License to live
Everyone seems to agree on the need to revise the 1982 Press Law after the House of Representatives gave their endorsement last week for passing the broadcasting bill into law. But they agree for different reasons. There are those who believe that because so much has changed in the press industry in the last 14 years, the legislation has to be improved. There are those who view the revision as an opportunity to correct a fatal error in the 1982 law: a hidden clause giving the government overriding power and control over the press through the licensing mechanism.
Minister of Information Harmoko, who first broached the subject about the revision last week, made it clear that the present licensing system would not be changed. Not unexpectedly, leaders of the Indonesian Journalists' Association subscribe to the idea of retaining the licensing system. While admitting the shortcomings of licensing, they say that overall, the system protects the journalistic profession.
Licensing, however, is a two-edged sword. It protects and it kills. The revocation of press publishing licenses, because it is an irreversible process, has amounted to the banning of newspapers and magazines, displaced journalists and press workers, deprived journalists and columnists of their right to express their opinions, and deprived readers of their right to information. Among the publications which were banned in the last 12 years or so were Sinar Harapan, Prioritas, Monitor, Tempo, Editor and DeTik. Some of these, like Tempo, were prestigious publications in that they were very much a part of the country's democratic institutions.
When it was enacted in 1982, the Press Law was hailed as a victory for the press and democracy because it specifically states that there is no censorship against the press and that there will be no closures of the press institutions. But another clause in the law states that press publications must operate with a license issued by the government. This clause turned out to be a big loophole, giving the government the power to issue and take away press publishing licenses. Even the courts of law to this day cannot decide whether revoking a license amounts to closing down a newspaper, which the 1982 law specifically forbids. But that is certainly the effect of a revocation, and the government seems to have managed to get away with it every time it revoked a license.
Now it appears that broadcasting companies are about to suffer the same fate as the press publishing houses. Many people argue that the broadcasting law will be more advanced than the 1982 Press Law, but that depends on one's interpretation.
The broadcasting law empowers the government to license broadcasting companies. A license is given for five years and is renewable, subject to the result of an "evaluation". The broadcasting law specifically states that the government has the power to revoke the license. In terms of the government's control, the broadcasting law is certainly more progressive. Some House members said a broadcasting license can only be revoked with a court approval, but this is not spelled out in the final version of the bill. One can only presume that this assurance was given verbally by the government during the deliberation of the bill. It remains to be seen what the government's implementing regulation on broadcast licensing will look like.
The way it looks now, the licensing system has introduced an element of uncertainty for those who work in the press and broadcasting industry. They will be caught between their role to inform the public and perform a check on the government's behavior, and the need to avoid losing their license. Even from the business point of view, licensing could scare away investors. It certainly makes it difficult for any press publishing house or television network to go public. Broadcasting companies actually get a worse deal, because their licenses are only good for five years.
We are not against licensing per se, but we are concerned about the way press publishing licenses have been revoked in the past. Licensing is necessary to ensure order, there is no doubt about that. But there must be better and more transparent procedures by which licenses are revoked. A court procedure, even with all the imperfections of our legal institution, is still preferable. At least in a court, one is given the chance to defend oneself.