TV coverage
The newly enacted Broadcasting Law seems to have the potential to clash with public interests. Its first test case, which made nobody happy, took place Monday when the government abruptly banned a planned live TV broadcast from the House of Representatives.
Two private TV stations, ANteve and SCTV, were ready to start live coverage of Minister of Finance Mar'ie Muhammad's explanation on the economic reform package in a meeting with the House. The meeting was one of national significance with issues concerning a broad spectrum of society.
Minister of Information R. Hartono said later that he had intervened in the case because it was against the new law, which stipulates that private TV stations can only relay direct coverage of such events by state-owned TVRI.
In Monday's case, TVRI -- the only government TV network -- seemed to have no interest in covering the session live despite it being the first time the finance minister was to brief the House since the announcement of the substantial economic reforms early last week. The economic reform package has been readily accepted by many people as an effort to save the nation's economy, but to those with connections to 16 recently liquidated banks, it has been viewed as a calamity.
In this instance, one could understand that the government ban on the direct coverage by the two private TV stations not only shocked the public but also the House speaker and his deputies. The new speaker, Harmoko, who is former minister of information, had voiced a wish to see House sessions directly covered by the electronic media.
The incident, while not provoking a crisis, did inconvenience many in the public since the minister's statements directly concerned people from all walks of life.
The plan to broadcast the session live came about because many parties involved were unaware of the law's stipulations, which seems rather illogical in this age of sophisticated information technology and the current trend of openness.
We fully understand that the two private TV stations believed that the House meeting was newsworthy and that their planned coverage was based on good intentions, sincerity and professional obligation. We also understand that the government wished to faithfully implement the letter of the law, especially since the law was only enacted in September.
However, in view of the public interests involved and the degree of transgression by the two TV stations, we are of the opinion that the government should have acted less drastically in handling the case. It may have been more prudent, for example, to have allowed the two stations to continue with their planned coverage and later question or reprimand them if necessary. This would have permitted millions of curious Indonesians, who have the constitutional right to know what the government is doing for them, to have benefited from the information given by the minister.
Many may find it a problem that the new law gives TVRI sole broadcasting rights of House sessions.
That TVRI has a monopoly on direct coverage of the House does not seem very democratic -- if not contradictory to the spirit of openness and transparency. On top of this, the law is somewhat illogical since some private TV stations are financially more capable of these activities than TVRI.
The ideal relationship between the private and state-owned TV stations should be one characterized by cooperation. Should there be cases in which TVRI does not have the capability to carry out direct coverage of an event, a private station should be allowed to take it over.
With so many questions being raised over the absence of TVRI's direct coverage of Monday's House session, perhaps it would be wise for the House of Representatives to reevaluate the new law, and make changes should they be in the best interests of the country.