World Press Freedom Day: We who believe in freedom cannot rest
Endy M. Bayuni, Cambridge, Massachusetts
The lyrics of a popular song during the civil rights movement in the United States went something like this: We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes. Today, as we mark World Press Freedom Day, it is worth reminding ourselves that while we have made progress in this area these last six years, we are still essentially operating in an environment that is far from free.
May 1998 was a major turning point in the struggle for freedom of expression, and its subset, freedom of the press/media, in Indonesia. The collapse of the Soeharto dictatorship ushered in a new era, one that is filled with hope and anticipation of freedom and all the benefits that it brings.
Many of us believed then, and still do today, that freedom is a basic human right that must be fully respected. Freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of practicing one's religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from desire are all essential foundations in building a democratic, just and prosperous society. Aside from being an ends, freedom is also a means to a better life, for individuals and society.
Press freedom is a subset of freedom of speech. One cannot fight solely for freedom of the press without fighting for freedom of expression. The press became one of the first beneficiaries of the political reform toward greater freedom that began in 1998. This was in recognition of the important role that the press can play in pushing reform.
One of the first decisions president BJ Habibie made after succeeding Soeharto was to abolish the press licensing system, through which the previous government had exercised control over the flow of information. The House of Representatives was equally responsive. One of the first legislations it enacted was a new press law. It is not perfect, but unlike the previous act, the 1999 Press Law protects rather than seeks to regulate the press and the journalistic profession.
The general mood in 1998 and 1999 was very much in support of press freedom. There was a consensus that freedom is an essential part of Indonesia's transformation from an authoritarian to a democratic society.
Hundreds of new publications took advantage of this situation to give the public greater access to a variety of sources of information. Some became special-interest publications, including those seeking to expose corruption and political scandals.
Similarly, the broadcasting media capitalized on the freer environment, which was further enhanced by the passing of a new broadcasting law in 2002. Local radio stations flourished now that they could produce and broadcast their own news, rather than just relaying the news of state-run RRI news. Indonesian audiences benefited from the five new commercial TV stations broadcasting nationwide, adding to the existing five. And TV political talk-shows became standard fare for most of these stations as they competed for audience.
The Internet, which expanded rapidly at about the same time, further contributed to the flourishing of media freedom in the country.
"All the news that's fit to print" soon became the norm for the print and broadcasting media. They were reporting just about everything that was of interest to the public, irrespective of whether the news would harm the interests or reputation of the government or powerful interests groups. In fact, every institution that is powerful and influential, from the government, military, bureaucracy, to the legislative and judicial branches of government and business groups, become regular targets of media scrutiny, in ways they had never experienced before.
While there may have been some abuses, the mainstream media generally continued to exercise caution when it came to libel and pornography, two areas that are still regulated -- not under the press law but under the country's criminal code. And most of them operate under a strict code of ethics.
Alas, it was a short-lived honeymoon that the press and these powerful institutions enjoyed.
The first threats to the freedom of the media came from the same politicians who had been very supportive at the start of the reform movement. Many turned their backs as soon as they learned that they too would be put under closer scrutiny by an increasingly critical, if not inquisitive media.
Both president Abdurrahman Wahid and his successor Megawati Soekarnoputri, who were regarded as major figures of the 1998 reform movement, often put themselves at odds with the media when they were in power. Megawati, once the darling of the media, rarely gives media interviews.
Perhaps echoing the government, many members of the House began accusing the media of going overboard, or of abusing its freedom. They sought to review the press law to give some power back to the government in regulating the media.
Admittedly, some of the media institutions -- in their quest to bolster circulation or ratings in an increasingly competitive environment -- have gone overboard. But overall, the mainstream media have been quite responsible, according to the Press Council, an independent media watchdog.
There may have also been cases of sloppy journalism, resulting from a lack of professionalism and the poor training of journalists. At any rate, it is a problem that would not be resolved simply by taking away the media's freedom.
For anyone to suggest a return to the era of the controlled media, would be like meting out punishment against journalism as a whole for the sins committed by a few. Should we raze the entire barn to catch a few rats? Should we do away with press freedom entirely because of the irresponsible behavior of a few?
As bad as the situation of the media abusing its freedom gets, a return to the era of regulated media would be a worse alternative. While there is press freedom, the nation will inevitably get some bad press, as well as some good press. But when there is no freedom, the nation will only get bad press.
We have been down that road before. During the Soeharto era, the mainstream press worked in an environment of constant fear of losing its license. Journalists may not have told lies, but they constantly concealed information, or engaged in telling half- truths -- which are just as bad if not worse than outright lies.
Fortunately, the calls for a return to a regulated media, in spite of coming from high quarters, never gained popular support. The public mood remains one of distrust against the government, and many feel that it should not be given the chance to monopolize or control the flow of information ever again.
While the media may claim to be free of government control, it faces new kinds of predators. Threats to its freedom are coming from mobs, thugs, and lately, from an unexpected quarter: The courts of law.
Examples of this abound from this past 12 months and justify our concern about the fate of the media, and of its freedom.
The attack on the office of Sinar Indonesia Baru daily newspaper in Medan in April is only one of many cases of the use of hired mobs or thugs in recent years. The attackers physically abused the staff members and vandalized the place. While the motive of the attack is not known, the newspaper had been exposing the activities of a gambling ring in the North Sumatra capital.
The practice of hiring a mob or thugs has become the norm for people with a bone to pick with the media, or to settle scores. Unfortunately, the police and the courts, the very institutions that were supposed to protect the media and its freedom, have done a lousy job.
Tempo, both the weekly magazine and the daily newspaper, have been at the receiving end of this unfair practice. A district court acquitted several men representing businessman Tomy Winata, who had clearly beaten two senior Tempo journalists in the presence of many witnesses, including police officers. Adding insult to injury, Tempo lost the libel lawsuit filed by Tomy Winata for an article that had provoked the attack in the first place.
The Tempo cases exposed the ineffectiveness of the 1999 Press Law in protecting the media and the journalistic profession. The court ignored the law, and used the criminal code or the civil code instead in dealing with the cases.
Rakyat Merdeka was also at the losing end of two libel lawsuits this past year, filed respectively by House Speaker Akbar Tandjung and President Megawati. Again the court ignored the Press Law, and used an outdated Dutch legislation that makes it a crime for anyone to insult people holding high public offices. Since its court losses, the daily newspaper, once popular for its political gossip, has survived financially but lost its sting.
Constant harassment of the media, either through the deployment of a mob or thugs, or through the threat of expensive libel lawsuits, would slowly but inevitably have a chilling effect on the way reporters and editors operate.
It would force the media to once again engage in self- censorship, not all that dissimilar from what it practiced during the repressive Soeharto reign. Working in an atmosphere of fear, not "all the news that's fit to print" would find its way to the public. The public's "right to know" would not be served by the media, and as a result, democracy -- and the nation as a whole -- would suffer.
The freedom that the media gained after 1998 is in peril today.
Having secured a legislation that is quite protective of the profession is not enough to guarantee that freedom. The threat is not coming from the government or the military, but it is coming from other sources, including -- as recent cases showed -- from the failure of the police and the court to enforce or administer the law that is supposed to defend the freedom of the media.
On this day, when we mark, rather than celebrate World Press Freedom Day, it is worth remembering that as far as the press or the media in Indonesia is concerned, freedom is yet to come. And we who believe in freedom cannot rest.
The writer, Deputy Chief Editor of The Jakarta Post, is currently studying at Harvard University under a fellowship provided by the Nieman Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Asia Foundation.