Make the best of broadcasting body

Make the best of broadcasting body

Bayu Wicaksono, Civil Society Alliance for Democracy (Yappika),
Jakarta

What fear do practitioners and businessmen actually have about
the broadcasting bill? Businessmen tend to fear the
implementation of this law, especially regarding the articles on
cross ownership, capital and the establishment of a working
agency, which some say is likely to act like a "monster" owing to
its unlimited authority and obligations.

Articles 34 - 36 of Chapter V of the broadcasting bill set
forth in great detail the tasks, obligations and rights of this
agency, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission, or KPI.

In Indonesia, a commission is commonly plagued by corruption,
collusion and nepotism. It works just like a handful of people
enjoying full power and legitimacy from the state. Fundamentally,
many commissions are legally flawed in their establishment. Just
look at the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA) or the
rampant rumors of corruption in the National Commission on Human
Rights.

To date, only the National Law Commission is still free from
rumors about corruption and the like, but it is not unlikely that
there are also loopholes for such bad practices. Aren't members
of a commission selected on the basis of their individual
capacity? In their routine job, commission members only represent
the community but is not morally accountable to the community,
who have reportedly made them commission members.

KPI will also be in a similar situation. If it is not clear
who has selected and appointed its members, it is often the case
that these members will not be able to tell which community they
represent. Besides, they cannot give their accountability report
as the House of Representatives, the body doing the screening for
candidate members, know next to nothing about these people and in
what interest they have applied to be KPI members. If they are
nominated, who nominated them? Then, to whom is a KPI member
accountable to?

The broadcasting bill has, of late, become one of the hottest
topics of discussion involving even the National Commission on
Human Rights. KPI has often been called a terrifying monster. In
fact, the motive for the establishment of the KPI is to empower
civil society and make them capable of taking care of themselves.
This means that the state delegates all the rulings to the
community by according legal legitimacy to a commission which can
play a full role. Article 34 sub-article (1) states that "The
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission draws a guideline of conduct
for broadcasting practices called a broadcasting conduct guide."

Given the poor performance of commissions in Indonesia, it is
only proper to find a breakthrough in the establishment of the
KPI. The risk of collusion and corruption would be minimized
because the membership of the KPI comprises institutions which
have been statutory bodies for a minimum of two years. If
individuals are to be appointed members of the KPI, the
candidates must be nominated by at least two institutions under
the same criteria. When an institution has become a statutory
body for two years, this means that it has been legally validated
and recognized by the state for two years. The period of two
years has been included merely to avoid any illegal freeloaders
with their personal interests.

If there is insistence that members of KPI must be
individuals, the regulation and requirements referred to earlier
must continue to be enforced. If someone wishes to be a member of
the KPI, he must be proposed by at least two institutions which
have become statutory bodies for two years.

The broadcasting bill does not explicitly mention the
mechanism of the appointment of the KPI members. That is why
suspicion has arisen. Who will be members of this commission? The
articles about the KPI do not state who is entitled to be members
of the KPI, let alone the mechanism of their appointment.

The fear about the KPI has come only from capital owners. As
this commission will have great authority, rights and
obligations, it has come as no surprise that there are people who
will be worried about the performance of this commission later.
Then this worry will finally become a fear and this fear will
turn into a rejection. Rejection will lead to constraints.

Therefore, the selection process of the KPI members, either
individual or institutional, must be strict. Since the KPI will
always be linked with the likelihood of collusion and corruption,
the fit and proper test for its candidates should be held as soon
as this bill is ratified. Article 61 sub-article (3) of Chapter
IX on Transitional Stipulation states that "The Indonesian
Broadcasting Commission must be established, at the latest, one
year after the promulgation of this law."

The most important of all is that if the KPI does not come
into being, it would be the state that has the authority and
power to control the broadcasting business. If this happens, we
will witness history repeating itself as the press will be in the
clutches of the state.