The govt and the House

The govt and the House
favor media restriction

Bimo Nugroho
Director
Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI)
Jakarta

The Indonesian media is under threat of a restriction that was
initiated by the government, who formulates bills, and by the
House of Representatives, who passes them. There are three
aspects that indicate this threat from the legislature. First, a
proposal to revise the Press Law, which resulted from a
consideration that the media has gone too far. Second, a
broadcasting bill that entitles the state administration to
determine the allotment of television and radio frequencies. And
third is the fact that a secrecy bill was given priority over a
bill on the freedom to access information.

When the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) protested against
pornography on several television programs, it gave rise to the
demand to revise the Press Law as well. The suggestion was once
raised a couple of months ago by Aisyah Amini, a member of the
House of Representatives. Despite a public debate on the issue,
the proposal to revise the Press Law is furtively circulating.

Pornography has nothing to do with the Press Law, but the
political elite is reportedly fed up with harsh criticism
delivered by the media and journalists. This sentiment was most
evident in a statement issued by Amien Rais when he formally
launched his homepage: "As a public figure, I often felt that my
interviews with the media were to a great extent distorted at
times by our journalists." It is probably true. There are many
journalists who are not professional. However, professionalism
can be improved on by offering workshops and improving media
management.

In short, for the time being, the Press Law does not need any
revision. It is better for the members of the legislature to
focus their energy on completing their "homework", which is
deliberating on the mounting pile of bills.

The broadcasting bill, which entered its final deliberation in
May 2002, is the second aspect warning of a threat of a ban. The
core issue in this matter is who owns the right to revoke a
broadcasting license, and how great is the authority of the
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission.

The most recent draft of the articles in the broadcasting bill
gives great authority to the Ministry of Transportation and the
State Ministry of Communications and Information to issue and
revoke broadcasting licenses of television and radio stations
when essentially, frequency modulation is public property, not
private property, of which its management is under the authority
of the government.

Therefore, in this case, the role of the state is aimed at
public interest and prosperity. If, however, the legislature
passes the bill, control over the frequency modulation by certain
governmental departments -- as mandated by the broadcasting bill
-- will undoubtedly open the door to a threat of a ban on, in
this case, radio and television, by the authorities.

This is only the political negative consequences.
Economically, the control of frequencies by the state
administration could give an opportunity to corruption, collusion
and authority manipulation to gain benefits for private or group
interests. Past experience from the Soeharto era has proven that
when publishing licenses were controlled by the Department of
Information, state officials and their families could manipulate
their authority to gain money or stocks.

It is advised that members of the legislature study the laws
of other countries. In several nations, the frequency regulation
is mandated to an independent broadcasting commission, whose
members are elected by the legislative and inaugurated by the
executives, either the president or prime minister. South Africa,
a country that is younger than Indonesia, has a media community
that is owned by the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA). In
June 2000, the IBA, along with other independent media
organizations, established the Independent Communications
Authority of South Africa (ICASA). In the United States, there is
also the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Meanwhile,
France has the Council Superieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA).

The third precursor is the secrecy bill, which was given
priority over the freedom to access information bill. As
announced by the secretary of the House of Representatives, there
are more than 40 draft laws awaiting deliberation in House
sessions. The secrecy bill ranks 17th, and the freedom to access
information bill ranks 30th. Both bills oppose each other. If the
secrecy bill is passed first, then the deliberation of the
freedom to access information bill will be based on it. Thus, the
coverage of the freedom to access information will be restricted
by the secrecy interest.

Normally, the secrecy of the state is an exception to the
freedom to access information. Therefore, the freedom to access
information bill should be deliberated on beforehand to guarantee
the public's right to search, obtain and distribute information
that has to be provided by the state administration. After the
bill is passed, the legislature can deliberate afterwards on the
exceptions as regulated in the secrecy bill.

It can be broadly concluded that the freedom of the press
pendulum is swinging back to a restricted press. The restriction
has been developed structurally and the state's supra-structure
is responsible for this. If the main agent of the restriction was
previously the executive, especially Soeharto, then currently it
is the legislative. It is ironic. Why are the members of the
House, who were elected to liberate the reform process, adopting
a media-oppressing paradigm?

2. Yvan -- The world is dominated by the fundamentalists of the
market
1 x 32 48 pt Bodoni

Market fundamentalists's domination

Yvan Magain
Economist
Brussels

If you look back at the last 20 or 30 years, nearly 100
countries have faced a monetary crisis. And during the last 5
years, almost all the emerging countries went through such crisis
like Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia, and today Argentina.

No economist is predicting a stop to these kind of recurrent
crisis. They just wonder who will be next. The only spared
countries are India and China, these are countries who did not
open their capital markets.

The world is going through a period of high instability
resulting into high costs and high unemployment rates.

Other example: Everybody acknowledges the trading agreements
are unfair. The North has imposed onto the South the opening of
its markets doors, but has maintained its own markets closed to
the South (i.e. in the fields of agriculture or textile).

The globalization of the world is not functioning, because the
rules of the games are set by the industrialized countries solely
or worst by some private conglomerates within these countries so
to protect their own interests. Therefore, the needs of the
developing countries are never met and poverty eradication will
stay a dream.

The International Money Fund (IMF) experts say that by
encouraging Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and by opening the
financial markets, growth and development will follow. This
argument is put forward without any real proof. It is well known
that capital liberalization is leading to more economic
instability, but not necessarily to more growth.

They say that developing countries need a financially free
market to attract FDI. This is not true. The countries who
succeeded the best in attracting FDI are China and India. These
two countries did not completely free their capital markets.
Malaysia, a country which did temporarily impose a control on the
capital movements - and which had to face the shortest crisis in
SE Asia back in 1998 - is continuing to benefit from FDI.

The IMF overall objective was to assist countries facing an
economic crisis to enforce fiscal policies favoring an healthy
growth and to support full employment policies. But the IMF
decided that its main task was to impose a liberalization of
financial markets, serving the particular interests of financial
'circles'.

The IMF is also prioritizing inflation and not the fight
against unemployment, though many researches show that a moderate
level of inflation, facilitating the economies adjustments, is
much better than no inflation. Also the IMF is more preoccupied
by guaranteeing the debt reimbursement than by maintaining the
health of the borrowing countries.

The IMF did a lot of mistakes in Asia. It had imposed
restrictive budgetary policies, on countries in recession which
in turn had aggravated the crisis, without taking into
consideration the interdependence of these Asian countries.
Before the monetary crisis, only eight percent of the Indonesians
were living below poverty levels. Right now, they are at least 25
percent. The IMF ordered the closing of banks and is responsible
for the interest rates increase to astronomical level in these
countries with thousands of companies highly indebted.

The IMF experts did not think of the political or social
consequences, and if they did, this is even worst when looking at
their end-results. In a time unemployment was rising and poverty
was then increasing, they continued to force the economy of these
countries into recession and they spent billions of US$ to assist
the foreign creditors and in the same time they requested the
cancellation of subsidies on goods of primary necessities. That
way of proceeding could/can only end up in social explosion.

Facing the Asian crisis, the IMF should have kept in mind its
initial mission: Support the economy of the developing countries
through fiscal policies generating growth. In Indonesia in
1997/1998, credit unpayments to foreign creditors should have
been suspended and a new bankruptcy procedure should have been
initiated, like they exist in developed countries, similar to the
one launched in South Korea.

Behind the IMF strategy, there is an ideology, the one of the
fundamentalists of the market saying that the market suffices to
all. The research of Prof. Joseph Stiglitz (University of
Columbia, NY, 2001 Nobel Prize in economy) has showned how the
market works in reality. In all successful economies, the
governments have played an important role.

But a certain ideology in developing countries is stating the
governments shall not intervene or as less as possible. It is
time to leave behind us the measures proposed by the IMF, which
means privatization, liberalization and less government
intervention. The IMF experts shall come back to a more adjusted
policy where the government has a real role to play.

The IMF experts must offer an economic assistance to these
countries, and, first of all, open to these developing countries
our markets. The IMF shall favor the opening, the transparency
and the democratization of the decision process. The developing
countries are not adequately represented. The different points of
view are also not well represented.

This is particularly marked within the IMF, where the finance
experts are dominating all the others.

3. Asahi -- India-Pakistan conflict
1 x 32 48 pt Bodoni

Resolving India-Pakistan conflict

The Asahi Shimbun
Tokyo

Japan must join the drive to avoid war at all cost. Claims to
Kashmir and other issues cannot be resolved by military might.
India and Pakistan ought to know that after three wars.

Relations between India and Pakistan have again deteriorated
over Kashmir, the region between the two countries in dispute
since independence from Britain. Nearly one million troops are
massed along the border, with daily exchanges of fire in some
areas.

When India's Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited the
area, he told Indian soldiers to prepare for the moment of truth.
Pakistan's President Perez Musharraf responded by saying Pakistan
did not want a war, but was prepared for one. Pakistan then began
testing missiles that can deliver a nuclear payload.

India and Pakistan effectively became nuclear powers when they
conducted nuclear tests in turn in 1998. The leaders speak as if
they were on the eve of war. This is very troubling.

Relations between the two countries deteriorated since the
Indian Parliament was attacked last December by apparent Islamic
extremist Kashmir secessionists. After the attack, Pakistan
outlawed five Islamic radical organizations and said it would
stop direct aid for advocates of Kasmir's separation from India.
It was a momentous decision for Pakistan, which has hardly
concealed its support for the Kashmir separatist movement, and it
seemed to ease the tension with India.

In mid-May, however, Islamic hotheads went on the rampage
again within the Indian side of the Line of Control, and 34
Indian soldiers and their relatives were killed. Tension flared
anew among the Indians, who thought the situation had not been
improved at all.

Claims to Kashmir and other issues cannot be resolved by
military might. India and Pakistan ought to know that after three
wars. Their leaders must avoid war by all means, keeping the way
open for dialogue and negotiations.

During his visit to Russia, U.S. President George W. Bush
expressed concern over the worsening situation in the Indian
subcontinent. Russia's President Vladimir Putin called on the
leaders of India and Pakistan to exercise restraint. We hope the
United States and Russia, with their close ties to India and
Pakistan, will strive to mediate between them.

The United States especially needs stability in the region,
because its fight against terrorists in Afghanistan is staged
from Pakistan's military bases. It also seeks to improve
relations with India, as seen in joint military maneuvers, and
hopes to calm tensions between India and Pakistan.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been on the phone
trying to sway the leaders. Richard Armitage, his deputy, intends
to attempt mediation on the ground, and Britain's Foreign
Secretary Jack Straw is to visit India and Pakistan.

Japan, having good relations with both India and Pakistan,
must use every possible channel to encourage a dialogue between
them.

If India and Pakistan come to blows militarily, the conflict
could escalate into nuclear war. The question being asked of the
international community now is how much influence it can exercise
in preventing such a catastrophe.