Panjaitan said, referring to the irresistible desire by those in power to control the information received by the public.

"All the fears about the ministry are turning into reality. The media is supposed to control the government, but how is it supposed to do so when its life lies in a minister's hands?" he said.

Hinca said the four regulations constituted clear evidence of tight restrictions that were not supposed to be applied in a democracy, where freedom of information is constitutionally guaranteed.

Asked if the government seemed to be wayward on this issue, Hinca said the government was hiding behind the judicial review process.

"I suppose they knew criticism would come, but they just want to control. They knew a judicial review would be filed, but they knew it would take years for a verdict to be handed down," he said.

Information minister Sofyan Djalil had said, "Let (critics) file a judicial review, but these regulations will remain in force until there is a verdict".

Unlike a judicial review at the Constitutional Court, a review by the Supreme Court has no maximum period before a verdict has to be handed down.

"We'll probably be having another general election, but the judicial review will still be undecided," said Hinca.

Nonetheless, Hinca said a group of media observers were now drafting documents to file a judicial review against the "repressive regulations".

The KPI filed a judicial review on the previous regulations to the Supreme Court in July, but it remains unclear when a verdict would be delivered.