|
A working meeting of Commission I of the Indonesian House of Representatives with the Minister of Communications and Information, Sofyan Djalil, on December 5th , at length agreed to postpone for two months the enforcement of four Government Regulations on broadcasting enacted concurrently on November 16, 2005.
Although this only puts off the problem and seems like mere posturing, it was the most probable political compromise, with the Minister of Communication and Information determined to stand his ground and the considerable pressure from various quarters, including Commission I and the Independent Broadcasting Commission, to have the four regulations repealed immediately.
Of the four regulations, the most controversial is Government Regulation No. 50 on private broadcasting organisations. Going in the face of Law 32/2003 on Broadcasting, which seeks to reduce government intervention, this government regulation shows strong indications of a return to a government centric regime of control.
The allegations that this regulation has hastened the metamorphosis of the Department of Communication and Information into a Department of Information a là New Order that has complete control over the content, technical and administrative aspects of broadcasting in Indonesia, come as no surprise.
These concerns are well founded, recalling the Department of Information’s bulldozing of press freedom in Indonesia.
A sign of xenophobia
There are problems with many of the provisions in the government regulation on private broadcasters. But in the limited space available, I will focus on just two articles which show a strong inclination towards controlling the free and flow of information, something that is of great benefit to the public and to the government itself.
First, article 17 clause 5, which prohibits radio and television from relaying regular broadcasts from overseas. Three types of regular broadcasts are banned: news, music programmes showing improper performances, and sports programmes showing sadistic acts. The ban on the latter two may not be unwarranted, particularly if seen in terms of the public interest.
But the ban on relaying news from overseas really is a sign of xenophobia, for which there is no basis whatsoever. It is as if all information from overseas were judgemental, propagandist, and the like. And the Broadcasting Law itself makes no mention of there being a ban on relaying news from overseas. What it does establish are limits.
This ban seems to assume that the pubic are so stupid that they have to be protected from foreign influences. But we know, most relayed news is produced by local divisions of foreign broadcasting companies with Indonesian presenters, and home-bred reporters, too. It would be extremely naïve to question the Indonesianness of these Indonesian reporters simply because they work for foreign broadcasting companies.
While it is true that some news is aired in English, the vast majority of Indonesians do not understand English. Of the few that do, it could well be that many don’t listen to radio stations or watch television programmes that relay news in English. More importantly, is it really propaganda? This is a question of media credibility, which journalists would lay on the line, wherever they work. So why be afraid?
Like a horse in blinkers
The ban on relaying foreign news, in real time or otherwise, will harm TV and radio journalists working for the local media. Managers and journalists of electronic media in Indonesia run the risk of no longer having a news benchmark. Radio and television journalism in Indonesia is still in its infancy. A mere babe in arms. Electronic media journalism only began to take off after the reform movement of 1998. Most of its managers have a background in print media. So we have a lot to learn, including from the foreign media. Without a benchmark, we will become complacent. Like a horse in blinkers.
Also on the downside, the public will no longer be able to access a variety of information at low cost. The point about news relays is that both sides benefit. Local media need material foreign news broadcasts in the hope of increasing the number of listeners or viewers, and foreign media need local outlets.
That’s it. This system is completely different from a pool where all broadcasting institutions are obliged to relay information from a single, centralised media.
Not Coercion
Second, letters b and of article 35 limits the coverage of radio station networks to 15% of the number of districts and municipalities in Indonesia. Of this number, 80% must be located in economically developed regions, and the remaining 20% in economicially less developed regions determined by the minister.
The elucidation to this regulation gives no further explanation. There is no clarification or argument as to why the figure should be 15%, not 14% or 29% or 99%. The same question could be asked of article 36 letter e, which limits the coverage of television networks to 75% of the number of provinces in Indonesia.
In an interview with Radio 68H, the Minister said that these limitations were necessary to guard against a monopoly of information. This is true, if he means an information monopoly in the sense of the centralised relaying of information of the New Order era, when all private radio stations were required to relay RRI Jakarta news broadcasts. But conditions now are completely different.
Radio stations in the regions are now free to choose whether or not they are a part of a radio network of one or more stations. As long as these partnerships are voluntary, not controlled or coerced (in the name of investment or political interests), private radio stations should be left to choose whether team up (form networks) with other radio stations.
Private radio stations in the regions can also send and receive a continuous flow of reports to and from stations in other networks, strengthening one another while preventing the creation of an information monopoly. The Minister’s response is, what if a company sets up radio stations in several regions that function only to transmit broadcasts from a main station in Jakarta?
This fear is completely unfounded, because if this were to happen, the answer would be simple: action must be taken. Revoke its licence to air on a particular frequency. Why make a radio or television station, if it cannot have its own programmes? Each radio and television station must have local content; they cannot be just transmission stations. So, the 15% limit is completely unnecessary, unproductive, and could even result in an information gap between regions. Rapid, low-cost information for and from all corners of Indonesia can actually be useful to government in taking immediate action in times of emergency.
Looking at the long term effects of this regulation, it is very odd indeed that the nine organisations affiliated in the Forum of Indonesian Broadcasting Organisations actually forced through this law. What are the interests behind all this? That is a question that must be answered. Just in the financial interests of some in the broadcasting industry, don’t sacrifice public access to free and fair information.
Editor's Note: Heru Hendratmoko is President of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia (2005-2008), and Production Director at Radio 68H News Agency.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
