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.