No reference for ban of 'Tempo': Press Council
No reference for ban of 'Tempo': Press Council
JAKARTA (JP): The Indonesian Press Council, the country's mass media watchdog, did not recommend that the government ban Tempo magazine in June last year, according to the testimony of one of its executives in court yesterday.
Jakob Oetama told the Jakarta branch of the State Administrative Court that the revocation of Tempo's publishing license had not been among recommendations made to the government by the council.
The council had only prepared recommendations that the media engage in introspection in order to improve their reporting, tighten the supervision of journalists and that the government allow the media more room for "self-correction".
The last recommendation meant, among other things, asking the media to tone down their reporting on sensitive issues, Jakob said.
The Administrative Court was hearing two lawsuits against the decision of Minister of Information Harmoko to revoke Tempo's publishing license.
The lawsuits were filed by the magazine's former chief editor, Goenawan Mohamad, and by former employees.
The publishing license of Tempo was revoked on June 21, 1994, on "substantive" grounds. Two other newsweeklies, DeTik and Editor, were banned, on the same day, for "administrative" reasons.
Jakob, who is also chief editor of the Kompas daily, said the council had met twice to discuss a "serious situation" which, he said, had been caused by a number of news reports which had appeared in the mass media at that time.
In the latter meeting, on June 21, which Jakob said was held at the initiative of the council's secretary, Subrata, the council discussed recommendations on the handling of the situation. The meeting decided, among other things, to propose that the government replace Tempo's chief editor if it considered such a step to be necessary.
"The council never asserted that Tempo had strayed beyond the notion of a 'free and responsible press'," Jakob said, citing a section of the 1982 Press Law.
This recommendation was conveyed to Minister of Information Harmoko. The minister is the council's chief ex-officio.
Jakob said the editors of the three weeklies had not been given an opportunity to answer to or defend themselves against accusations that their publications were not "free and responsible".
Ambiguous
Jakob placed emphasis on the need to "understand the ambiguous signals of those in the executive body".
"Developments at the time were serious and critical ... I think everyone who read the papers carefully could see that there was a strong possibility that there would be another press ban," he said, referring to press bans in the 1970s and 1980s.
Jakob, who has been a member of the council since the 1970's, said he had experienced a similar atmosphere prior to previous press bans. In the 1980's the government revoked the licenses of several publications, including Sinar Harapan(1985), Monitor(1988) and Prioritas(1987).
However, he said, he had not known when the axe would fall or whether the government would, indeed, decide to revoke the magazine's license.
"Until the last minute, when I was phoned by either Goenawan Mohamad or Fikri Jufri -- I can't clearly recall -- I was still sure that the government would not revoke the magazine's license," Jakob said.
Fikri Jufri was Tempo's deputy editor at that time.
Jakob said that after the meeting of the Press Council on June 21, 1994 had ended, the information ministry held a press conference to announce Ministerial Decree No. 123/1994 which banned the three weeklies. Jacob said it had been days after the ban was announced before he had been able to see a copy of the decree.
Ashadi Siregar, a lecturer at University of Gadjah Mada's communications department, was at yesterday's hearing as an expert witness in the case.
Censor
He said that the ban was against the 1982 Press Law since it violated the public's right to information.
"Censorship, except in communist and fascist states, is not acceptable because it is understood that the content of news reports always varies. When censorship occurs it implies that future reports will have the same (unacceptable) content as the previous ones. This cannot be the case because the content of a report can never be predicted," he said.
Ashadi said the publishing license, or SIUPP, should regulate media companies rather than media content.
"Whether the content is 'wrong' should be decided by a competent institution, such as a legal body...The minister's decision was made one-sidedly, without discussion with other parties," he said.
Presiding Judge Benjamin Mangkoedilaga said he would consider hearing evidence from the council's secretary, Subrata, who is also the Information Ministry's Director General for Press and Graphics.
Goenawan Mohamad and ex-Tempo employees were represented by lawyers Frans Hendrawinata, Atmajaya Salim, Amir Syamsuddin, and Trimoelja D. Soerjadi, while Harmoko was represented by a team of four lawyers led by R. Wiyono.(pwn)