Uncensored live broadcasts of court hearings related to investigations into the alleged corruption at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) raised concern from the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI). The latter commission is planning to restrict public access to court hearings. Give us your opinion on how this may jeopardize the freedom of press in Indonesia.
CON
Freedom of the press could mislead people
Rahmadyani Prabawitri
School of Law
University of Indonesia
The plan of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) to restrict live events on television stations will surely have positive and negative effects, both for the public and media.
I can say that currently, the freedom the press enjoys its excessive to some extent, and could mislead the public. Often certain elements in the media exaggerate some cases, giving the public an early conclusion about a case without considering other possible options.
In some ways, however, live events on television, especially concerning politics, could give people a chance to learn more about them, and to understand more about our country.
In addition, the media should also find decent sources - those who can help people to understand what is right and what is not, although it will not be completely right, but at least they can help people see the light in the bleakest of problems.
Sources are quite important, and we don't want to see sources have fights in the national television, setting a bad example to the public.
If the KPI really wants to restrict public access to information, they should think more about the impacts it will have, both for the media and people.
PRO
Live broadcasts help the public to learn
Achmad Firmansyah
Faculty of Law
University of Indonesia
I don't think it is necessary for the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) to restrict live broadcast, especially if its aim is to reveal the truth of something hazy, just like the recent public hearing at the Constitutional Court which revealed wiretap-ped conversations between Anggodo and several top officials.
If there were no live broadcasts of this case, people would not know the facts or understand it.
Thanks also to media coverage (not only of Anggodo's case) the public are now more aware of Indonesia's current political condition.
It gives people an opportunity to learn about politics in a way that many people nowadays can easily access.
Unlike people in big cities who can get information in many ways, those living in remote areas might count more on television to get information.
So, through live broadcasts, particularly of Indonesian current affairs, people can learn about Indonesia by themselves.
In addition, we can not set aside relations between "people power" movements and the media. One good example is the recent Prita case, whereby people collected coins to help Prita pay her fine to Omni International Hospital.
This would have been impossible not for cooperation between the public and the media in some form.
So what the KPI should do is not restrict live broadcast of television, but give them better and clearer guidelines about this kind of matter.
Next topic:
Information and Communication Minister Tifatul Sembiring has called for a regulation on wiretapping, to be handled by a single institution, pointing out that other countries have such institutions under the auspices of their communications ministries.
The call came in the wake of a corruption investigation by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) - during which wiretapped recordings were played back publicly by the Constitutional Court - indicated a plot by a businessman, senior police officers and high-ranking prosecutors to frame two commission deputies on trumped-up charges.
Anti-graft activists said the idea of regulating wiretaps under a government institution was simply another effort to weaken the commission's work amid the national anticorruption campaign.
Give us your opinion on the best strategy to regulate wiretap operations and to prevent institutions from abusing their wiretapping authority.
Send us your opinions in a maximum of 350 words. The best arguments, for and against, will be published on Jan. 17.
