Broadcasting plays a crucial role in this country. It serves as a medium for information, education, healthy entertainment, regulation, and social cohesion, as stipulated in Law No. 32 of 2002.
Recently, the issue of the Broadcasting Bill (RUU) revision has caught public attention. The draft bill has sparked controversy among the press. Several articles are suspected of contradicting press freedom, especially Article 50B Paragraph (2) Clause C, which relates to the prohibition of airing investigative journalism products.
So, how do experts view this matter? Here is a special interview by PK Identitas Unhas reporter Jum Nabillah with the Chairperson of Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia Daerah (KPID) South Sulawesi 2014-2017, who is also a Lecturer in Communication Science at Unhas, Dr Alem Febri Sonni SSos MSi, on Tuesday (28/05).
What is your response to the circulating draft of the Broadcasting Bill?
This is a revision of Broadcasting Law No. 32 of 2002, which has been proposed for almost 10 years, considering the significant changes in the Indonesian broadcasting industry. However, the public has only recently become aware of this draft. After identifying the issues, many aspects appear “tainted.” One of them is the press activity, especially in Article 50B Paragraph (2) Clause C regarding investigative reporting.
The big question is, where did this draft proposal originate? Who initiated it? This remains unclear. If we relate it to regulations on freedom of speech as a fundamental aspect of the constitution, it raises conflicts, especially with several activities of the Indonesian press in managing investigative processes.
In journalism, investigation is the essence of reporting. A journalist must be capable of conducting investigative reporting. They must be able to search, research a case thoroughly, and then reveal it to the public. This creates turmoil when the press associates the Broadcasting Bill revision with restrictions on freedom of speech. The concern lies in this association. However, as an academic, I do not see any emphasis on that.
What has caused the delay in passing this Bill so far?
This law has never received significant public attention, while political contests require public response for popularity and electability purposes.
Aside from controversy, what positives do you see in the draft Bill?
The spirit behind it is positive, but the diction used in the Bill might be somewhat inaccurate. If we read the draft law in its entirety, many significant changes are apparent. The state, through KPI, actually has the authority to control not only conventional broadcasting realms but also digital media realms. This spirit should be elaborated on in interpretation.
What needs to be reconsidered in this draft Bill?
Good diction must be used. I understand that if we only talk about Article 50B, the implications are definitely dangerous. The state appears to want to restrict freedom of speech and information delivery.
What if this Bill is passed?
It seems very unlikely that it will reach that point. I still believe that this draft law will not be passed in this DPR session period. The DPR has only one month left to pass pending bills from their period.
If they cannot manage political negotiations within this month, the bill will collapse again and be continued by the next DPR. I am confident that by then, the tone, spirit, and political interests will have changed again.
How should the press and related institutions respond to this Bill?
As individuals working with information, journalists and creative workers must continue to voice this issue. This is necessary to protect our interests, ensure proper control, and prevent the state from having excessive power to suppress us in providing information. Even though there will be consequences behind all of this, we should continue to compile a list of problems from this draft law.
Read the original text in Bahasa Indonesia
Translated by: A. Mario Farrasda AS & Nur Muthmainah