So said potatoes only grew well in cool environments, meaning plantations would be restricted to Indonesia’s highlands, mainly in Java, Papua and North Sumatra.

Ahmad Dimyati, director general of horticulture for the ministry of agriculture, told the seminar plantation opportunities were limited by competition for land with newly-built residences and plantations of other crops of higher value, including flowers and fruits.

The government also discourages plantations on hillsides due to the risk of land erosion.

Total potato plantation area in the country dropped from 66,000 hectares in 2000 to 62,000 hectares in 2006, or less than 3 percent of the total area for rice paddy fields.

Indonesia produced 1 million tons of potatoes in 2006 with an average yield of 16.9 tons per hectare, but production performance has remained flat since 2000.

Indonesia’s per capita potatoes consumption is 1.66 kg per year, much lower than China’s 40 kg. China is the world’s largest producer, followed by Russia and India.

Indonesia has so far failed to capitalize on Asia’s growing processed potato market, especially for French fries and potato chips, because the suitable potato varieties are not grown in the country.

Indonesia imported 32,000 tons of potatoes in 2006, mainly for potato-based processed foods.

Although Ahmad said on average potato growers earned between Rp 15 million and 20 million per hectare, farmers remain reluctant to commit to the crop as selling prices are prone to large fluctuations.

Wildan Mustofa, operational manager of potato seed producer Hikmahfarm, said potato prices had fluctuated between Rp 2,000 and Rp 5,000 per kilogram every year over the past four years.

Article written by Mariani Dewi
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta – 22-05-08

There can be no doubt that healthy marine life is essential to this country, not only for the sake of the environment as Jonathan Wootliff writes.

The oceans provide an important source of food, give livelihoods to millions, and bring in much-needed income for the Indonesian economy.

As the world’s largest archipelago comprising nearly 14,000 islands, Indonesia has a readily-available source of protein for domestic consumption in its waters.

Fish is the main food staple for the millions of Indonesians living along the coasts and an estimated quarter of the entire population is financially dependent on fishing.

Sales of fish products to overseas markets contribute around US$2 billion annually.

The Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry, created just five years ago, is taking steps to tackle these problems. But the future of Indonesia’s marine biodiversity remains severely threatened.

While supporting growth in the industry, the government recognizes the need to protect marine life to ensure its long-term sustainability. But it is a huge challenge.

Environmental non-governmental organizations have been leading the call for sustainable fishing. They warn that short-term gains threaten the future of Indonesia’s fisheries.

Key to their success is targeting the private sector, and particularly the international markets. NGOs have taken their cause overseas, to the United States and Europe where Indonesian fish products are exported.

High profile campaigns are helping to encourage fish buyers, suppliers and retailers to demand sustainably harvested products. Appeals have been made to powerful retailers like the US giant, Wal-Mart, to ensure that they only buy responsibly-sourced produce.

The Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) is a new organization that is breaking ground in the world of sustainable seafood and marine and freshwater conservation.

It aims to enable leading private-sector stakeholders to be proactive in the management of unsustainable sources of seafood, and help them to buy sustainable products.

“We need to get the international market to agree not to buy unsustainably produced seafood from Indonesia,” says the SFP’s Jakarta-based chief operating officer, Sari Surjadi.

“If the demand is there from the lucrative overseas markets for sustainable products, then the producer has no choice but to supply it,” she adds.

As a veteran of the environmental NGO community, having previously worked for a decade for the Indonesian arm of Conservation International, and witnessed many destructive fishing practices, Sari is now seeing signs that the market is becoming more responsible.

In Indonesia, the SFP is focusing its initial efforts on the challenge of protecting the future viability of the blue swimming crab.
The SFP is making headway in getting the export industry to reject egg-bearing female crabs and ones that are too young, which are all-too-often being scooped from the seas.

But there’s a long way to go. As marine habitat destruction abounds, more of Indonesia’s magnificent marine species are facing extinction, especially the grouper, reef fish and turtle.
And the viral-like spread of fish farms, inappropriately located along some shorelines, is destroying mangroves that play a vital role in protecting coastal communities from battering from the seas. Indeed, there is evidence that the mangroves saved communities from devastation in the tsunami.

If we don’t respect marine life it will disappear, thus depriving people of jobs, making coastal communities vulnerable to the elements, and irreversibly destroying our rich biodiversity.

The message has yet to resonate with ordinary Indonesians. It’s important for citizens to vote with their feet. The time has come for Indonesians to ask more questions about how their seafood is being harvested and produced.

Ask questions when you buy. Can the supermarkets and restaurants assure you that their fish products have been sustainably sourced? If in doubt, why not leave it out.

People power can save our marine life, safeguard jobs and protect coastal communities.

We are the foot soldiers in the war to save our seas. For the sake of our environment and our economy, we cannot afford to lose.

Jonathan Wootliff is an independent sustainable development consultant specializing in the building of productive relationships between companies and NGOs. He can be contacted at jonathan@wootliff.com

“We realize the environmental impacts by opening all our forests so we will stop touching the forest and just concentrate on abundant lands which have not been cultivated yet,” Didiek told reporters during a break in a a seminar on climate change, agriculture and trade.

There are currently 6.7 million hectares of oil palm plantations in the country — half belonging to private firms, while the rest are operated by small-scale farmers. Only about 600,000 hectares are managed by state-owned enterprises.

Didiek estimated there were about seven million hectares of idle land across the country that could be used to plant oil palms or rubber trees.

He said the association’s members had applied the so-called roundtable on sustainable palm oil (RSOP), an international initiative promoting sustainability up and down the palm oil supply chain.

“But since many oil palm plantations are operated by farmers, many of them are still unaware about the RSOP regulations. It is the government’s task to educate them,” he said.

Indonesia’s crude palm oil production reached its highest-ever level of 17.2 million tons last year, passing Malaysia, which produced 16 million tons.

Environmental activists have stepped up protests against the country’s palm oil companies, accusing the firms of expanding their operations by clearing formerly forested land. The activists say the expansion, including in peatland forests, has killed thousands of orangutans and resulted in huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Didiek said the palm oil business in Indonesia dated back more than 150 years.

“There have been standard operating procedures in implementing good agriculture procedures since the Dutch period,” he said.
“However, the booming of the commodity encourages the new planters to neglect these standard. This is the main cause of why land burning has become extensive and erosion has taken place.”

Didiek said demand for crude palm oil had accelerated with the rising popularity of biofuels in developed nations to substitute for fossil fuels. He also called on the country’s oil palm producers to do more for the environment and people’s welfare.

“Conflict between food and fuels must be ended by taking all necessary actions to minimize negative impacts both to the local people and the international community,” he said.

Adianto P. Simamora

The first United Nations Environmental Conference was held in Stockholm in 1972, in response to environmental problems. The opening day of the conference, June 5, was then made World Environmental Day.

In the 1980s, global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion and biodiversity loss gained wide recognition among scientists, but biodiversity came out the hottest issue in the 1990s. A new field of science, conservation biology, emerged in the 1980s. The renowned biologist from Harvard University, Edward O. Wilson, may be the most prominent person in popularizing biodiversity.

In the American North Pacific, the presence of the spotted owl in old growth forests created a fierce debate between environmental activists, who wanted to preserve the forests, and loggers, who wanted to harvest the timber. The rapid depletion of tropical rain forest in Latin America and Southeast Asia sparked serious worldwide concern over the possible extinction of many species of plants and animals.

While many environmental problems still get the attention of scientists in the first decade of the 21st century, none is more popular today than global warming and climate change. Not only environmental activists, but also politicians have serious concern over this issue.

The main cause of global warming is the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, and deforestation is one source of carbon emissions. With its annual forest fires, Indonesia has been branded the third largest carbon polluter in the world. At the International Conference on Climate held in Bali in December last year, the delegates agreed on a plan to reduce carbon emissions by preventing deforestation and forest degradation.

The emphasis on global warming may shift the view on the role of forest. While a few years ago, the forest was perceived by environmental activists as habitat for wild animals and plants, it is now seen mostly as a carbon sink. A few years ago, the reason for preserving natural forests was to protect biodiversity, now it is to prevent the release of carbon retained in the timber.

This reason is, however, easily challenged by forest companies that want to harvest more timber. While old growth forests do retain a large amount of carbon, they do not absorb much carbon from the atmosphere. As the forest reaches climax stage, it no longer grows. The amount of carbon absorbed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis is equal to that released through respiration. If we just want to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, replacing old forests with new tree plantations is the answer.

When an old forest is harvested, not all the carbon in the wood is released into the atmosphere. Some is still retained in the form of furniture and other wood products. Meanwhile, the new fast growing tree plantations will absorb carbon in larger amounts than old forest. The net rate of carbon absorption slows down as trees reach the mature stage.

If the shift of “biodiversity paradigm” to “carbon sink paradigm” gains more support among foresters, the pressure from forest industries to harvest more timber in natural forests will get stronger.

Forest industries are very willing to promote the controversial idea of Patrick Moore (a former Greenpeace activist who established Greenspirit, a consulting firm on the environment and natural resources) to use more wood because a rise in wood demand would supposedly trigger the market to plant more trees.

Local government officials and parliament members will be very happy to hear this idea because they will have a strong argument to clear-cut natural forests and get a lot of money from the timber. Not only natural forests in production forest areas, but also in conservation forest areas will likely be harvested since the central government has little power to protect it.

These companies just want to get money from the timber and not to make plantations. The government has little power nor political will to punish these companies.

If the forest companies want to make tree plantations in order to get more wood and absorb carbon at the same time, they can do so in degraded forest areas, which account for about 60 million hectares, and in critical land within and outside forest areas, which is 41 million hectares.

They must not convert good-quality natural forest into tree plantations. The remaining natural forest stands in production forest areas should be harvested using the existing selective cutting methods, but with better control.

Natural forest stands in conservation forest areas must be preserved. Climax forest is, of course, not a net carbon absorber. But we must not reduce the function of forests just as a carbon sink. Forests have many functions, one of which is preserving biodiversity. In our rich natural forests exist a great multitude of living things.

They provide a gene bank that will save agricultural crops when pest and disease outbreaks occur, because the wild relatives of our crop species, usually more resistant to pest and diseases, can be used to create new resistant strains.

Our natural forests also contain countless species of plants and animals having pharmaceutical potential that someday will provide medicines to save humans from currently incurable diseases.
Forests serve many functions and not just a carbon sink. Our wonderful species-rich natural forests are definitely much more valuable than the species-poor, man-made forests. We must do our best to protect this precious heritage.

The writer, Wiryono, holds a PhD in ecology from The Ohio State University and is currently serving as head of the Department of Forestry, University of Bengkulu. He can be reached at wiryonogood@yahoo.com.

“We don’t need to wait until 2015 to see orangutans extinct in Central Kalimantan. They will be gone in two or three years,” COP forest program officer Novi Hardianto said. “The expansion of oil palm plantations is wiping out the orangutan habitat.”

Forestry Ministry data shows there should be about 31,300 wild orangutans in the forests of Central Kalimantan.

“The population is only 20,000 orangutans now,” said Novi.

He said government ambitions to make Indonesia the world’s largest palm oil producer have accelerated the extinction of orangutans.

The provincial administration has also proposed a plan to clear a further 455,000 hectares of rainforest for oil palm plantations.

“Our investigation shows palm oil companies, who are members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), are still clearing forest and orangutans are suffering the consequences,” Novi said.

He referred to the palm oil producers association’s RSPO initiative to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil.

The RSPO requires new plantations established after November 2005 not to clear primary forest which has conservation value.
Novi said the Forestry Ministry has yet to take action to protect orangutans living outside the conservation areas.

“There has been no court case on the killing of orangutans,” he said.

Environmentalists recently stepped up pressure on palm oil firms in Indonesia to promote sustainable forest management and stop expanding plantations into the forest.

Environmental group Greenpeace has forced consumer goods giant Unilever to buy only certified sustainable palm oil, including from Indonesia — the world’s third-largest forestry nation with 120 million hectares of forest.

Greenpeace said it estimated 1,600 orangutans were killed because of expansion of oil palm plantations during 2006.

Novi said dozens of conservationists wearing orangutan costumes would stage a rally here Thursday to demand government stop expansion of oil palm plantations into forests.

During the press conference, COP activists showed pictures taken last year of dead orangutans being carried out of new plantations in Central Kalimantan.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono launched an ambitious Orangutan Action Plan to protect the country’s orangutan species by 2017 during the recent Bali climate change conference.

Adianto P. Simamora

On top of that, the on-going politics of amnesia by the state and the minuscule amount, if any at all, of structured and unstructured compassionate-based efforts experienced by those whose souls, sanity, dignity and tangible and intangible properties were dissolved unwillingly simply because they were born the “wrong” ethnicity.

There are several things we all need to take to heart and reflect upon, in light of better understanding of how things worked and may continue to work in Indonesia, if we don’t do anything about it.

While it might not make us comfortable at all to recall any atrocity that happened 10 years ago, it is very important that we consciously acknowledge the deafening silence, which might stem from psychological trauma, survival guilt or downright ignorance.

By acknowledging this phenomenon, I have a sincere hope that we will be called to at least take one minute of our time to remember those women who were sexually abused and raped, 1,338 killed, millions of dollars of property damage and indescribable psychological trauma to all who experienced it first-hand. Because, after all, today’s relative freedom that we are enjoying has been built upon the drops of their blood and the tears of their loved ones.

Silence of the common people. The notion of “compassion” itself is not very popular in Indonesia. I found difficulty in finding the most appropriate translation, other than bela rasa and belas asih for “compassion”. The word “compassion” itself derives from the Latin words “pati” and “cum”, which means “to suffer with”, as described by Henri Nouwen as entering into places of pain, to share in brokenness, fear, confusion and anguish.

And it takes a strong will and courage to experience, not merely show, compassion. Thus, while it is understandable for the majority of those who reside in Indonesia to prefer to remain silent about such atrocities, it will prove to be meaningful if we all do something, no matter how minuscule, to ensure that the future will be free from such occurrences.

Silence of the intellectuals. Particularly in Indonesia, the so-called “intellectuals” have a very strong presence and whatever they say is likely to be listened to seriously. However, only a few scholars are willing to bring up the issues of May 1998 in academic forums. Unfortunately, due to the so-called “skeptical empiricism”, sincere efforts to discuss such issues often result in unfavorable results. Perhaps, we should make an exception this time: be an intelligent optimist.

I find this phenomenon to be mind-boggling, especially since academic forums are designed to not include emotions, be impartial and balanced, and to use strong theoretical frameworks. The key point here is to remind ourselves and to hopefully make some kind of statement opposing further human rights abuses.

Silence of government. This has been expected, but can no longer be tolerated. While activists are working hard to bring perpetrators of the May 1998 tragedy to justice, the government should be more proactive in its investigation activities. We all appreciate the government’s efforts to fund Rumah Kenangan, which is a museum for the tragedy, but we need more than preserving memories.

We owe our sisters and brothers justice, so their souls can rest in peace and their loved ones can stop crying and start living to the fullest.

The writer, Jennie S. Bev, is a columnist. She supports a petition for a new Indonesia at PeacefulIndonesia.com

Four years later, a full scale resurvey has been concluded. Thousands of grounded experts have been involved. Indonesia has thus a unique set of data to discuss changes over-time. A comprehensive analysis will follow in cooperation with the Yogyakarta-based University of Gadjah Mada. The early and general results, however, are presented in a seminar in Jakarta on Tuesday.

First, the expert-surveys reveal that while many civil and political rights remain at hand, the freedoms of religion, belief, language, culture, assembly, organisation, media, art and academia have backslided. The same goes for civic participation and access to and the reflection of different views in the public sphere. This is worrying. On the positive side, however, the miserable standard of governance-related instruments such as rule-of law, anti-corruption and accountability have picked up. Even if from very low levels, this is commendable.

Another positive sign is that the crumbling of the New Order has not led to sustained separatism and ethnic and religious cleansing. What has developed instead is a unitary political (rather than ethno-nationalist) community with extensive space for local politics. It is true that this space has often been occupied by powerful groups. But in Aceh, where foreign donors have so far contained the military and big business, and where the political system was made more open than elsewhere in the country, separatists could substitute political participation for armed struggle and opt for peace and democracy.

Generally, however, politics continue to be dominated by elites. Yet, these are more broadly-based, more localised and less militarised than under Soeharto. Remarkably, most of them have adjusted to the new, supposedly democratic, institutions. This is not to say there are no abuses.

Of course, elites often mobilise support by making use of their clientelistic networks, privileged control of public resources and alliances with business and communal leaders. Yet, the interest of such elite groups in elections is both a crucial basis of the actually existing democracy and its major drawback. Without elite support, Indonesian democracy would not survive; with elite support, it becomes the domain of rotten politicians who prosper and entrench themselves.

In all these respects, Indonesia begins thus to resemble India, the most stable democracy in the global South. The major problem as compared to India is that Indonesia’s system of representation and elections is not open enough for the possible inclusion of major interests among the people at large.

Actually, it rather erects high barriers to participation by independent players and ordinary people without high education and immense resources. The surveys reveal that the system of representation is the weakest point. The freedom to run in elections has deteriorated most sharply among all indicators.

The elitist monopolisation of representation is not only about the exclusion of ordinary people, especially women, but also the marginalisation of vital issues and interests. Hardly anywhere can we see substantive representation of crucial interests and ideas of the liberal middle classes, workers, peasants, the urban poor, women, or human rights and environmental activists.

Worst: upper and middle class groups who do not manage to win elections may well use discontent with elite democracy to gain support for the promotion of ‘better preconditions’ through ‘politics of order’ and ‘middle class coups’.

Indonesia has been down this path once before, in the 1960s, and it gave rise to Soeharto’s New Order.

Other illustrations include the quest for presidentialism and stronger executives, a majoritarian two-party system, and general admiration for what is called Singapore and China’s ’stability and economic growth ahead of excessive democracy’.
It is imperative, therefore, that civic and popular organisations are able to scale up their ideas and alliances. By connecting communities and workplaces, and local and central levels, they can challenge elite control over politics. However, Demos’ research reveals that even if many groups now try to enter into politics they are both prevented by the monopolisation of representation and constrained by their own fragmentation.
Civics remain poorly connected to social movements and popular organisations (and vice versa); and collective action is mainly based on individual networking, popular leaders or alternative patronage as against broad and representative organisation.

Most attempts to approach elections, parliaments and the executive remain by way of media, NGOs and lobby groups.

These problems have so far been addressed by bringing people together on the grass-roots level or by top-down organising. However, unity from below has proved difficult because of the myriad of issues and contending projects and leaders. Politics aiming at majorities behind common platforms calls for the combination of specialisations and interests, such as among peasants and plantation labourers.

Networking and polycentric action are not enough. Yet, to compensate for this by way of ideologies, central organisations or charismatic candidates offering support in return for popular votes tend to preserve top-down structures and generate divisions among movements and civic activists.

Hence, popular and civic organisations must instead form democratic political blocks on an intermediate level, between the specific grass-roots issues and the top-level perspectives. This is to define joint platforms, gain wide support and alliances, and foster genuine politicians — rather than being the victim of fragmentation and dominated by parties or populist leaders. This way it may be possible to build genuine representation in-spite of the present monopolisation of the party system.

The author, Olle Tvrnquist, is Professor of Political Science and Developing Research at the University of Oslo and academic co-director of Demos (The Indonesian Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies). He can be reached at olle.tornquist@stv.uio.no

“Tell them that since our national carrier is banned by the European Union, we’ll give them (foreign airlines) additional flight frequencies into Indonesia.”

The Ministry of Transportation recently granted Singapore Airlines an increase in flight frequencies from four to seven flights per day to support the government’s tourism program.

Singapore Airlines provides flights from Singapore to Bali, Jakarta and Medan, and the flights increase could see traveler capacity rise to 15,000 per week.

Vice President Jusuf Kalla, along with Transportation Minister Jusman Syafii Djamal and Tourism and Culture Minister Jero Wacik, reached the decision upon learning that European tourists were having difficulties finding direct flights from Singapore to Bali due to a recently prolonged EU ban on Indonesia’s national carriers.
Tengku said the government should also grant European airliners direct routes to Bali and other tourist destinations, including Makassar in South Sulawesi and Surabaya in East Java.

“There’s no reason why the government can’t grant more flight frequencies to other foreign airliners. Let them build our tourism market for us and then, when we’re ready, we’ll slowly tap into that market,” he said.

Currently, only Singapore Airlines and Garuda Indonesia are authorized to fly the Singapore-Bali route, with Garuda operating one direct flight per day. Budget Indonesian carrier Lion Air has plans to tap into the route soon, and the ministry of tourism and culture has stated several foreign airliners have requested permission to operate it too.

A recent Ministry survey on European passengers found that 30 percent of those wishing to visit Bali were forced to switch destinations due to flight unavailability.

The government has also recently opened the Yogyakarta-Kuala Lumpur route to two airliners: Malaysia Airlines, which would use the 144-passenger carrying Boeing 737, and AirAsia, which would use the Airbus A 320, with 180 passenger capacity.

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Our vice president mentioned that large dams built during Soeharto’s presidency were successful achievements.
But we must not forget the negative impacts of such large dams on many aspects of human lives. These large dam projects go against the commitments our goverment made to fight global warming at the UNFCCC meeting in Bali last December.

Large dams are large greenhouse gas (GHG) contributors. The World Commission on Dams findings have shown that dam water inundates large tracts of land (including forests, stones of historical sites, housing materials and fields), whose anaerobic reactions from decaying organic material emits greenhouse gases — which at present contributes up to 28 percent of the world’s total emissions.

The International Rivers Network assessed that power dams in the Amazon basin produced up to 45 times more GHG (including methane and carbon dioxide) than by naturally powered plants. As dam turbines churn up the dam water, these GHG’s are released into the atmosphere.

The most relevant of domino-effects our government needs to anticipate are the socio-economic impacts of building large dams. Dam construction often creates social conflicts especially between upstream societies who do not need to move, and downstream societies who would receive irrigation benefits.

One of the most controversial issues is compensation for farmers. During Soeharto’s time, with ‘the national interest’ as a pretext, people were often forced into abandoning their land with very little compensation. Kedung Ombo dam is one of the most controversial cases, which involved the World Bank as its main financier.

The people of Tanjung Pauh village who were displaced by the Kotopanjang dam in Riau, were promised rubber trees ready to harvest in several years. It turned out there were no rubber trees. Villagers were cheated for the sake of the Japanese funded dam.

Instead of its predicted lifespan of 100 years, Kedungombo is now not expected to hold water for more than 10 years. Jatigede would in fact be built to cover up the failures of the Jatiluhur dam to irrigate Karawang and Indramayu, as Citarum water catchment area has only been 9 percent left. These all depict that the national history of large dams is worthy to reappraise the worthiness of the government to initiate or continue building other 17 large dams.

The international world has moved forward to the dam decommissioning, de-activation or dismantling policies, especially in Europe and the United States.

In 2000, decommissioning negotiation was made between the Colombian dam builder company and the victimized communities, Embera-Katio people. Out of 2000 large dams built before 1950 in British Columbia, almost two dozens have been dismantled, while proposals have piled up to destroy others, as not functioning as expected, instead endanger water ecosystems.

International Rivers Network believes the trend of river revival as dam decommissioning is likely to go worldwide, as climate change makes the safety of dams and the high cost of retrofitting them a serious argument for decommissioning. (www.internationalrivers.org)

Public Works and Infrastructure and Housing Ministries have actually worked on much more secure and environmental friendly alternative projects to secure irrigation and power, that is micro hydropower.

So, why don’t we keep moving forward to reappraise all the large dam projects, turning to undestructive water and power projects?

The writer, Lim Mei Ming, is a freelance journalist. She can be reached at mariamaei@yahoo.com

The law further states that the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) or the Press Council (Dewan Pers) will be responsible for monitoring election coverage, broadcasting and campaign ads conducted by broadcasting and print media, as well as for levying sanctions (with notification to the national and provincial election commissions), in the event of violations, which at the far extreme could take the form of recalling a broadcasting or printing license.

Unsurprisingly, the clauses sent a tremor throughout the media community, with the deputy head of the Press Council, Leo Batubara, proclaiming the regulation on election coverage and the threat of license recall as threatening press freedom and defiantly calling for mass media to essentially ignore the controversial clauses. Election commission member Sri Nuryanti further stated that the election commission would not regulate the mass media on election coverage and campaign ads.

Both Vice President Jusuf Kalla (chairman of the Golkar Party) and House of Representatives lawmaker Agus Purnomo (from the PKS faction) reasoned that a “same opportunity” provision is needed in order to ensure fairness in election coverage, while confusingly allowing that the media has the right to determine newsworthiness.

A “loophole” in the law does state that further mechanisms on election coverage, broadcasting, campaign ads and sanctions will be regulated by the regulation on election commissions, in coordination with the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission and the Press Council.

However, what is the consequence of this particular loophole? Both the Press Council and the election commission refuse to acknowledge the controversial clauses that hamper press freedom, while at the same time some political elites, one-and-a-half months after the enactment of the law, took three steps back and publicly reiterated the independence of mass media on election coverage (Kompas, April 4, 2008).

Nonetheless, the provisions in the law established by the House and the government can be understood from a different perspective. On one side, mass media plays an important role. On the other side, mass media is a business institution influenced by big investors. The potential intimacy between politicians or groups with political clout and owners of mass media can threaten the public interest. A particular issue can be downplayed or blown out of proportion depending on hidden agreements between untouchable powerful networks. In developing countries, there is always the concern of the process of establishing public policies being dominated by powerful investors. As a result, there is often desire to separate news coverage with the expression or political views of media owners. Clear separation between news and editorials or opinions help build public trust.

Certainly, mass media holds a strategic position during the general election period. Politicians need the media to effectively communicate to a wider public audience their agendas, visions, missions, platforms, qualifications, etc. The public needs the media to be better informed citizens and thus make reasonable decisions on election day.

Thus, in its role as the middle person, gatekeeper and watchdog, the media can play a role in ensuring a smooth and fair election. In its role in channeling politicians’ messages, it can be trapped in a role of only copy-pasting the agenda and platforms of candidates, with little in-depth analysis. Such on-the-surface reporting is easiest done and can effortlessly accommodate the “same opportunity” provision in the 2008 law by providing equal and balanced space and time for all candidates.

However, to enable voters to make informed choices, the media should not stop at just being the purveyor of information, but to act as the gatekeeper, presenting and analyzing the important points such as comparison of platforms and their solutions to problems, while ignoring the fluffy and irrelevant points.

To effectively perform its public function, the media must have the independence to determine newsworthiness. As stated by David Bartless of the Radio-Television News Directors, the “job of a journalist is not to simply stand back and let the candidates say their piece. If I’m the public, what I’m buying is the experience, the analysis, the skepticism of a competent journalist…. That’s what journalism is. The rest is either publicity or reprinting.”

Thus, what should be done by the media community in Indonesia? The media community has the 1999 law on the press and the 2002 law broadcasting, but now there is the 2008 law on legislative elections with its “equal opportunity” provision.

This serves as a warning to the media community of impending future problems when facing demands to be fair and balanced, which is potentially subjective as each election candidate has his or her own parameters. This also serves as a reminder for the media to be professional and help establish fair elections. A smooth election process, however, demands maturity not only from the media but from all parties, including election candidates and voters. There is a railway track to follow: mutual control toward mature political behavior.

The writer, Sarah A.S. Pramono, is an MA graduate of California State University, Sacramento, and currently working in media and democratization.