Press freedom -- so valuable it must not be curbed

Press freedom -- so valuable it must not be curbed

Ardimas Sasdi, Jakarta

The government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has, time
and again, promised to protect the country's recently acquired
freedom of the press. But, on the contrary, his government is the
most aggressive against this "messenger" among the four
governments after Soeharto.

This is a reality -- at least in terms of policies and plans.
Since it came to power in October 2004, the Susilo government
has, for instance, issued four presidential regulations and two
ministerial decrees on the media. Another, the format of which is
still unclear, is in the pipelines.

The most recent is a set of regulations on foreign, private,
community and subscription-based broadcasters.

The two others are ministerial decrees on a cut in electronic
media airtime, which was issued by the Ministry of Communications
and Information as part of an energy conservation campaign, and
the need for prepaid card users to register their themselves with
cellular operators .

The one in the pipelines -- unveiled by a high-ranking
official of the Ministry of Communications in a recent interview
with a local TV station -- is on the use of the Internet, which
is said to have been used by criminals and terrorists as a
communication means.

The government said earlier the regulation was needed as the
telecommunications-based technology had also been misused by
pranksters and provocateurs to make harassing calls, inciting
violence and racial hatred, and leaving the government with no
option but to restrict usage in the interests of the public.

But this argument is too simplistic as, in principle, any
equipment, including sharp weapons, is neutral. What matters is
not the equipment, but the way in which it is used. Even nuclear
power is safe in the hands of responsible parties.

Moreover, the media reported that terrorists, like the late
Azahari bin Husin and fugitive Noordin Moh. Top, have for a long
time stopped using cell phones and the Internet, as they can be
tracked by the law enforcement agencies. For safety reasons, the
terrorists have used couriers to communicate.

There is no clear explanation from the government as to why
the electronic media should also be regulated as stipulated in
the four new presidential decrees.

But whatever the reason, in a democracy, the domain of the
media is public affairs, and this basic notion should be taken
into account by the government in drafting a regulation or decree
on the press. Moreover, the media has branched out into
industries, which require a conducive climate to survive and
prosper.

This intricacy is the prime reason why some media,
particularly the operators of cable TV -- which are bound by
contractual terms with their clients -- opposed a decree on a cut
in the airtime of TV and radio stations, although it is a
blessing in disguise for many broadcasters as it will allow them
to cut costs without losing face in front of the viewers.

Will the six other regulations see the same fate?

It is too early to predict the outcome, but early indications
show that the media and the public strongly oppose the
implementation of the decrees and regulations.

On an article on the new regulation on foreign broadcasters,
it is hard to digest the logic of the government's plan to
restrict local TV and radio stations from relaying and airing
news programs from foreign stations like Voice of America (VOA)
and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Even Soeharto's
repressive regime did not make such a foolish mistake.

The biggest question is, of course, the government's plan to
take over the authority of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission
(KPI) -- an independent body similar to the powerful U.S. Federal
Communications Commission -- to issue and revoke the licenses of
broadcasters. This right is the KPI's as stipulated in
Broadcasting Law No. 32/2002.

Minister of Communications and Information Sofyan Djalil said
that the planned takeover of the power by his ministry from the
KPI -- which is said to have failed in exercising its supervisory
role -- would not create excesses as a decision to grant or
revoke broadcasters' licenses would be made by the relevant
parties, including the KPI, on a collective basis.

But past experiences with the Press Council have shown that,
although some of its members are knowledgeable and critical, they
have limited power in the face of the government, which has the
capacity, money and facilities to influence the final decisions
of the institution.

So the media has no option but to step up its demand for
changes in the new regulations, although the government, under
pressure from various groups, has agreed to postpone their
implementation.

The regulations and decrees, which constitute not only the
biggest onslaught on the media and the most egregious threat to
the fair measure of press freedom that has evolved over the past
seven years, show that the Susilo government's paradigm on the
press remains unchanged -- the press have gone overboard and so
they must be controlled through various mechanisms like
licensing, monitoring of media coverage and the screening of
journalists, like during the dark era of Soeharto's regime.

Regulating the media is indeed an easy thing to do. But the
government needs to think of other, more sophisticated ways to
deal with an aggressive press. Press freedom is the only concrete
result of the reform era. It is valuable and should therefore be
protected -- at all costs.

The writer is a staff writer of The Jakarta Post and a
lecturer on Ethics and Philosophy in Communications at the
Department of Communications at the University of Indonesia. He
can be reached at ardi05@thejakartapost.com.