Warief Djajanto Basorie, Jakarta – The prime indicator of whether Indonesia is making strides toward greater freedom of information is the process at the House of Representatives surrounding the Freedom of Information Bill. Deliberation of the bill finally began on March 7, 2006, over five years after it was submitted in November 2001.
The freedom of information lobby has faced foot-dragging and barriers orchestrated by elements both inside and outside the government, who look at the bill with disdain. The nay-sayers apparently view the bill as a hindrance to executive affairs and dismiss the big picture of what an eventual freedom of information act can do to advance democracy. Further, the government has conferred the bill step-child status by paying more attention to a rival bill that could undermine freedom of information.
In the deliberations, the minister of communications and information and the minister of justice and human rights represent the government. The government has made plain what its interests and priorities are, a position that dismays freedom of information advocates. In the opening March 7 hearing, Information Minister Sofyan Djalil proposed that the deliberation of the State Secrets Bill should come first to prevent classified information from being leaked.
"Information on certain issues such as security and foreign policy are generally classified," he said. In response, activists have called for the state secrets and freedom of information bills to be combined for efficiency, but the government has rejected the idea, saying a separate state secrets act can put a damper on leaks.
What concerns freedom of information advocates about the bill on state secrets? A state secrets act operates on the paradigm of maximum exemption and minimum disclosure, whereas a freedom of information act seeks maximum disclosure and minimum exemption, explains Agus Sudibyo, coordinator of the Freedom of Information Coalition, a lobby actively advocating the Freedom of Information Bill.
Sofyan further expressed his misgivings about the bill on freedom of information by hinting that if the law was not written properly, it could lead to "the misuse of information for a goal that is against the law".
The chair of House Commission I for defense and information, Theo Sambuaga of the nominally pro-government Golkar, the largest party in the House, countered that freedom of information is guaranteed in the Constitution. The future law is meant to assure the principle of transparency in public policy making and as a means for imposing a system of checks and balances on the system, he argued.
The lack of executive enthusiasm to push for the bill is apparently and partly because of the fear among officials and politicians that it would allow greater latitude for the media and non-governmental organizations to expose public misdeeds. Public office holders, be they Cabinet members, legislators or judges, are resentful when they get bad press.
Although freedom of information is guaranteed in Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution and in the 1999 Press Law, there are moves to check the press. A government review of the Criminal Code led by former justice minister Muladi drafted new and stronger provisions on defamation, an act that would cap if not criminalizes criticism.
Press Council member Leo Batubara cites 49 articles in the draft Criminal Code that could land journalists in prison. For example, Article 271 of the draft Code states that an exaggerated or incomplete news report that results in a disturbance is a criminal offense that carries a maximum jail sentence of one year.
The draft of the amended Criminal Code has been completed. Muladi has submitted it to Justice and Human Rights Minister Hamid Awaluddin. If the President approves and signs it, the Criminal Code Bill will be submitted to the House.
If reining in the press was not enough, the government wants to restrain access to public information. This intent is reflected in its position in the House hearings on the Freedom of Information Bill. The government's list of demands includes a change in the name of the bill. At present it is the RUU Kebebasan Memperoleh Informasi Publik, or the Freedom to Obtain Public Information Bill. The government also wants state and local government-owned enterprises exempted from obligatory disclosures of financial information.
It rejects the establishment of an information commission whose job is to settle information access disputes. It wants to restrict the rights of foreign nationals to access information. It also demands a five-year grace period before the law takes full effect from when the bill is passed. This means that if the bill is passed in 2006, it won't come into force until 2011, two years after the end of the current term of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Although the government appears to be protective of its executive privilege as the custodian of public information, it should be given credit for being accessible in other ways. The present government has gradually changed from the monolithic closed bureaucracy of Soeharto's New Order from 1966-1998.
For sure the Internet has become a useful information tool. More and more public offices have set up their own websites. Yudhoyono has launched a presidential website, www.presidensby.info. It allows visitors to look at his current schedule, speeches, ideas, media coverage, and offers downloadable official documents issued under his name. The latter are government regulations, presidential regulations, presidential decisions and presidential instructions.
One piece of relevant information it does not give, however, is the organizational setup of the presidential office. Vice President Jusuf Kalla has his own website, www.setwapres.go.id, that shows the structure of his office. According to the website, the VP has five deputies: political, economic, welfare, government and development surveillance, and administrative affairs.
Beyond the capital, local governments down to the city and regency level have websites offering public service information and local investment opportunities.
Looking ahead, the litmus test to the people's right to know is how accommodating the government is in enacting a freedom of information law that puts public interest first. In seeking that accommodation, the pro-information front, particularly the Freedom of Information Coalition, a grouping of more than 30 national and local NGOs, must scale up its lobbying. Seminars, meetings with lawmakers and government leaders, public discussions and opinion articles in the mainstream media require constant working and reworking if the mind-set is to change.
[This article is based on a paper presented at the Access to Information in Southeast Asia workshop, held by the Southeast Asia Press Alliance and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Bangkok on Aug. 22-24. The author teaches journalism at Dr. Soetomo Press Institute in Jakarta and wrote the Indonesia country chapter, Free but still in the Dark, for the 2001 study The Right to Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia.]