I

t is 2016 and the hipsters are not the only ones digging the past. Supporters of Donald Trump believe he will recover the whiter and richer America of the 1950s. Several television series have restarted, such as The X-Files and Full House. Meanwhile, media censorship is becoming increasingly frequent in Indonesia.

This move is not exactly a return to the past. In the 1980s, media censorship was driven by the purposes of shutting out opposition to the government, challenges to the government’s interpretation of Pancasila and the expression of Chinese culture, among other things. Now we are seeing proposals and/or efforts to censor the media on the ground of protecting public morals.

Over the past year, Indonesian television viewers have been annoyed by the blurring of certain images on their television screens. It began with cleavage, progressed to swimsuits worn by female cartoon characters — including anthropomorphic animals — and then to cigarettes.

Indonesia was a latecomer to the blur game. In 2013, anime fans in the West and Thailand made fun of blur-censorship in Thailand, which included weapons (including the unrealistic kind), skimpy clothes (including for males) and beer. The censorship confounded everyone, as Thailand is the most sexually liberal country in Southeast Asia and alcohol is not prohibited.

Similarly, in Malaysia where the onscreen kiss is censored and profanity is muted, images of pigs are often censored too — including the poster of the latest Monkey King movie. Print media is prohibited from displaying nudity, including pictures of indigenous people. Last year Disney Channel Asia censored images of guns, cigarettes and tobacco shown in The Pink Panther show.

Therefore, the current wave of censorship in Indonesia follows a trend led by neighboring countries and is not necessarily motivated by a strict interpretation of Islam. The harder question surrounds the motivations of policymakers.

Official answers to this question would be to “protect the youth from moral corruption” and to “ensure that television programs comply with local wisdom, custom and religion”. But it is hypocritical to censor certain images from the media when so many vices are tolerated outside. A Southeast Asian resident would be familiar with the story of generals supervising the drug trade; actresses providing sexual services to politicians and tycoons, and murders that take place daily.

Furthermore, image censorship is ineffective and literally a joke. The soft focus cloud that attempts to cover cleavage serves to invite viewers to focus on a woman’s chest, and operators at the network seem to have trouble keeping up with walking and moving women. Several top Indonesian stars appear to escape the censorship, not appearing to have their chests blurred at all. There are also online images that illustrate how such attempts to censor have often, unintentionally, left women to appear as if they are naked.

The past few weeks have been infuriating for Indonesian liberals. Amid the continuing fear of gay people, Telkom has blocked access to Netflix, the Communication and Information Ministry backtracked to include Tumblr on its blacklist, and the Indosiar television channel blurred the chests and thighs of kebaya-wearing beauty pageant Puteri Indonesia contestants during a re-run. The public blamed two watchdogs — the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) and the Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI) for the oddity.

To protest the censorship, a medical student named Dea Safira Basori published a series of old photographs featuring Indonesian women in the past, to illustrate that traditional culture did tolerate cleavage, even bare breasts. Facebook suspended her account, having allegedly received multiple complaints. The controversy was covered by international business and technology websites. Her account has now been re-activated and she has, by default, got her point across: Some people cannot accept the historical reality of Indonesia’s traditional cultures.

Certainly both the KPI and the KPAI want a better Indonesia, where children are safe and the media offers better programs. But like their counterparts in Malaysia and Thailand, the attempt to achieve this has taken the wrong direction. First, they have to learn the difference between gay men and pedophiles.

Second, they have to attempt to understand transphobia and homophobia before prohibiting the media from showing men behaving “ladylike”. Serious improvements are needed in the media business surrounding the exploitation of men behaving effeminately for slapstick effect (regardless of their personal sexual identity), inappropriate statements made under the “gay talk” shield, and the stereotyping of queer people. People pointed out that during Soeharto’s time, cross-dressing comedians and artists were part of the pop culture and they engaged in witty political satire.

Perhaps such is the nature of Asian politics; just ban, don’t engage. Hollywood star Ellen Page recently visited Japan to explore its gay culture and found out that Japanese television accepts queer (or queer acting) men for the comedy effect, but not lesbian women. Nevertheless, men outside the entertainment industry are not expected to come out as gay.

On the other hand, perversions against women, including minors, are taken to be part of daily life. If this is how things are going in Asia’s most modern country and society, it will take forever for improvements to arrive in Southeast Asia.

The censorship madness in Indonesia will likely continue for a while before reaching a peak, hopefully this year. It seems that the ministry and watchdog groups do not really know what they are doing and why. After all, their foreign counterparts cannot explain their actions either and seem as if they are not interested in assessing the effectiveness of their policies.

There are better ways to improve our media. The film rating system makes sense, and I welcome moderate censorship against excessive violence and eroticism in movies and television shows. Input from feminists, academics and senior entertainment figures has improved diversity and decreased misogynistic and racist content. There are many other ideas. The blurring of the female body, however, is a horrible idea that should be abandoned immediately.