What are the press rules?

What are the press rules?

Of late there have been complaints about too much sex and
violence in the media. There have also been complaints about
vague reporting. One may argue that it's due to the omnipresent
threat of a press ban that results in safe-style reporting. To
mark National Press Day, which falls on Feb. 9, The Jakarta Post
ponders the role of the press in Indonesia's New Order. On Page 2
we look at the role of journalists and of the media industry
which remains, despite the threat of bans, a lucrative business.
All stories focus on the print media.

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia's print media are a lucrative
business, and one that is getting bigger. But the banning of
three newsweeklies last June has left editors uncertain about the
rules of the game.

The latest newcomer to the print media industry is Tiras
magazine, which was launched last month to replace the banned
Editor magazine and is produced by former Editor journalists.

Tiras aims to regain the following of faithful Editor readers,
whose circulation was around 60,000 copies per week at the time
it was outlawed.

Today, approaching its 50th year of independence, Indonesia
has 247 newspapers with a total circulation of 10.5 m copies;
117 magazines (5.13 m copies); one state-owned television and
five private television stations (92 million viewers); and 823
radio stations, 627 of which are privately owned. Compare the
figures with those of 1957, when there were only 96 newspapers
with an average circulation of 9,200 copies each.

The most phenomenal growth was achieved by the now-banned
tabloid DeTik. Starting with a circulation of 30,000 copies in
February 1993, its circulation had soared to over 450,000 within
a year. Kompas, the largest-selling national daily newspaper,
commenced publication in 1965 with 4,828 copies and today enjoys
a circulation of 550,000.

DeTik's remarkable growth was attributed to the 1990 official
announcement that press censorship would be relaxed, prompting
the tabloid to report on issues that a cautious press had
previously left alone. It also reflected the growing public
hunger for "real" investigative reporting, as well as an appetite
for controversy.

Despite official claims that there was a right to free speech
in Indonesia, in June last year the government put its foot down
and crushed DeTik and two other magazines, Tempo and Editor. How
was the ban to be understood? It has been argued that the ban
only showed that the authorities were not ready for the change
that they themselves initiated. Could it be that the three
publications had encroached on the inner sanctum of the powerful,
instead of staying in the corridor of "openness"?

It used to be taboo to criticize those in power. Today,
criticism has gained some limited acceptability: even the Armed
Forces were criticized during the 1992 general elections. It
seems safe to conclude that as long as the press confines itself
to the wings of the power stage, it is allowed to be critical.

The protests that followed the June 1994 bannings showed how
far the process of democratization had already progressed.

After all, not much noise was made about previous bannings,
such as those of the Prioritas newspaper in 1987, and the
afternoon daily Sinar Harapan in 1986. Editors and reporters
extended their condolences to the staff and readers of the banned
publications, tried to learn the lesson, and continued on their
cautious way.

But last year's banning of three publications, after a spell
of apparent press freedom, was different. Students, pro-democracy
activists and journalists took to the streets, and the
demonstrations were reported on and photographed.

Then the protests became more focused and the government was
accused of misusing the institution of the publishing license
(SIUPP). Protesters called for the repeal of the 1984 Ministerial
Regulation which legitimizes press bans.

Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara quotes the late chief justice,
Oemar Seno Adji, as saying that the publishing license was
intended to regulate publishing enterprises, not the content of
their products: "in no way can the withdrawal of a permit be used
as a means of banning a publication, except in the case of
managerial problems such as insolvency or failure to pay tax."

But clause 33 (h) of the 1984 Ministerial Regulation on
Publication Permits authorizes the suspension of permits "if the
concerned publishers/companies do not reflect the life of a
healthy press, a free and responsible press."

"That regulation is too abstract," says Abdul Hakim.

Protests gave way to lawsuits challenging the 1984 regulation
on the basis that it contradicted the 1982 Press Act, which
guarantees the press will not be subject to bannings.

Those filing law suits were following in the footsteps of
Surya Paloh, the owner of the Media Indonesia daily, who had
filed the first case regarding the 1984 regulation back in 1993.

Ambivalent

Another lawyer, T. Mulya Lubis, says the prospects for legal
reform would be brighter if there were, at least, a common
perception on the part of media professionals of what publishing
licenses are. A more independent Association of Indonesian
Journalists would also be necessary, he says.

When the current publishing license system was first proposed
in the late 1970s, the press itself was ambivalent about the
idea, Mulya Lubis says. "They agreed (with authorities) that a
publishing license was desirable as a means of shielding
publishers from competition from big capital," Lubis says.

In a 1991 study of the Indonesian press, media analyst Daniel
Dhakidae discovered another view about the need for the SIUPP. He
quotes Tjuk Atmadi, a former director of the Ministry of
Information's Press Guidance Directorate, as saying that
"licensing provides protection for the press by excluding
adventurous and sensational publishers (from the print media)."

But if the publishing license system was introduced to protect
the press from monopolization by big investors or from
sensationalism, neither aim has been achieved.

"The barrier became a boomerang," says Mulya Lubis.

The current chairman of the Indonesian Journalists'
Association, Sofyan Lubis, confirms that media managers had not
really anticipated the SIUPP being turned against them. At the
time of its introduction, some publishers actually welcomed it as
an improvement on the previous licensing system, under which
permits known by the acronym SIT were issued.

In 1974, under the SIT system, 12 publications were banned
following the student protests during the visit of the then
Japanese Prime Minister, Kakuei Tanaka.

Admiral (ret.) Sudomo, then Chief in Command for Restoration
of Security and Order subsequently promised SITs would no longer
be required after the 1977 elections.

But rather than simply abolishing publishing licenses, the
government replaced the SIT with the SIUPP. This turned out to be
little more than a name change.

Another lawyer, Trimoelja D. Soerjadi, claims there are
contradictions between the 1982 Press Act and the revocation
clause in the 1984 regulation:

"What is the use of the Press Act's hierarchy of those
responsible for a publication, if the Minister of Information has
the right to revoke a publishing permit?" The 1994 Act stipulates
the parties who are responsible for a publication's content, from
the chief editor downwards.

Soerjadi, Mulya Lubis and Abdul Hakim are among the legal
representatives in the separate lawsuits filed by former chief
editor of Tempo magazine, Goenawan Mohamad, journalists, other
employees of the banned publications, and former readers.

The current lawsuits are part of a campaign to encourage the
use of the courts to settle disputes over editorial content as an
alternative to press bans, Soerjadi says. For example, in 1988
the government sued a staff editor of Berita Buana over the
publication of an article.

Legal settlement

The present chairman of the Indonesian Journalists'
Association (PWI) says that legal settlement, rather than the
suspension of licenses, is also PWI's desired direction.

"It is only a matter of process," Sofyan Lubis stresses. His
organization strives, he says, to educate all parties,
particularly reporters, about the role of the national press and
the values it should adhere to.

"For instance, we cannot be like the press in America where
the system and the ideology are different," he says.

Chairman Lubis says that although PWI favors legal settlement,
it also supports the repeal of publishing licenses in certain
circumstances.

"The press is not like any other business," Lubis says, adding
that publications could be used to convey forbidden ideas.
However, last year's bannings did not fall within this category,
he says.

He stresses that because it is the government which issues
permits, publications should heed the rules, particularly
regarding a free and responsible press, as stated in the 1984
regulation.

"Just as long as the press does not `jump,' I am sure there is
no problem with openness," chairman Lubis said. "Jumping" or
"going too far", he explains, can result from the failure to
understand that the process towards openness is a slow one, and
that reporting must be done carefully.

According to Abdul Hakim the judiciary still lacks the courage
necessary to make decisions inconsistent with basic government
policies, including those allowing the revocation of publishing
licenses.

Soerjadi is similarly skeptical about the courts, but adds
that the administration, too, is low on commitment to the rule of
law:

"It is not the public that doesn't care about the law, it is
the government itself. It should be setting an example."
(anr/lem)