Moving toward a new broadcast law

By Santoso

JAKARTA (JP): The broadcast industry in Indonesia has grown significantly over the last five years. In the radio sector, the number of private stations has increased by about 25 percent over this period, from 794 to 1,007 stations.

In television, next year we shall see the emergence of new stations, doubling the total number of stations from five private television stations to 10. However, while the broadcast industry is growing dynamically, the laws regulating it are very old- fashioned.

Broadcast Law No. 24/1997 is based on the New Order paradigm, namely that everything must be under government control. Obviously, this law is no longer in line with the spirit of reform. That is why we need a new broadcasting law, and why the legislature is currently taking the initiative to draft one.

The draft Broadcast Law is in many ways an improvement over the existing law, with the most significant difference concerning the management of frequencies.

Both laws accept that the issue of frequencies is a matter for the public domain, but they differ in determining who has the authority to manage these limited resources. The existing law stipulates that it is the government that has the authority to manage the frequencies.

By contrast, the proposed bill shifts the power from the state to the public, by establishing the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), designed as an independent regulatory body which holds the highest authority in the broadcast industry. Its members and chairperson would be elected by the House of Representatives, and it would have the right to issue frequency licenses and withdraw them if they consider that the license holder has violated the law.

The first matter of controversy with respect to the draft bill concerns the existence of KPI. While most people agree that we need to change the paradigm of managing frequencies from the state to the public, some worry about the excessive power granted to KPI.

For example, the commission would be able to shut down any broadcast institution which it deems to have violated the law, without first going to the court. Such power becomes a real threat when we note that KPI would not deal only with technical aspects of broadcasting, but also would monitor broadcast content.

Under the draft law, KPI would determine the standards of broadcast quality and diversity, for example. This would mean that any broadcaster which failed to meet this standard with respect to quality of content would be liable to closure by KPI. This would be very dangerous and could result in KPI becoming an authoritarian body, like the ministry of information during the New Order.

The commission would be more effective if it dealt only with the technical aspects of broadcasting. It could be an independent regulator, which allocated frequencies for broadcasters and established technical criteria and sanctions. Nowadays, there is greater need for more attention to be paid to technical problems related to broadcasting, especially in the era of convergence between broadcasting and the Internet. This era is opening up a new medium, namely media streaming. How will KPI address forms of broadcast which do not need a frequency?

With KPI focusing its attention on technical matters, we could leave existing institutions to look after content. For example, we could make the most out of the Press Council and have it deal with questions of journalistic content on radio and television.

We could make the most out of the Film Censorship Body for film and television series, and the Association of Indonesian Advertising Agencies to deal with advertising content. By doing so, we would prevent KPI from becoming a new authoritarian body for the electronic media, at the same time strengthening the new paradigm that information is a public affair. There is no point in surrendering the management of frequencies to the government.

A second point in the draft is its seemingly excessive anxiety about foreign broadcast institutions. This is demonstrated by the restrictions on foreign media's cooperation with local broadcast institutions.

Article 21 of the draft stipulates that any foreign broadcaster planning to broadcast here must first obtain a license from KPI. This idea is out of date, and has no point.

Many foreign broadcasters such as the BBC, VOA, Hilversum and Deutsche Welle have already built partnerships with local stations.

This provides two benefits simultaneously; listeners have alternative sources of information, while local broadcasters have the opportunity to compare their programs with foreign ones. By opening our skies to foreign broadcasts, we will stimulate our creativity and enhance the quality of domestic broadcasters.

The politics of licensing to restrict foreign media is also ineffective, especially in the era of streaming media. These days, people can easily listen to BBC radio or watch foreign television on the Internet.

Broadcasts can also be downloaded and the material rebroadcast without any technical restrictions. So what is the relevance of the KPI license?

Streaming media is becoming increasingly popular. Currently, around 15 million people listen to the radio via the Internet. Internet television also will be more important in the near future. In this context, regulations intended to prevent information flow to a country are not relevant.

The third important issue concerns investment. Some observers say that the proposed broadcasting bill will open the way for foreign capital to enter Indonesia.

They argue that this capital inflow will endanger the domestic broadcasting industry. This concern is unfounded, because Press Law No. 40/1999 states that foreign capital is allowed, but is limited to no more than 15 percent.

Under this structure, we can be assured that domestic capital will still control the Indonesian media.

Rather, the danger will come from the absence of, or very weak limits on, the centralization of ownership. Article 16 of the draft law states that the ownership of broadcasting institutions that tends toward centralization in one person or one legal entity is limited.

This formulation is very weak. What is the meaning of "limited"? Why not "prohibited"? And what are the sanctions if it is proven that an individual or single legal entity is guilty of this?

These questions are highly relevant, especially in the television industry. For the radio industry it would likely be very difficult to control ownership of more than 1,000 stations. But in television, we should not forget that all of the five private stations currently operating in Indonesia -- RCTI, SCTV, TPI, ANteve and Indosiar -- are owned either by Soeharto's cronies or his children.

Unconfirmed reports state that the five new television stations that will be on the air next year are also owned by the same circle. This is understandable, because the cost of starting a new television stations is around US$100 million, and not many people in Indonesia have that kind of money.

If the five new private television stations -- Trans-TV, DVN- TV, Global-TV, PR-TV and Metro TV -- are proven to have links with Soeharto, then we should be worried, particularly in view of television's enormous impact on people.

And if they are all under the control of one circle of capitalists, we can expect that circle to control public opinion.

Therefore, the bill must clarify the sanctions and ban the centralization of capital in the broadcast industry. There is still time to revise the draft that is currently under scrutiny in the legislature.

The writer is the director of 68H Radio News Agency and a founder of the Alliance of Independent Journalists.