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.