Querying broadcasting bill

Querying broadcasting bill

Lukas Luwarso, Executive Director, Press Council, Jakarta

Heated debate on the broadcasting bill, which has lasted about
two years, is regrettable but unavoidable, given that so much
distrust continues to linger in society. The government and
legislature are still absorbed in the old paradigm -- supervise
and control rather than regulate -- especially when they feel
they have been caught off guard, particularly by the print media.

These parties fear that in the absence of control over
broadcasting, the public will be vulnerable to unfavorable
influences, not to mention "foreign sources", which could
politically and economically undermine Indonesia through the
broadcasting media. They also suspect that broadcasting media
companies will exploit their programs purely to maximize profits.

Media activists also continue to suspect that anything coming
from the government is tantamount to a conspiracy to curtail
freedom of expression and silence civil society. Businesspeople
also suspect that the broadcasting bill will hamper their
investment. Unless a compromise is reached the debate will
continue unabated.

Therefore, we should welcome and support the decision of the
government and special committee of the legislature deliberating
the bill to postpone its ratification. This postponement is
particularly based on the desire to publicize the bill better,
obtain input from the public and rewrite, if necessary, a number
of controversial articles.

The bill was due to be passed on Sept. 23. The delay at least
shows an intention to produce a law that can accommodate most
aspirations from the parties concerned. Some, however, suspect
that the postponement will create an opportunity for lobbying
between the government and businesspeople. Lobbying is valid, but
it must also involve the public, including the press, so that
they can voice their views on issues on which they can
compromise.

The three issues widely debated have concerned the authority
of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), the role of
civilian investigators (PPNS) and a stipulation on censorship for
films and commercials. Broadcast media businesses have questioned
the limitation on cross-ownership and the regulation of the
number and scope of national broadcasting areas. The government's
concern regards control over frequencies and limitation of direct
relays of foreign broadcasting.

At the center of the controversy is mainly the authority of
the Broadcasting Commission. Here crucial matters concerning
control over broadcasting content, the ground rules and
guarantees of press freedom are at stake. It is this institution
that will determine the licensing process for frequencies and
broadcasting.

The KPI will exercise control over broadcasting content, issue
a code of conduct and a code of practice for broadcasters. This
institution will also draw up other stipulations and procedures,
including revoking and suspending broadcasting licenses. The
broad authority that it enjoys and the widespread trauma of
anything reeking of authoritarianism, has led some to label it a
"monster", a new authoritarian body.

Yet some critics must have read the bill rather carelessly.
The KPI is actually an institution with many tasks and functions,
but without a clear authority.

The bill rules that the final say of the issuing of a license
on frequency and broadcasting management remains in the
government's hands because the KPI only gives "recommendations."
Therefore, the KPI will have much work, without full authority,
on the most fundamental matter: The issuance of a license for
frequency allocation and broadcasting.

What must continue to be fought for is KPI's independence and
full authority. The reference to "the KPI along with the
government" in each article must be scrapped.

The potential that the KPI will turn into an authoritarian
body can be prevented by clear rules of the game from the very
beginning, including transparent recruitment of its members.
Also, the KPI should become a body with heterogeneous membership
representing various interests. It would be accountable to the
people through the legislature.

Another sensitive issue concerns censorship of films and
commercials to be aired by broadcasting stations. As Indonesians
are still highly sensitive to anything that smacks of censorship,
it would be good to make this provision curative, not preventive.

This means that the censorship agency would take action only
after the public questioned the substance of a commercial or a
film because of alleged indecency or inappropriateness. There is
nothing wrong with trusting the broadcasting media to consider
internally what is worthwhile airing before the censorship agency
takes action.

Regarding civilian investigators, the bill should confirm that
they work under the instruction of the KPI, not just "take into
account the opinion of the KPI" (Article 55). They can inspect,
stop broadcasting and seal a radio or television station -- only
if such actions have been decided in a KPI meeting.

However, compromise should not be sought on the matters raised
by businesspeople -- limits on cross-ownership and regulation of
the number and scope of national broadcasting areas. Limitation
on cross-ownership (Article 17) is important to prevent the media
being monopolized by only one business group, as is the tendency
today.

As for regulation of the scope of broadcasting (Article 30),
the introduction of a network station system has often been
misunderstood as "prohibiting private TV stations from
transmitting their broadcasts nationwide." It is not efficient
for a private TV station to conduct its broadcasting to encompass
an area as wide as Indonesia. Private television stations can
choose to concentrate on covering only a particular area and
then, temporarily, they can team up with other local TV stations
for other areas. The regulation is based on the awareness that
Jakarta should not control the limited frequencies.

Broadcasting, a public domain, was earlier controlled by the
government and was made its instrument of propaganda. A
transition to democracy requires a transparent society and a free
flow of information. Efforts to control broadcasting
democratically can be successful only if such efforts are made
openly. But amid all the suspicions, compromise must be sought.
The government and the legislature should appreciate that they
need not be too enthusiastic in overcoming all "problems"
pertaining to the broadcasting media through this bill.

Activists should also refrain from rejecting everything that
the government proposes. Media owners, who find the present
situation quite cozy, must be willing to be regulated. There are
now no rules of the game in the realm of broadcasting, and this
cannot continue unaltered.