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.