Kafil Yamin, Jakarta – It took Indonesia's House of Representatives more than two years of often-heated debate to pass a controversial broadcasting bill on Thursday, but critics here say the law is a return to the repressive measures of the Suharto regime.
"Media businessmen in Indonesia should get ready to go to jail," said Karni Ilyas, chairman of the Association of Indonesian Television Broadcasting (ATVSI), referring to criminal offences that a breach of the act could entail.
At least a third of the bill's 63 articles carry the threat of fines or imprisonment, says the Indonesian Society of Press and Broadcasting.
Particularly offensive, say free speech advocates, are articles that restrict domestic programming, with the official intent to control news, editorial and entertainment deemed to promote violence, pornography, gambling, and unethical behavior.
Also tightly controlled will be any material that has the potential to aggravate tribal, racial and religious relations in this country of 220 million people.
The government fears certain types of media coverage could bring the country's fledgling democracy – already rocked by communal clashes, racial rioting and inter-religious hostility – under increasing stress.
Another controversial aspect of the law is the authority of the industry regulatory body, the Indonesian Broadcasting Committee (KPI).
Critics are concerned about the KPI's powers to control broadcasting content, set the limits to media ownership, decide the licensing process for frequencies and broadcasting, limit advertisements, and decide the punishment for breaches of these regulations.
The passage of the law represents the single biggest shake-up of the Indonesian broadcasting landscape since the 1998 fall of the Suharto regime, which controlled the media for 30 years with an iron fist. But critics here say the broadcasting bill drafted by the government of President Megawati Sukarnoputri bears too many similarities to Suharto's notorious Information Ministry, which exercised almost absolute control over the publishing and broadcast media.
Throughout the Suharto years, the Information Ministry closed down 237 press publications and obliged privately operated television and radio stations to relay news from the state-run Televisi Republik Indonesia (TVRI) and the state-run Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI).
President Abdurrahman Wahid – Megawati's predecessor who stepped down in October 1998 – dissolved the Information Ministry but later established the State Information Dissemination Bureau, which was filled by the Information Ministry's employees but without the power of controlling the press.
The post-1998 years have seen new media outlets mushroom across the country. Since Suharto's fall, Indonesia has seen the number of radio stations increase by 50 percent to 1,100, and that of commercial television stations double to 10. The country also now has 15 regional television stations.
But the bill undercuts the gains of Indonesia's young democracy, experts say. "The bill chains the freedom of the media. It hinders the media to develop and grow," said Yanto Soegiarto, chief editor of Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia (RCTI).
"There is no need for the KPI," said Yanto. "If we do something wrong, let our audience take legal action and let the courts find us guilty or not guilty. The KPI is nothing but the rebirth of the defunct Information Ministry," Yanto added.
The broadcast act also restricts cross ownership of the media, forcing media-ownership firms to decide whether to concentrate their media holdings in print, television or radio. The bill stipulates fines of up to 20 billion rupiah (2.2 million US dollars) and a two-year jail term for breach of the cross-ownership laws.
"If a media company violates the regulation, it would be a sort of administrative violation, but the punishment is a criminal one," said Komariah Sapardjaja, a member of the Indonesian Press Council.
The law envisages a two-year adjustment period before the cross-ownership laws come into effect, but most big media companies here have diverse cross-ownership arrangements and complain that two years is too short a transition period.
"If they fail to meet the time limit, then media businessmen should prepare to spend time in jail," Komariah asserted.
Djafar Assegaff, a senior journalist, said the emergence of multimedia technology has made cross ownership unavoidable. "The media is becoming more and more integrated. It's getting difficult to separate them," he said.
But Dedy Mulyana, a media expert from the Bandung-based Padjadjaran University, said the cross-ownership restrictions are justified in Indonesia to prevent oligopolies gaining control of a media industry adjusting from a controlled to a democratic environment.
"I think the regulation is aimed at preventing monopoly in this business. If a number of media control big capital and this capital builds alliances with certain political organizations, this will greatly harm the people's interest," Dedy said.
Without adequate regulation, the situation "would turn into a monopoly in information. This would then be against freedom of the press itself," he added.
Local television broadcasters have thrown their weight behind the cross-ownership restrictions, which they see as "good for the local media, which still needs a little protection from the government," Satria Naradha, head of the Association of the Indonesian Regional Television (ATVLI), said.
"The bill has so far guaranteed pluralism by setting limits in frequency and scope for national broadcasting, so that local TV and radio stations can co-exist with them," he said.