License to report

License to report

One could not agree more with President B.J. Habibie's desire
to see a higher standard of professionalism among Indonesian
journalists. In this era of globalization, professionalism in any
field is crucial. Without it, people in any walk of life will not
be able to survive the fierce global competition that now exists.
If professionalism is equated with striving for higher
journalistic standards, Habibie's concern is valid. Indonesian
journalists are just rediscovering freedom of the press after it
was suppressed by Habibie's predecessor Soeharto for more than
two decades. Journalists could hardly be expected to enhance
their professionalism in an authoritarian regime. As journalists
adjust to the more open environment, they have the chance to
develop and strengthen their professionalism. Any support and
thoughts on how they should go about this from any quarter,
including the President, is therefore welcome.

During a meeting with representatives of newspaper publishers
last week, Habibie suggested the use of a licensing mechanism for
journalists. The President likened journalism to the medical
profession, in which doctors are licensed to practice. A license
is issued after one has demonstrated the possession of certain
minimum skills by passing professional examinations. The system
is intended to ensure high standards and any doctor guilty of
malpractice, unprofessional conduct, or failing to meet the
minimum standards can have his license revoked.

Habibie's suggestion, as related by Secretary-General of the
Association of Indonesian Journalists Parni Hadi, calls for the
formation of a body to issue journalists with annually renewable
licenses. On the surface of it, the argument for licensing
journalists appears to be strong. There is definitely a need to
strengthen the skills of the people working in the media. Given
the influence that the press and the broadcasting media have over
public opinion, there is certainly a need to ensure that
journalists do not abuse their power.

While we can think of many good reasons why licensing is good,
we can think of only one reason, but a very good one at that, why
this system should never be adopted: Journalism by licensing
threatens democracy. The proposal cuts at the essence of a free
press, and therefore free speech and freedom of expression.

The comparison with the medical profession is valid only to
the point where both doctors and journalists perform crucial
services that have a wide impact on the public. But journalism,
in the sense of writing for the press, should never become a
closed-shop profession where entry is restricted. That would
violate Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution that guarantees the
freedom of expression, whether orally or in writing. Any person
of any background should be entitled to write their opinions, and
whether or not their articles get published in newspapers or
magazines is up to the discretion of editors. Habibie's proposal
would preclude non-licensed journalists from having their say in
the press, and this could deprive the nation of the healthy
discourse which is so essential to democracy.

The plan appears to be the latest government attempt to slow
down the process of reform. In the information sector, we have
not seen any progress since the partial liberalization of the
press by Minister of Information Muhammad Yunus early last month.
Yunus rolled back the bureaucratic procedures required to start
up press publications and allowed more than one professional
organizations to represent journalists. However, he retained the
requirement that all journalists have to be accredited to a
professional organization on the pretext of maintaining
standards. Yunus also underscored the government's reliance on
the court of law to deal with abuses of press freedom by
newspaper publishers rather than revoking licenses as in the
past.

No one would dispute the need to strengthen professionalism
and stamp out abuses of power in the Indonesian press. But there
are many ways of doing this that will not kill democracy. While
we cannot tolerate quack doctors, we can probably live with some
quack journalists.

Market forces are not perfect, but they are still the best way
to determine the existence of press publications. The public are
mature enough to judge what they read in newspapers, irrespective
of whether it has been written by licensed journalists or not.
Habibie's proposal may sound good, but society stands to lose a
lot more than it gains from licensing journalists.