Old debate on press licensing raging again

JAKARTA (JP): The government's plan to revise the 1982 Press Law has received a warm welcome but the long-standing disagreements over the controversial ministerial decree on publication licensing remain.

Andi Muis, a law professor at Hasanuddin University in Ujungpandang, hailed the government's goodwill but suggested that it consider people's demands to abolish the decree on licensing if it is to bring the Press Law into line with the broadcasting bill passed last week.

"There are inconsistencies between the law and the ministerial decree concerning banning of newspapers," Muis told The Jakarta Post over the weekend.

"Allowing the government to ban publications without judicial procedures violates two articles contained in the Press Law," he added.

Under the 1984 information ministerial decree, a ban could be imposed on publications for either administrative or content offenses.

While Article 4 of the Press Law says that no censorship or bans shall be applied to the National Press. Article 15 refers to individual, not institutional, responsibility when it comes to penalties taken against press offenses.

"It's unfair based on the law that a publication company can be closed down because of an individual's fault," Muis said.

Minister of Information Harmoko said last Wednesday after announcing the need to bring the 1982 law into line with the broadcasting bill that the government would maintain the disputed decree.

Since its issuance 12 years ago, the decree has claimed the lives of at least five major publications: Sinar Harapan, Prioritas, Tempo, DeTik and Editor.

Muis said that the revised press law should follow in the footsteps of the broadcasting bill which suggests court settlements to any offenses committed by broadcasters.

However, Muis tried to be more accommodating with the government's insistence on upholding the publication licensing decree.

"If the government refused to totally overhaul the decree, it could relinquish its authority to close down publications for violations in editorial content," Muis said.

According to Muis, the government should loosen its control over the press since the job is already done by the Criminal Code.

Separately, Secretary-General of the Jakarta branch of the Indonesian Journalists Association Marah Sakti Siregar said that an inclusion of judicial procedures into the renewed law would be "encouraging".

But he defended the publication licensing policy, saying that Indonesian people are not sufficiently mature and educated to exercise social control over a liberal press.

"I cannot imagine how chaotic our society would become if everybody is free to publish or disseminate information," said Siregar, who is also the chief editor of Tiras weekly magazine.

He referred as an example to the October religious riot in Situbondo, East Java, which flared up following rumors that a defendant charged with blasphemy against Islamic teaching took refuge in a church.

"Our society is too sensitive to religious, ethnic and racial issues. The licensing decree may no longer be necessary when all Indonesians have at least a high school education," Siregar said.

The abolition of the publication licensing authority would also leave the government toothless, according to Siregar.

Another mass communication expert, Novel Ali of the Semarang, Central Java-based, Diponegoro University, threw his weight behind the revision of the Press Law.

"There are a lot of things that could be inserted in the new law, particularly the cancellation of publication licensing," Novel said. "Such a decree is malevolent to the principle of justice."

Novel, however, was skeptical about whether the absence of publication licensing would end the government's sweeping control over the press.

"External censorship through telephone calls from the authorities and other forms of restriction have prevailed for ages in the national press," Novel said.

One of Novel's colleagues, Susilo Utomo, said that the revised press law should encourage the use of judicial procedures and other means to resolve cases involving the press.

"The right to answer in court has not worked as expected. This should be the center of discussions on the new version of the Press Law," Susilo said. (har/amd)