Reviewing TV bill

The government's decision to send the broadcasting bill back to the House of Representatives, which endorsed it in December, is strange and unprecedented. Only the prompt explanations by Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono and the new Minister of Information Hartono helped to keep the ensuing polemic in its right proportion.

The fate of the bill has been the subject of speculation in recent months. This is because the bill has been sitting in President Soeharto's office for more than seven months, waiting for him to sign it into law. When the bill was endorsed in December, the government and the House proclaimed that during the seven months of deliberation, the government-sponsored legislation underwent one of the toughest scrutiny any bill ever received.

The government's announcement to review the broadcasting bill has therefore calmed, rather than fueled, speculations. For example, there were rumors linking last month's replacement of Harmoko, the information minister most responsible for the bill, with the delay in signing it into law. The task to explain the reasons for the delay fell on his successor, Hartono. It will also be Hartono's job to represent the government in the upcoming deliberation to review the bill, which he hopes will be concluded before the end of the House's current term on Sept. 30.

There were also rumors suggesting that the delay in signing the bill reflected the growing clout of the powerful commercial television industry. All five private stations are controlled by politically well-connected people. They were certainly influential in the deliberation of the bill, such as in preventing the massive government-run TVRI network from accepting advertising revenue, the industry's bread and butter.

The decision to review the bill would have strengthened these speculations, but for the explanations by Moerdiono and Hartono. The two ministers said on separate occasions that the bill, if it became law in its current form, simply could not be implemented. By specifying the articles in the bill, they helped to curtail speculations, and the ensuing constitutional polemic.

One contentious article in the bill they singled out for review was the licensing system. The bill says that a broadcasting license must be renewed every five years. This, the government realizes, is not conducive to the business. We pointed out, here in the same column when the bill was endorsed by the House last December, that broadcasting companies get a worse deal than press establishments, whose license is permanent, unless it is revoked by the government.

Another article in the bill the government finds vague is the definition of national coverage, which it says, must reach 50 percent of the country's population. There are two other minor articles that Hartono said should be reviewed.

Based on the ministers' explanations, there is no reason for anyone to suspect any hidden motive behind the decision to send the bill back to the House. It is difficult to find any argument against it. And there were no clear signs that the powerful TV lobby was behind the decision, although, in the case of licensing, it will be the chief beneficiary.

The ensuing polemic has been restricted to the question of constitutionality. It is indeed unusual for a bill already endorsed by the House of Representatives to find its way back for new deliberation. But there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the government from doing this. On the contrary, if the government feels that the bill is inappropriate, then it is only constitutionally right that it asks the House of Representatives to review it.

If there is any moral lesson from all this, it is that any future bill must be thoroughly deliberated. Although the constitution allows it, reviewing the bill for a second time will take a heavy toll on the House. Given that the House has been rushing to pass dozens of legislations before it ends it five- year term in September, one could hardly feel comfortable about the decision to review the broadcasting bill. For now, we have to give the House the benefit of the doubt in completing its constitutional task as best as possible.