Press council's main task to guard press freedom

Renowned as a critical political observer, former rector of Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University Ichlasul Amal was elected the chairman of the Indonesian Press Council last month. Admitting to a limited experience of the press, he held the Association of Indonesian Student Press (IPMI) Yogyakarta branch's top post between 1968 and 1970. But, he claims to have learned more about the Indonesian press from his predecessor, Atmakusumah Astraatmaja, and the media itself. Following is an excerpt of his interview with The Jakarta Post's Sri Wahyuni.

Q: What have you learned so far?

A: The main job of the Press Council is to maintain the freedom of the press, so that the intervention of both the government and capital owners is prevented, while at the same time serving the interests of the public. The council has to make sure that press freedom does not harm the people. I was told after I was sworn in that most complaints lodged to the council, so far, came from the community. They claimed they were harassed by the media but their complaints were not reported in leading media publications.

In what frame of mind did you accept the job?

I see that the duty of today's council is much more difficult than that of the New Order era, during which the council had the authority, for example, to ban the license of a particular media organization. We don't have such an authority. Therefore, what we are doing now is basically looking at how to restore the image of the council, so that if there is a legal case involving journalists or the media, the court will take our opinion into consideration. This should be the council's agenda.

Why do you think so?

It has something to do with the fact that in most legal cases involving journalists or the media, both the judges and prosecutors tend to apply the Criminal Code instead of the Press Law. It is our task, however, to disseminate the special law to the public, to judges and prosecutors.

I myself perceive it as a normal phenomenon, especially because there is no control of the press at present as a result of democracy, which has encouraged people to do whatever they like. There is no limitation.

I can understand why prosecutors and judges prefer the Criminal Code over the Press Law. Besides the fact that they are not quite familiar with the Press Law, they consider defamation, for example, a crime. While the Press Law, on the other hand, depends upon who commits the defamation. What is perceived as an insult, by the public, is possibly considered part of editorial policies by the press. Judges are not used to dealing with such things. For them, defamation is a crime.

There is no clear position regarding how far the Press Law can lead to a sentence. It probably will not be a big deal if the legal battle only involves the media, or is between the press and the community. But, it will surely be a problem if it involves government officials whose frame of thinking is like those of the oppressive New Order regime, or the Dutch colonizers.

What will the Council do regarding this?

We realize that the Press Law is often neglected. Judges opt to use the Criminal Code regardless of the fact that the Press Law deals with special cases. Things have become worse as the Criminal Code itself is sometimes too broad. Someone who feels unhappy with something can just file a court case. Besides, a special law like the Press Law does not result in a jail sentence but a fine instead. This is why people prefer the Criminal Code over the Press Law. This is surely a tough task, but we have to keep disseminating it.

Could you give an example of a concrete program to disseminate the Press Law?

We can probably approve a memorandum of understanding with the court as well as the prosecutor's office. I was told that the previous Press Council had made this part of its program, but there is no clear explanation of why it has yet to be realized. But I think it's worth a try. The problem lies with the fact that people in both the court and prosecutor's office say that the press has no right to intervene in the law. So, I think, we can start by making a memorandum of understanding at the highest level, as high as the Supreme Court, then later with judges and prosecutors. How do you define an ideal freedom of press?

It's difficult, even in the U.S., that is supposed to be the land of press freedom. In the case of the Iraq war, for example, the U.S. government was forced to limit press freedom a little bit. There was some news it considered classified and that could not be published. Regarding exactly how far the limits of press freedom extend, I think it will always be problematic to determine.

What do you think is the most influential factor to block the freedom of the press?

In the case of Indonesia, it was the government of the New Order regime. But at present it is the accumulation of capital that does so. One of the indications is the fact that most of the media that have violated the code of ethics are those which are economically weak. They come up with 'sensational' news in an attempt to increase circulation. So, I suppose, it's a matter of economics. The signs of capital accumulation are also evident at present, marked by the emergence of a number of media groups. Seen from an international perspective, such a development is indeed unavoidable. It is part of the world's economic phenomena. Neo-liberalism is nothing but capital accumulation. And it is made possible with the presence of international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, that require efficiency.

What influence could such phenomena have on the freedom of the press?

The influence on press freedom is obvious, because it is quite difficult for us not to adjust ourselves to the market demand. It's difficult to say, but the ideal press is the press that is not dependent on the market demand. In fact, it is now advertisements that determine the success of the press. And it happens everywhere.

What should we do to maintain independence?

It's probably difficult to maintain independence, that's an idealistic concept. But, independence to some extent, meaning that we are not ignoring the market, I think we can achieve that. In other words, the market is not the only criteria. I realize it's not easy to formulate the steps toward independence, but we have to do so anyway. Compared to other neighboring countries such as Malaysia, we are much better off. Historically, we have had a spirit of freedom in the press, even in colonial times. That is probably why the Indonesian press is relatively free, compared to neighboring countries, it was even so even during the New Order era.