The fall of Indonesia's authoritarian regime bred optimism while simultaneously spreading anxiety. With the elimination of government control, it was feared that unrestrained media freedoms would lead to anarchy. The most obvious change in the media since the fall of the Suharto regime has been the shift from reporting the monotonous drone of the government line to the cacophony of discordant voices from the government, civil society, academic experts and others.
For more than 30 years under the Suharto regime the Indonesian press was oppressed and professionally unorganized. Over the past three years, hundreds of new publications have emerged and hordes of journalists have hit the streets in search of news. However, as some of these publications went bankrupt within just a few months, many journalists joined the ranks of the unemployed. In May 1998, around 260 publications were in operation, with the number swelling to nearly 1,400 by the end of 1999, but the number has since dropped to around 460. As Indonesia struggles during this transitional period towards democracy, the press finds itself learning to practise its new freedoms, learning to be responsible.
Nowadays, media reports are uncensored and publications are no longer threatened with closure. The press publishes whatever it likes, sometimes even pornography. Discretion and respect for privacy have given way to the business imperatives and political leanings of the media owners.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Some people in Indonesia now reminisce about the beautiful world of Suharto's New Order regime, when the number of print publications and number of pages in these publications were restricted; even the number of advertisements could be limited by the government! Private radio and television stations were obliged to broadcast reports from the state-run radio and television broadcasts. With the press under control, the Indonesian people rarely became worried or anxious because the facts and reality conveyed by the media were products of the government.
By contrast, this era free of government intervention has left the press open and vulnerable. The media no longer forces society to swallow prescribed nostrums for its ills, nor applies a particular salve to every problem, but has become an ambulance that carries a mess of new problems, including wild reporting and sensationalistic journalism.
Chaos has resulted from the newly permissive environment. News that was once regulated, measured, counted and restrained is now seen as spiraling out of control. Aside from fundamental problems such as the lack of respect for press ethics and lack of professionalism, it is difficult to figure out how many publications are currently in print and how many journalists are working in Indonesia.
With these anxieties in mind, one can understand the desire to return to the "good old days."
It is not uncommon to hear calls for the press to be brought under control again, or for the Ministry of Information to be resuscitated, or for the system of licensing publications to be revived.
Free press panned
"Freedom of the press" in Indonesia has unofficially been condemned as the "freakdom of the press." Consequently, individual journalists and the media industry are often accused by Indonesian society of inciting anger and conflict. The finger pointing has come from politicians and media observers, as well from as the general public. However, this anger directed at the press is often not because of the news content, but is a manifestation of the anger and frustration many feel when confronted with the broad spectrum of problems facing Indonesian society. The freedoms that were so hard to obtain, ironically, now threaten some parts of a society that considers the press the enemy because of its influence and power.
This animosity towards the press is a fact of life for many practicing journalists in Indonesia today. The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) and the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) recorded more than 96 cases of journalistic repression in Indonesia in 2001, although the police handled only four and only one case went to court.
Threats of violence have increased significantly when compared with Suharto's New Order era (see table). This trend is deeply saddening. Twice in 2001, the daily Serambi Indonesia could not publish because of the dissatisfaction of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) with its coverage. In August, publication was stopped for more than ten days after GAM issued threats to burn the office of SI and kill journalists.
Even more worrisome is that less than five percent of those suspected of media interference were brought to trial in 2001. This failure to enforce laws that provide protection to journalists can lead to the perception that violence against press workers is permissible under the law. To make matters worse, police officers are the second most frequent perpetrators of media interference, whether through physical means or other intimidating tactics, such as calling meddling journalists to stand before the court as witnesses.
The threat of violence has caused anxiety in the media workplace and has created a culture of increasing self-censorship. Some have therefore avoided writing politically sensitive material about volatile issues such as corruption and misuse of power.
An editor from the Jawa Pos, the largest daily in East Java province, admitted to exercising greater caution when writing about former president Abdurrahman Wahid and the traditionalist Muslim organization closely associated with him, Nahdlatul Ulama, to avoid the wrath of NU and Wahid supporters. This self-censorship restricts the flow of information, leading to a distorted public opinion and a weak foundation for a participatory political culture to gain purchase.
As the shaper of public opinion, the press is a blade that can cut both ways. It can spread knowledge and contribute to the development of a pluralistic and tolerant population, but the press can just as easily sow hatred and sharpen differences. From 1999 to 2001, the press was often blamed for exacerbating many domestic conflicts due to its sensationalistic reporting.
In response to these criticisms, many in the media are now undergoing a series of trainings in "peace journalism," which acknowledges the constructive role that the media can play in mapping out conflict resolution strategies. With support from editors and publishers as well as a little patience, there are hopes that the Indonesian media will become more professional.
When the Indonesian press was under the constant gaze of the authoritarian Suharto regime, many journalists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) campaigned actively for freedom of the press. The struggle reached its apex when President Suharto finally stepped down in May 1998. However, a handful of the same campaigners have since changed their tune, demanding greater limitations on media freedoms. Measures put forth by this group to control the press included establishing an independent nine-member regulatory body to replace the old state-sponsored Press Council. The new body includes representatives from journalist organizations, press companies and community leaders, who mediate in conflicts arising between society and the press. Other measures include creating 22 media-watch agencies composed of ex-journalists and NGO activists to monitor and critique press reporting.
The result thus far has been positive. Members of the community have aired their grievances against the press to the new Press Council and media-watch bodies. Attacks on media offices have declined over the past year. An early warning system has been set up to caution the press. At the same time, realizing that they are under greater scrutiny, some newspapers and magazines have established their own internal press ombudsmen.
Impatience of populace
The opponent of the free press in Indonesia is no longer a monolithic authoritarian regime, but rather a disparate and intolerant populace. Spontaneous and sporadic threats from mobs can be frightening. However, they are not systemic, nor are they as deadly as those incurred under the auspices of the authoritarian government. Thus, I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said: "If it were left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
This famous maxim is perhaps a bit cliched, but its relevance to the current situation of the press in Indonesia has not been lost. Under Suharto's rule, Indonesia had a strong government and as a result did not have a free press. Now, Indonesia has a free press, but a glaringly weak government.
The transition period from authoritarianism to democracy is a struggle between power and freedom. It is difficult to imagine how a government would function without the presence of a sparring partner in the form of the free press. Journalists shake the carpet that conceals dishonest or controversial economic and political practices, allowing the public to see what lies beneath the veneer of government rhetoric in order to shape informed opinions.
Even people widely known as democrats -- such as former President Wahid or the current President Megawati -- an be tempted to abuse positions of power. Thus, the decision to choose a strong free press rather than a strong government is very logical. If excessively strong government equals dictatorship, then an excessively free press equals sensationalism. Dictators, however, usually are brought down by bloody revolutions, while a sensationalistic press, on the other hand, can be brought under control by one lawyer.
The future of press freedom in Indonesia depends on how well journalists adapt to the new environment to use their social responsibilities to serve the people and build public trust. In this era of transition towards greater freedom, Indonesian journalists and the media industry in general have been handed a golden opportunity to make this ideal a reality.
Lukas Luwarso is the Jakarta director of Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA). Re-printed with permission from Irrawaddy magazine.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS