Free access: A student visits depkominfo.go.id in search of information on broadcasting regulations from the Communications and Information Technology Ministry, on Tuesday in Jakarta. According to the 2008 Law on Freedom of Information, which comes into effect as of Friday (tomorrow), every citizen has the right to obtain quick, accurate and cheap information (with some exceptions), from all public institutions, ministries, government agencies, state enterprises, judicial institutions and political parties. JP/Nurhayati

A hallmark of Indonesia’s reform journey was the passing of the 2008 Freedom of Information Law after years of procrastinating. The underlying challenge was the radical, necessary change of the national mind-set formed under the New Order: there has always been freedom to access information, but only that which the state is kind enough to give.

Many Indonesians may therefore be surprised that they have the right to access to information on, for example, the local council budget to find out why aging potholes are not being repaired.

Further, those in power find it difficult to accept that the man on the street is privy to any information without strict screening. This mind-set was behind the wrangling over whether it was the Freedom of Information Law or the one on state secrecy that should have been passed first.

As if bowing to public pressure, the former was finally passed on April 30, 2008, while the state secrecy bill remains stuck in parliament.

After a two-year grace period to allow state institutions to prepare, the law in set to go into effect Friday.

It requires all state institutions, political parties, NGOs and mass organizations to provide all information under their authority to the public.

Key ministries such as the Home, Communications and Information Technology, National Education, Health and Foreign Ministries have signaled their willingness to provide requested information.

Home Ministry spokesman Saut Situmorang said the ministry had opened its doors to any citizens seeking information under its authority long before the law was passed, but that it had not appointed officials to manage information and documents.

Communications and Information Technology Ministry chief spokesman Gatot S. Dewa Broto said his ministry had established an agency to handle public information, the BIP, as a pilot project to implement the law and that he was the special officer in charge of managing all information and documents at the ministry.

“Despite the shortcomings, the central government, including ministries and state enterprises, are prepared to release any information to the public,” he told The Jakarta Post recently.

The law guarantees all citizens access to information from public institutions to create good governance and to improve public participation in policy making.

All public institutions are required to periodically release general information and those on their vision, organizational structure and personnel at least once every six months through electronic and non-electronic facilities.

So far, however, there have not been any strong indications that public institutions are generally ready to be open to public scrutiny.

On the Communications and Information Technology Ministry’s website for the pilot project, www.depkominfo.go.id, one is hard pressed to find guidelines on how to get information from the information ministry itself and the fees entailed.

The law guarantees public access to quick, accurate and cheap information from public institutions.

Gatot admitted there were several speed bumps to the law’s implementation. He said the ministry was working with the Justice and Human Rights Ministry and State Secretariat to prepare two government regulations to enforce the law.

One regulation covers the mechanism to provide information and the other covers the classified list of information closed to the public.

The House of Representatives endorsed the classified list, which includes initial plans for land and property purchases by the government.

There have been frequent reports of violent land disputes, often marked by forced evictions.

Ensuring that all other information outside the classified list reaches the public is the job of the required information commissions.

At the national level, a seven-member Central Information Commission (KIP) is tasked with regulating the information acquiring mechanism and mediating disputes between public agencies and information seekers.

At the provincial level, however, only Central and East Java have formed such bodies, which must have five members representing the government and the public. The establishment of such bodies at the regency and municipal level is not mandatory.

The Supreme Court, Attorney General’s Office, National Police and Indonesian Military (TNI) are among the institutions who have said they were ready to be more transparent to the public as required by the law — with strings attached.

TNI spokesman Rear Marshal Sagom Tamboen said the military would not disclose information on details of personnel size, their exact salaries, defense posture and details of the weapons possessed by the TNI, adding that such details “could endanger the country’s defense and security” if the information was open to foreign countries.

Regarding the police and AGO, investigation results have to be open to the public while courts must be open to any requests for information on its rulings.

Information commission chairman Ahmad Alamsyah Saragih said he was sure the law would raise numerous disputes between state institutions and the large public, mainly because of corruption.

As the locals say, “what thief would cry thief?”

“State institutions, government agencies and state enterprises seem cautious of the law, while the public has unrealistically high expectations,” Ahmad said, adding that this was a good sign.

“The expected increase in information disputes will make public institutions more aware of the importance of transparency and of creating good governance.”

Communications experts, activists and analysts have expressed pessimism that all state institutions and state enterprises were committed to good governance, citing the poor preparation for the law’s implementation despite the two-year wait.

“The slow establishment of information commissions and of archive units, and the slow appointment of special information providers are a strong indication of the government’s weak commitment to fighting corruption [given the entailed obligation to be transparent],” public information activist Agus Sudibyo said.

Media analyst Ignatius Haryanto said the law’s implementation would raise strong resistance because it would close opportunities for public officials at all levels to illegally enrich themselves.

Kemal Azis Stamboel, a Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) legislator and a member of the House’s Commission I on information, foreign affairs and defense, said the government should bear in mind political and cultural backgrounds behind the legislation.

Given continued resistance to transparency, he said efforts should continue to counter the state secrecy bill being deliberated.

Compared to the freedom of information law, the state secrecy bill is more in tune with the old mindset — that all information is secret unless stated otherwise.

Reformasi said the reverse is the better, but we’re just getting started.

Popular

To my horror, it’s just a movie!

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Pentagon chief congratulates Prabowo on being elected President