Limitations on national press might continue

Limitations on national press might continue

By Suwiryo Ismail

JAKARTA (JP): The New Order government has tightly limited
press activities under the banner of a "free but controlled
press" since the 1970s.

After the closures of Tempo, Editor and Detik magazines in
1994, however, the government has considered press license
cancellations unpopular because critics argued such action was
unconstitutional and created a bad international image.

The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) ad hoc Committee I
confirmed early this month that revocation of press licenses is
unconstitutional. The committee, therefore, recommended the
amendment of Law No. 21/1982 concerning the press and the
cancellation of an information ministry decree allowing the
revocation of press licenses.

However, such a development would not guarantee that
repression against the press would end. Besides the threat of
license revocation, the government can control the press using
other measures.

State agencies, like bureaucratic and military institutions,
can resort to repressive actions to control the press, including
"open persuasion", telephone calls, physical violence,
intimidation of journalists or the assignment of social groups to
create counter public opinion.

The government can also influence the politics within the
press world through the coopting of outsiders into professional
institutions like the Indonesian Journalist Association, the
arrangement of editorial organizations and the positioning of
influential people as shareholders in media organizations.

The government can distract the press' attention from critical
issues by publicizing publicly attractive apolitical issues.

Any move toward greater freedom of the press -- a universally
recognized value in democratic countries -- could be easily
misinterpreted by the authorities.

Such misinterpretations usually result when authorities
believe the press reports news irresponsibly. Government
authorities, ever vigilant in maintaining the country's
stability, impress upon news reporters that a free flow of
sensitive information could create mass hysteria and instability.

Authorities also confront press freedoms when news concerns
the interests of the President and his family, political
stability and security -- including the dual function of the
Armed Forces -- and sensitive issues arising from ethnic,
religious, racial and inter-group tensions.

For almost 25 years, these government misinterpretations of
the press resulted in the closure of several news organizations,
including Harian Indonesia Raya in the 1970s, Prioritas and Sinar
Harapan in the 1980s, and Monitor and the publications mentioned
before in the 1990s.

Those organizations' licenses were revoked through the
commerce code, even though freedom of the press should have been
governed by the publications code which is under the domain of
the courts.

In defending their political hegemony, government authorities
have systematically excluded the mass media from politics in
order to remain the exclusive mobilizer of public opinion.

The press faces a dilemma because, on the one hand, it is
pressured by the government to limit its political reporting,
while on the other hand, it is required by the people to uphold
their universal interests -- democratic values, transparency,
equality, social and legal sovereignty, human rights and
environmental protection.

The public also looks to the press to play the role of
watchdog over the government -- a role not carried out
effectively by the legislature.

The roles of the press are not easy to fulfill because the New
Order government's exclusive political system has alienated the
press from public interests. The government's authorities demand
that the press, as a medium for political communication, must be
developed to create social harmony.

The control of the press not only affects the interest of the
press itself but also hinders the freedom of the public to
communicate and express themselves.

The public, for example, has lost opportunities to use the
press as a means of expression, particularly in disclosing facts
and ideas which are different from those announced or expressed
by officials. Another result of government control of the press
is that the public has had limited access to political
information, including information on the government's
accountability in organizing general elections.

In the long term, the government's influence over the press,
which has extended to press self-censorship, will lead to
negative social impacts. If monologues from the political elite
fill the reports of the press, then the press will not be able to
facilitate public participation in the process of social change.

Thus, the press is challenged to act as an agent of social
change, offering the communication of ideas and facts free from
government influence.

Will the issues of social change deliberated by the political
elite in the MPR be discussed and communicated in a way
influenced by the government?

If all modes of public communication are limited, should
social change be expressed in revolutionary ways? Such a scenario
would indeed cost society a great deal.

The writer is a former journalist now working for the
Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institution.