Reviewing TV bill

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.