INDONESIA AND CENSORSHIP

From the beginning of its reign in 1966 to its fall in 1998, New Order regime had banned over 2,000 books. Under its censorship law, all works, which, in the view of the Attorney General, “could disturb public order”, are subject to censorship. Under this law, hundreds of novels, historical studies, religious tracts, and books on political and social controversies have been banned, including scholarly works on subjects from early twentieth century social movement, to liberation theology, to the rise of Asia as a center of global capitalism.


The broad censorship practiced by the Soeharto government has had a direct impact on scholarship and the academic community. The Indonesian National Library keeps copies of banned books, but such books are inaccessible without the prior approval of security authorities. Researchers and students are, in principle, able to apply for permission to use such books for academic study, but in practice they must obtain prior permission from the State Intelligence Coordinating Body (Badan Koordinasi Intelijen Negara or Bakin), the Coordinating Agency for the Maintenance of National Stability (Badan Koordinasi Bantuan Pemantapan Stabilitas Nasional or Bakorstanas), and the attorney general’s office. These authorities have untrammeled discretion to delay or refuse to issue permits for use of the books. Because of the permit requirements, the National Library is often forced to deny permission to students and others. Although many academics and intellectuals keep copies of banned books and there is an active market in photocopies of such works, they are rarely used in classrooms except by the most critical and fearless lecturers. References to banned works are absent from the works of all but a handful of scholars because publications of studies based on such sources could damage their career.

Book censorship in Indonesia did not begin with the New Order. In 1963, President Sukarno issued a decree, PP no.4/1963, requiring publishers to submit copies of all books to their local prosecutor’s office within forty-eight hours of publication. The decree vested the attorney general with broad power to criminalize possession and seize all copies of works which “could disturb public order [and] have a negative influence on efforts to achieve the goals of the [Indonesian] Revolution.” Within a month of the coup attempt, writers who belonged to the Indonesian Communist Party or its affiliates used this decree to ban all works. In 1969, the Soeharto government enacted the decree into law and subsequently built up a bureaucratic infrastructure to implement the law.

During the 1970s and 1980s, most censorship decisions were initiated by one of the New Order security and intelligence bodies. In October 1989, a “clearinghouse” was formed to study the contents of books and make censorship recommendations directly to the attorney general. The clearinghouse is composed of nineteen members, including representatives of the attorney general’s office and all of the leading intelligence agencies in the country, including the State Intelligence Coordinating Body (Badan Koordinasi Intelijen Negara or Bakin), the Coordinating Agency for the Maintenance of National Stability (Badan Koordinasi Bantuan Pemantapan Stabilitas Nasional or Bakorstanas), and the Armed Forces Intelligence Agency (Badan Inteligen ABRI or BIA), together with representatives from the ministries of information, education, and religion. Since early 1990s, the attorney general on the advice of the clearinghouse makes most censorship decisions.

A wide range of works is subject to censorship. In 1996, the Jakarta daily Kompas listed criteria used by the government in making censorship decisions. Works subject to censorship include those which: conflict with the state ideology or national constitution; contain Marxist-Leninist teachings or interpretations; destroy public faith in government leaders; are pornographic; are atheistic or insult a religion recognized in Indonesia; undermine national development; lead to ethnic, religious racial or inter-group conflict; or undermine national unity. Because there is no provision in the law for compensation for those whose books are seized, publishers and bookstores that carry controversial works take a substantial financial risk. Because banning also criminalizes possession, it can also be used to keep critics on the defensive. A prominent example occurred in 1989 when three students were arrested, convicted of subversion, and sentenced to jail terms ranging from seven to eight and a half years for, among other things, possessing and attempting to distribute copies of Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s banned novels on the rise of Indonesian nationalism.

A study of the impact of the government’s censorship on scholarly inquiry has not yet been undertaken, but previous works have noted the impact of the policy on the availability of social science texts, poetry and fiction, commentary on and analysis of contemporary political controversies, and alleged government abuses. Because Marxist-Leninist teachings are banned, professors in the social sciences can be subject to harassment. In 1988, for example, Dr. Arief Budiman, a sociologist at Satya Wacana Christian University was accused by a university alumni group of teaching Marxism to students, and the complaint was forwarded to the regional armed forces headquarters (Korem). Dr. Budiman argued that someone couldn’t know if someone else a Marxist if that person did not know what Marxism is and he taught Marxism in his class because it was part of the theoretical and ideological study of development.

Virtually all works by authors alleged to have been communists or communist sympathizers continue to be banned, whether those works were written before or after the 1965 coup attempt. Prominent among such authors is Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Indonesia’s best-known novelist. More than twenty works of fiction, a memoir, and a number of significant historical studies by Pramoedya, including works on the Chinese in Indonesia and on important historical figures Tirto Adhi Suriyo and Kartini, are banned. Even his edited edition of one of Indonesia’s first novels, Hikayat Siti Marijah, by Haji Mukti, is banned on the ground that the novel emphasizes “social contradictions.” Students who wish to write their theses on Pramoedya’s works have been denied permission to do so by their advisors and university administrators. Pramoedya is accused by his critics in Indonesian literary circles of having denigrated and subjected other writers to abuse when he headed the literary section of the leftist cultural organization Lekra (Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat or Institute of Peoples’ Culture) in the 1950s and early 1960s. Pramoedya was jailed for fourteen years after the 1965 coup attempt as a suspected communist based on his work for Lekra. None of these claims justify the continued censorship of his writings. Pramoedya is a prolific and respected author, and his works represent a gold mine for literary and cultural critics that were all but lost to the scholarly community as a result of the arbitrary censorship practices of the New Order government.

Publications in Chinese have been banned altogether. As described above, ethnic Chinese were made the subject of de jure as well as de facto government discrimination following the 1965 coup attempt, amid allegations that the coup plotters received support directly from Beijing through Chinese-Indonesian intermediaries. All Chinese-language schools were closed permanently in 1966. Because the closures were carried out almost overnight, many students lost the ability to continue their education. In late 1978 and 1979, a series of government decrees formally banned all imports of goods with Chinese characters, and forbade use of Chinese characters in all publications and circulation of any Chinese-language printed matter, absent the express consent of the authorities, with the exception of a government-run newspaper. Again, although there was an exception in the regulations for academic study of Chinese-language materials, the ban has had devastating consequences for the development of scholarship on China in Indonesia, and has all but closed off discussion of the status of the Chinese-Indonesian community and its role in early Indonesian history.

Historical studies have been a leading target of the censors. In almost every case, the rationale for censorship contained in the attorney general’s censorship decision is that the offending work “inverts the facts” which could “lead the public astray” and ultimately “disturb public order.” Censorship thus presupposes an official history. In at least one case, this was made explicit. In 1990, the attorney general banned Permesta: Kandasnya Sebuah Cita-Cita (Permesta, the End of Hope), by KML Tobing, an account of the Permesta Rebellion in Sulawesi during the late 1950s. According to the censorship decree, the book was banned because it “contains analyses that conflict with the work Cuplikan Sejarah Perjuangan TNI Angkatan Darat (Aspects of the History of Struggle of the National Army),” a work published by the Armed Forces.
As these censorship cases in Indonesia demonstrate, censorship played an important role in defining New Order ideological orthodoxy and frequently was used as a weapon against political opponents. Academics, students, and scholarship itself suffered as a result.

Read More......

AL JAZEERA AND FREEDOM

In a modern civil society, media has become one of the main tools of building the civil society itself. Every member of society, nowadays, has the ability to access every corner of information which by the end will create an enlightened society. With the development in media the opportunity for the subordinate group of society to emerge to the mainstream public sphere becoming more and more wide.

However, the opportunity for the subordinate group of society in some sense is still restricted either by availability of capital or by, in some case, states regulation. In Habermas bourgeois society the subordinate group’s opportunity might be eliminated by the availability of capital since media will be owned and control by the bourgeois group and in a weak society where representation of public in government is limited, state regulation will become the obstacle. But still when media become available to all member of society, it might drive perspective of its consumers/member of society toward a certain direction and with this ability, media hold an immense power to shape the public opinion toward an issue. The process of enlightening society should be preceded by freedom granted by the state to its people. This process comes parallel to Kant’s theory where he said, “If only freedom is granted, enlightenment is almost sure to follow”.

However, in most of authoritarian states, state control over news broadcast may jeopardize the forming of any civil society. Media become part of state control over its people. State will decide what and when any news can be broadcasted in media and as the result, media will lose its ability to control and criticize the state where as Habermas described in his essay ‘ The Public Sphere’, “the term ‘public opinion’ refers to the functions of criticism and control of organized state authority….”. When this ability lost, it means that state can shape public opinion in any way it wants because the state will only give one version of the news where as in a free atmosphere; people can choose their view from various sources of news.

In this background, Al Jazeera has become one of the major players in the news world especially in the Middle East. Before Al Jazeera comes, in most of Middle East countries, state control over news media was very dominant. As the result of this control most of Arab population become segmented apart from similarities in language and religion. The idea of Pan-Arab nation that had existed since the turn of 20th century seems lose its meaning because of this segmentation. The common identity and issues do not become common interest among Arab nation due to state restriction over freedom of expression. Maintaining its domination is the main aim of the state rather than enlightening its people.

However, after his bloodless coup in 1995, Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Ahmad Bin Khalifa tried to change this culture by establishing a free of state influence news station in 1996 and Al Jazeera was born. The Emirate of Qatar will fund the station but they will not make any restriction concerning news content of the station. The implication of this establishment was not only felt in Qatar but also among other Arab nations and worldwide. Al Jazeera has succeeded to keep all Arab nations in a same direction in issues concerning the region. Most of Arab people may feel that they can have valid news without any state influence in the truth of the news. In this case, it was not the member of society who made the first move to establish this tool of enlightenment but the state who took the initiative.

This can be understood because even in Qatar as a monarch country state control must be so strong that it must be the government takes the initiative or no one will. However, this circumstance should be judge carefully where since its government fund institution, obviously, more or less state influence will stir the direction of the news, at least news concerning the state itself. Some critics argue that Al Jazeera coverage about Qatar is limited to insignificant news. Outside Qatar Al Jazeera might play an important role in the changing of the society but inside Qatar it seems that the role is not significant enough. This phenomenon creates a pseudo-enlighten society in Qatar where the freedom only granted when it deals with issues outside Qatar, however, in Qatar itself the freedom simply not exists.

Since its establishment, Al Jazeera, has given an alternative source of news and information to the Arab world, which before much more relied on western news stations to get news from outside their area. Not only as an alternative source but Al Jazeera also become the media to amplify the Arabs’ aspirations toward issues in their region, especially when the issues that make them face the western civilization. In the case of Intifada in Palestine or Iraq war, Al Jazeera uses terms which might strange to western people. Al Jazeera uses term such as ‘martyr’ rather than ‘terrorist’, ‘assassination’ rather than ‘targeted killing’ which more familiar to western people since those terms used by western news media such as CNN, BBC, AP, etc. Although the terms seem strange for western’s ear but in Arab world terms which are used by Al Jazeera are more common. The uses of these terms, as the result, create the sense of commonness among the Arabs. The stress of common interests not only the main reason for Al Jazeera to grab its viewer. The uses of a variant of Arabic language that can be understood regardless dialect also enable Al Jazeera to unite its viewers. It makes not only Arabs in Qatar will understand Al Jazeera but Arabs in Yemen also able to comprehend their news.

Al Jazeera effort to give an alternative side of news during Iraq war can be seen in Jehane Noujim’s documentary film ‘Control Room’. This documentary tries to show Al JAzeera coverage of Iraq war with side story of other journalists in Iraq. The documentary shows how Al Jazeera was critized by both the American, in this film shown by Donald Rumsfeld complaining that Al Jazeera become propaganda tool for the insurgents and in the other side the Iraqis also accuse Al Jazeera as the mouthpiece of American propaganda. It also focusing on the bombing of Al Jazeera headquarter in Baghdad by the United State army. The film shows footage of the attack, including the firing of a missile by an American A-10 'tankbuster'; the film reports that the alleged target was a group of insurgents who opened fire on coalition forces from within the Al Jazeera building, thus justifying retaliatory fire. As a documentary film, Control Room, tries as much as possible to take a neutral side of any factions in the war although it is rather hard for the producer to maintain the neutrality of the film.

Al Jazeera’s political talk show programs enable its viewers to bring about their personal view to public where before they do not have any mean to do such a thing due to lack of opportunity. The Arabs can express their dissatisfaction to their government in this kind of program. They also could bring out their view directly to their government without any necessity of formal constitutional medium. However, this situation could also create a ‘street court’ where public could judge their government’s actions or policies. Their thoughts where previously only exist in their private chamber now have the way to emerge to more than private discussion. Not only the emerging of private opinion to public space but also now their viewers are able to see any uprising or movement in other place where as before such news will surely banned by their government. As the result, Arab viewers are becoming more and more critical toward their own government.

The unbiased point of view of Al Jazeera which become the main concern of its critics especially from the west can not be separated from Al Jazeera’s effort to create justice for the Arabs when they face the west. The United State official in few occasion accuse Al Jazeera as pro-Iraqi bias in their reportages. The notion of justice was lost when the Arabs deal with their regional issues such as conflict between Palestine and Israel or war against terrorism. Most of the Arabs feel that they are treated badly by the west and also they feel that not only their government restricts their knowledge of the world development but also they feel that western media always treat them badly with their news manipulation. The way Al Jazeera puts them in their news is able to bring back their self-esteem.

Although most of Arab populations embrace Al Jazeera with great joy, different greetings come from their government since government power of censorship has been eliminated by Al Jazeera’s satellite broadcast. Arab governments try to apply different kind of censorship when they deal with Al Jazeera; either by shutting down Al Jazeera office in their territory or making a formal complaint to Qatar government. Algerian government even went further by cutting down their cities power supply during Al Jazeera’ program dealing with massacre committed by their military. Even the champion of freedom of speech like United State of America accuses Al Jazeera as not fair in their coverage. In some occasions, American army in Iraq bombards and although the Americans say that it was a mistake but some critics consider it as a deliberate bombing.

During Iraq war, Al Jazeera shows a different side of the war to its viewers. Different from most of western media which mostly show the Coalition Armies as the victor of the war, Al Jazeera shows the opposition images. And these images create empathy and gain more interest from its Arab viewers but in the other hand a contrast reaction come from the western viewers and from the United State government, in their consideration, this reaction equals to black campaign against their policies in Iraq. Cabinet members and Pentagon officials critize and condemn Al Jazeera for frequently broadcasting civilian casualties as well as footage of American POWs where with this activities, Al Jazeera has revealed and shown to its viewers and the world everything about Iraq that the Bush administration did not want them to see. Even member of United State field army in Iraq may react in strong manner. This reaction shown dramatically in “Control Room” in a scene where a Marine officer was interviewed and mentioned his contrast feeling when he watched footage of Iraq war in CNN and Al Jazeera.

In comparison to other independent news media, the nature of Al Jazeera's independency, in the surface its government control does not so obvious but from its reportage performance toward Qatar, the control can be seen.

In this case, discourse of both stations is about government and private enterprise. In one hand, government control becoming lesser in private enterprise but the capital requirement will also create a restriction to what issue might interest its viewers rather than what issue might become important to its viewers. The choice of topic become restricted in profitable or not. This restriction will create a situation where an issue which concerning a subordinate group of society will not come into ‘spot light’ if the station consider its as unprofitable. On the other hand, when a station is funded by a government, although the control might be not so obvious, the opportunity for the subordinate issue is getting smaller because the consideration is not only concerning business decision but also whether it will offend the government or not.

In the era of capitalism as in the present, this dilema could not be avoided. The capital demand always haunt any news station to operate. The phenomena of industrialisation has come not only in consumer good products industry but it also come face to face to ideal discourse where the opportunity to present an idea to public space become restricted due to the availability of capital power.

Read More......