Internet blocking costs 'government credibility'

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Fri, 04/11/2008 12:32 PM  |  National

The government's block on access to websites that carry the controversial Dutch film Fitna is part of an attempt to restrict citizens' freedom in the name of religion, scholars warn.

Political and media expert Wimar Witoelar said the government was on the wrong track and had damaged its credibility with the public by ordering the Internet block.

"This is a really clumsy move by the government. It shows how the government is exploiting certain religious issues to suppress the freedom of its citizens," Wimar told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

"It's like turning back the clock to the Soeharto era, when the government was always suspicious."

Blocked websites include YouTube, MySpace and Rapidshare.

Wimar, who hosts the TV program Perspektif and was previously a spokesman for former president Abdurrahman Wahid, said the block revealed the government's failure to understand why and how people use the Internet.

"Ninety-nine percent of YouTube users are visiting the site for productive purposes, not to watch Fitna," Wimar said.

He said the move showed how easily the government had caved in to those offended by the movie, which has been condemned worldwide.

Political expert Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, from the National Institute of Sciences, said the block could be interpreted as evidence of the government's support for minor extremist groups.

"The government's support of the hardliners justifies the view that Indonesian Muslims often overreact to religious issues," Ikrar told the Post.

He said the ban on the film and its maker Dutch politician Geert Wilders spoke volumes about the government's immaturity despite the democratic era.

"The government's intervention will impede its citizens from becoming mature. The public will never be able to tell good from bad because the government always dictates to them," Ikrar said.

He said the ban would not work, but rather would ignite public curiosity about the film and encourage people to find alternative ways to watch it.

"If the government is seriously concerned that movies could destroy this country, it should ban TV soap operas, which often teach young people negative behavior," Ikrar said.

The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) said the government's move was a form of censorship that denied the public their right to information, in contravention of Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.

"We need to be selective, but not reactive and arbitrative," AJI chairman Heru Hendratmoko said in a statement.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announced a ban on Fitna for disturbing social harmony in the country. The government recently asked 146 Internet service providers and 30 network access providers to block websites that carry the film.

The film features images of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the 2004 Madrid bombings, juxtaposed with quotes from the Koran.

Ikrar said the government would have done better to ignore the movie.

"He (Wilders) is just someone who wants popularity. The government should have ignored him instead of dancing to his tune," Ikrar said. (dia)

Comments (8)  |   Post comment
A  |   A  |   A  |   Mail to a friend  |  Printer Friendly Version |  Digg it!  |  Add to Del.icio.us!  |  Add to Reddit!  |  Stumble it!   |  Share on facebook  

AndreY (not verified) — Mon, 08/11/2008 - 5:24pm

I only can agree to Wimar Witoelar and Ikrar Nusa Bhakti.
What is the government concerned about or affected by, finding it necessary to ban the movie? Scarcely the "disturbing (of) social harmony in the country", - there would be issues on which this description would apply much more, and nothing is ever done about it.
I only wonder if all those people rioting up after and even before the movie was released knew about its contents. It's a self-disqualifying move to protest violently against something you even don't know, but I still hope for them that they didn't know, because if the way of their protests was an actual reaction to the contents of this movie, the conclusion is inevitable that some of the thesis of the movie even could be true.
It is more than woeful if a government puts itself down to the same level and allows itself to be made their instrument.
As Ikrar said, nobody would even have taken much interest if the movie would have been published, watched and forgotten like most other movies; and who really wants to see it will find other opportunities besides utube or myspace anyway.
Remember, any media criticised strongly and violently gets more fame and attention than even the best oscar rewarded movie.
The question remains, into whose hands an official ban of the movie actually plays...

The Reader (not verified) — Sat, 05/03/2008 - 1:41am

Interesting discussion. If you believe that blocking certain programs (internet or not I suppose) is the right step to take, then maybe the government should stop allowing silly Indonesian TV stations to air programs that ridicule the Chinese population through "blackface" - a term used when whites in the US used to play African Americans on stage and in film. It is offensive, unamusing, and racist.

But, as a viewer I can CHOOSE not to watch it, as can others who may feel the same way I do. I believe this is really the only point that is being made; censorship doesn't really solve anything in a mature democratic society. Catering to the few only weakens an already weak government.

Maybe instead of focusing on a single film the government could better spend its time dealing with more pressing issues such as the poor, a weak education system, inflationary pressures on food and basic necessities, pollution, etc.

Jeff Christian (not verified) — Tue, 04/22/2008 - 5:34am

Banning the material is unfortunate. Sometimes you need to see even those things that are repugnant. Freedom to do so is important. In this manner you can reject in a knowing way that which is inappropriate or disgusting, or whatever. You are stronger when fully informed, and wiser.

As a westerner, and non Muslim, I can assure you that thinking people will see this so called documentary for what it is - racist and hate mongering. While there will always be a few who listen to such nonsense, I hope Indonesian people will remember that it is not the majority. We have seen what racism and hate mongering can do in many parts of the world. It will not receive support.

This will be news for one day unless there is over reaction. Then it will be forgotten and it will certainly not influence how the world perceives Islam.

Soemarwoto, K (not verified) — Mon, 04/14/2008 - 11:47pm

"If most people only receive that news which the government deems "safe" for them, then it not only makes it easier for the government to manipulate the public, it makes the public more likely to overreact when something is deemed offensive."

What exactly is the reader implying about the intelligence of Indonesians in the statement above?

I sincerely appreciate your comment though. It's always nice to have active participants in discussion. =)

Soemarwoto, K (not verified) — Mon, 04/14/2008 - 11:34pm

The internet blocking does not necessarily have to be unconditionally interpreted as an intentional move of the government to head down a slippery slope in offending freedom rights.

The government must have been aware of the upcoming critiques when they took the decision, we know internet cannot be censored, and YouTube was blocked only temporarily. OBVIOUSLY these show that they might have had a different motive. This might simply have been to show through political implications that a Muslim community stands by their principles, does not appreciate having them being walked all over by some guy whose credibility as a politician may sometimes come into question, and that a nation can stand up for itself. Thereby, merely taking a stand in the politics, which is necessary. After all, "A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything," - Malcolm X.

Had the government intended on going down a slippery slope to gradually take away the people's freedom and intelligence, I'm positive they would not have given individuals the chance to freely judge Fitna (like you mentioned they should) so shortly after they banned it by allowing access to YouTube.

The Reader (not verified) — Mon, 04/14/2008 - 10:00am

Internet blocking costs 'government and Indonesian credibility' in more ways than one. I read last week, in the Jakarta Post online, that Utube had been blocked to stop people viewing Fitna. Not really being aware of the video I decided to try to look at this. I was amazed that I could view this video at 50kb/sec but I had difficulty in down loading Jakarta Post pages. So much for the technical ability of Indonesia IT.

Guile (not verified) — Sun, 04/13/2008 - 9:42pm

I appreciate the previous posters comments, but you don't seem to understand the argument made by the commentators in the article. Freedom of Speech is important in creating informed citizens. If most people only receive that news which the government deems "safe" for them, then it not only makes it easier for the government to manipulate the public, it makes the public more likely to overreact when something is deemed offensive.

In most western countries, discriminatory, racist, vile groups like the KKK in America are "tolerated" under the law because banning groups such as them leads to a slippery slope where the government can censor any messages that go against their agenda by deeming that they will "disrupt public harmony." This is hardly a theoretical problem in Indonesia, where people can still get thrown in jail for LIFE for WAVING A FLAG.

Your point of view is the one that infantilizes the Indonesian people and insults their intelligence. If they are truly reasonable and disagree with something like Fitna, they should (in a truly democratic country) be free to watch it and critique it, free to protest against it peacefully or even, gee whiz, JUST NOT WATCH IT! But that should be an individuals decision, not the governments.

Soemarwoto, K (not verified) — Sat, 04/12/2008 - 3:35pm

I entirely understand why it might have been a faux pas for the government to ban Fitna as such. While this method might indeed work counter-productively within the public, Wilders continues craving for the attention.

Yet I disagree and feel that banning the movie was the right decision to take. Especially individuals' arguments, which I have generally found to be common in discussions concerning Fitna, presented in the article "Internet Blocking Costs 'Government Credibility'" has failed to convince me of the truth in its title.

"The government's block on access to websites that carry the controversial Dutch film Fitna is part of an attempt to restrict citizens' freedom in the name of religion, scholars warn."

Fitna is acting as a medium for Wilders to practice discrimination under the abused name of freedom of speech. Surely, banning a hate crime carrying that many offensive implications intentionally targeted at a specific community sounds logical.

It is understandable if one does not wish to allow politicians of questionable credibility to walk over their culture, religion, principles, ethics and pride by simply tolerating the movie, especially for a country with Muslim majority.

""If the government is seriously concerned that movies could destroy this country, it should ban TV soap operas, which often teach young people negative behavior," Ikrar said."

Firstly, it is not movies (plural), it is a controversial, offensive, and prosperity disturbing movie that reduces chances of world peace, irresponsibly threatens our safety, and destroys the effort in gaining understanding and respect between communities across the globe. Secondly, it is a false analogy: the premise would be as TV soaps share the property of Fitna in one respect (namely, that they are both animated pictures), it is assumed that they are similar, and therefore, TV soaps must be banned if, in this case, a certain movie is banned. The argument is as valid as a possible counter argument: "If Fitna is tolerated, then discrimination should be tolerated."

""The government's support of the hardliners justifies the view that Indonesian Muslims often overreact to religious issues," Ikrar told the Post." The previous is quite a hasty generalization supported by merely one sample of a governmental action in a specific situation that supposedly confirms the view of Indonesian Muslims (according to the statement).

"The government's intervention will impede its citizens from becoming mature. The public will never be able to tell good from bad because the government always dictates to them," Ikrar said." At this point we might wonder how exaggerated this is. What exactly does this statement imply about the intelligence of a nation's people, if the public will indeed "never" be able to tell good from bad because the government "always" dictates to them? As specific as the statement is regarding what good and bad is of course.

What could possibly have happened had the movie been released and tolerated in public, minor extremist groups would have overreacted through wild demonstrations, and Indonesia would be given full attention for these individuals' attitudes, which then supposedly again represents Indonesian Muslims in the eyes of those less familiar with the situation. Again, we would be seen as reactive. Maybe it is better to secure your prosperity and be seen as reactive by some individuals, than to lose your prosperity and be seen as reactive by some individuals.

What's On

more
more
more