|
|
Since July 1997, the Asian
economic crisis has dragged the countries of Southeast Asia through
a nightmare of currency devaluation, shattered stock markets, rising
unemployment, and political instability. But paradoxically, the crisis
has also created opportunities for positive social and political change,
including greater press freedom. Calls for greater openness and a freer
press in the region vie with more closed and authoritarian responses
to the extended economic downturn.
In recent years, the robust growth enjoyed by most of the nine members
of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was frequently
used to justify authoritarian governments and restrictive press laws.
So-called "Asian values" were said to prize economic development and
social harmony above individual freedom and civil liberties. The financial
crisis may finally have revealed the fallacy of appealing to Asian values
as a rationale for controlling the flow of information.
In Indonesia, for example, the nation hit
hardest by the downturn, economic woes focused public attention on widespread
corruption and a lack of government accountability. Anger over these
abuses sparked massive protests and rioting, which in turn forced President
Suharto to resign in May. Despite his ties to the old regime, Suharto's
hand-picked successor Bacharudin Jusuf (B.J.) Habibie grasped that reform
is the key to political survival. As part of that process, the government
quickly lifted almost all restrictions on the press.
In contrast, as the economic crisis reached
Malaysia, an internecine power struggle intensified and the government
sought to muzzle dissent. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, long an outspoken
advocate of Asian values, invoked the country's draconian, colonial-era
Internal Security Act to arrest his one-time protegé turned reformist
political rival, former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, for sodomy
and corruption. The September 20 arrest prompted the largest public
protests in Malaysia in a generation. Mahathir, ASEAN's longest-serving
leader, has used a timid, self-censoring press and a pliant legal system
to mute dissent.
During the long period of turmoil that followed the ouster of Ferdinand
Marcos in 1986, the Philippines was held
in contempt by its authoritarian neighbors for its rowdy democracy and
raucous free press. During the current crisis, however, the Philippines
has held a peaceful election, withstood government transition, and wheathered
the economic meltdown with fewer negative effects than its ASEAN partners.
Although Thailand's monetary policies in July 1997 unwittingly triggered
the regional financial upheaval, attempts to quell the crisis with authoritarian
strategies failed. When Prime Minister Chavalit Yongchaiyudh blamed
the media for the crisis, he was met with ridicule in the Thai press.
In October 1997, Chavalit sought to impose a state of emergency, which
would have included press censorship and a curfew. The military, reversing
a history of intervention in civil affairs, refused to go along, and
in November 1997, Chavalit resigned. The new prime minister, Chuan Leekpai,
of the Democrat Party, presided over the implementation of a new constitution
with the strongest press freedom protections in the region. A program
of economic reforms and greater openness under Chuan has led Thailand
to the forefront of the regional movement to encourage more transparency
within ASEAN.
In his keynote speech at a CPJ-sponsored conference on regional press
freedom in Bangkok in November, Thailand's foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan
stated, "Freedom is indivisible. It is all or none. It is therefore
the responsibility of each member of the society not only to safeguard
the freedom of the press but also to ensure the safety of its practitioners."
 The
conference resulted in an unprecedented agreement among organizations
advocating greater press freedom in Southeast Asia to cooperate across
national boundaries. The Southeast
Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA), made up of representatives from Thailand,
the Philippines, and Indonesia, is planning to establish a working secretariat
in Bangkok to monitor press freedom conditions throughout ASEAN.
Nowhere is the battle for openness more crucial than in Indonesia, where
the press is suddenly free to report on corruption and investigate human
rights abuses. The military so far has steered clear of taking power,
authorities have given the green light to the formation of political
parties, and the country appears to be on course for promised May 1999
elections.
Indonesia's liberated press, however, remains at risk; the Habibie government
has yet to introduce a promised systematic reform of repressive media
laws used by the Suharto government to close publications and imprison
journalists. And the country's ongoing economic instability could still
lead to a political backlash. But the Habibie government has surprised
many analysts with its willingness to tolerate, and even encourage, far-reaching
public debate in the press.
The May riots, ongoing student demonstrations, and ethnic violence have
fueled fears that the country might spiral into widespread bloodletting
of the sort that followed the 1965 overthrow of President Sukarno. Suharto
frequently used the specter of social chaos to justify his New Order
regime, and some analysts worry that reactionary forces may once again
use the threat of instability as an excuse to derail reform. "Common
sense is now being threatened in Indonesia," said Andreas Harsono, a
journalist who works with the Institute for Studies in the Free Flow
of Information. "In general, people do not feel secure these days."
But the socioeconomic particulars of Indonesian life are significantly
different from those of a generation ago. Indonesia now has a substantial
educated urban middle class with a stake in a stable democratic system.
Today's vibrant, vigilant press can play a stabilizing role by airing
the issues at the root of social strife.
As Southeast Asia's largest nation, Indonesia, with 200 million people,
is the region's most important economy and a bellwether for its neighbors.
Thus, if democracy takes root in Indonesia, it has the potential to
change the political dynamic of the entire region. A free press in post-Suharto
Indonesia can help open an ASEAN-wide dialogue on free expression, human
rights, and other issues, such as the environment, that have long been
kept under wraps.
"If Indonesia joins Thailand and the Philippines as a democratic state,
it puts real pressure on the rest of ASEAN," said a Jakarta-based Western
diplomat. "You can ignore everyone else in ASEAN, but you cannot ignore
Indonesia. No one comes close to it in size and influence."
Back to Top
A HISTORY OF PRESS COURAGE
ASEAN's "free press" nations -- Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines
-- account for more than two-thirds of the total population of Southeast
Asia's 483 million people. Their cumulative clout may provide an irresistible
momentum toward press freedom in the rest of Southeast Asia. The authoritarian
leaders of Malaysia, Vietnam,
Burma, and elsewhere will no longer be able
to pretend that a timid and cautious press is the regional norm.
"Look at Indonesia," said a senior Thai foreign ministry official.
"It is moving along a process of reform that was not possible under the old regime or before
the crisis. The crisis brought about a change, and that change has opened up opportunities.
Habibie is committed to a process of reform and a schedule of elections that will lead to
more changes. This wasn't possible without the crisis. The crisis itself has ushered in
some dynamics [for change] in the domestic structure of every society here."
While ongoing economic upheaval has triggered the recent changes for the Indonesian press,
courageous journalists throughout Southeast Asia have worked for years to open restrictive
societies.
During the Marcos dictatorship, a few journalists continued to test the regime's limits.
When Marcos finally fled in 1986, it was in large part because the Philippine media had
chipped away at his credibility.
In May 1992, hundreds of thousands of people, including members
of an emerging Thai middle class, took to the streets to protest a military-dominated
government. When troops fired on the protesters, killing dozens, popular
outrage against the killings led to the government's collapse, and a
period of political liberalization began. It was newspaper reporting,
in defiance of a ban on coverage of the protests, that galvanized the
public against the bloodshed. Since 1992, Thai newspapers have grown
increasingly bold. Thailand has become the de facto center for regional
reporting, as well as a haven for human rights groups and regional non-governmental
organizations, which operate in Thailand with little government interference.
In the last years of the Suharto era, when the regime shut publications
and sent some editors and reporters to prison, a core of dedicated Indonesian
journalists pushed the limits of free expression by publishing banned
magazines on websites, and flouting government licensing requirements
to print underground newspapers. The hard work has now begun to pay
off.
Back to Top
A CHALLENGE TO ASEAN
Since its founding 31 years ago, ASEAN has been an economic alliance
and a forum for the resolution of intraregional tensions. Most of its
nine member states have had authoritarian governments. But the current
crisis is changing the way ASEAN does business and exposing a dramatic
contrast between the more democratic states and their repressive allies.
In July 1998, at the annual ASEAN foreign ministers' summit in Manila,
Thailand's dynamic young foreign minister, Surin Pitsuwan, challenged
the ASEAN orthodoxy by discussing what he called "flexible engagement,"
a policy initiative designed to supersede the alliance's core principle
of "non-interference" in one another's domestic affairs and to encourage
formal discussion of human rights and free expression within ASEAN.
Advisors close to Surin say that greater openness is necessary if the
alliance is to maintain its relevance after the economic collapse. "Globalization,
liberalization, accountability, transparency, and good governance -- all
these things are now being felt in every society and every government,"
said a senior official. "If you want to compete and you want to move
along, you will have to make changes."
In human terms, non-interference also meant tolerance for even the worst
human rights abuses. For example, Burma, despite being a virtual pariah
state internationally, gained full ASEAN membership in 1997 with the
tacit understanding that member states would turn a blind eye to its
domestic policies.
Surin's proposal touched a raw nerve among most other ASEAN ministers,
who recognized it as a far-reaching challenge to ASEAN's repressive
history. In the end, after tense discussions, the Philippines was the
only member state to openly support Thailand on the issue. The alliance
watered down the idea, agreeing to encourage what is now termed "enhanced
interaction." Whatever it is called, the message is clear: The reformist
forces within ASEAN now feel free to criticize their neighbors.
The new dynamic has already had repercussions. The presidents of the
Philippines and Indonesia both publicly criticized Anwar's arrest in
Malaysia. Newspapers in Jakarta, Manila, and Bangkok editorialized against
Mahathir's actions. The shock of this public rebuke prompted an angry
reaction from the timid pro-government Malaysian press, which complained
that other ASEAN countries were interfering in what was a purely internal
matter.
Back to Top
THE NEW INDONESIA
 For
decades, the Indonesian state was virtually synonymous with one man,
Suharto, whose hold on his nation was so strong that many observers
could hardly conceive of life without him and even local journalists
were unprepared for the rapid demise of his regime.
Habibie was thrust into office by Suharto's May 21 resignation, and he seemed to have
inherited an impossible task. Demonstrators immediately called for his resignation,
and many observers were convinced that he couldn't last in office for more than a few
weeks. But a coterie of media-savvy advisors concluded that political reform and greater
openness offered a way out of the maelstrom. Habibie's government acted quickly to allow
the press to operate openly, and encourage new political parties to function.
The changes caught journalists by surprise. "We were prepared for the long haul. We
had safe houses, underground printing presses, and a network of discussion groups to
prepare the ground gradually for the post-Suharto era,"
said Goenawan
Mohamad, the founder and chief editor of Tempo magazine.
"We are now dealing with a completely new and unforeseen situation. But of
course we do not for a moment regret that Suharto is gone."
Tempo, once Indonesia's largest, most respected news magazine,
is a prime example of the new openness. The information ministry revoked
Tempo's publishing license in 1994, following the publication
of an article that exposed government infighting over the purchase of
39 East German patrol boats. Within days of Suharto's resignation, the
new regime told Goenawan and others from Tempo that they would
be free to reopen. Ironically, Habibie was the target of the article
that offended the government four years earlier.
"Habibie is sophisticated enough to know that his situation was hopeless
unless he allowed the reforms to go forward," said Adam Schwarz, a former
journalist who is now a consultant on Southeast Asian issues in Washington.
"His advisors concluded that there was a lot of information out there
already, and it was better for him to just open up the press."
The magazine's relaunch celebration on October 4 was a major event in
Jakarta, drawing some 2,000 reporters, politicians, government ministers,
and diplomats. Tempo's newsstand sales have so far exceeded expectations,
leading to talk within the company of expanding operations and a sense
of buoyant optimism.
The reopening
of Tempo, which was founded in 1971, marks the return of
a magazine that is credited by many with nurturing a generation of journalists
with standards of professionalism and courage that were new to Indonesian
media. When it was closed, its 150 reporters and editors dispersed to
other publications, sometimes working without bylines for fear of government
reprisal. By all accounts, they have had a tremendous impact throughout
the industry.
After the 1994 ban, Tempo veterans, led by Goenawan, organized
the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), which challenged the
official Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI). Former Tempo
reporter Ahmad Taufik, AJI's first president, and a 1995
recipient of CPJ's International Press Freedom Award, was sent to
prison for three years in 1994, along with two other AJI staffers, for
publishing articles critical of Suharto in Suara Independen, an unlicensed
magazine. His case brought international condemnation to the Suharto
government for its treatment of the press.
While independent journalists managed to keep the faith during the dark
days of repression, support has recently come from an unexpected quarter:
Lt. Gen. Mohamad Yunus, the active-duty officer who is Indonesia' minister
of information and chief official champion of a free press.
Early in his career, Yunus gained a reputation as a tough combat officer
during Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor. His name has surfaced
in official Australian government reports as the commander of troops
accused in the murder of five Australia-based journalists in the town
of Balibo, East Timor, in 1975, a charge he denies. But he is also a
well-traveled officer who received advance training in the United States
and Great Britain. During a stint at the U.S. Army's Command and General
Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in 1979, he even wrote a thesis titled,
"The Role of the Mass Media in Developing Countries." Under Suharto,
he rose to become Armed Forces Chief of Social-Political Affairs, responsible
for coordinating the Army's significant role in Indonesian political
life.
Yunus says that Habibie considered him for the post of military chief
when Suharto stepped down, but instead named him to the information
post on the day that Habibie took office. Since then, Yunus has consistently
espoused a belief that the road to stability in his country runs through
a free press.
"I want to see more publications in Indonesia," he explained during
a lengthy conversation in his office. "I really believe that such a
thing will provide more competitive information for the people and it
will enhance their views and build the creativity of the people."
It used to take as long as seven years -- or the payment of hefty bribes -- to
open any kind of publication in Indonesia. Censors reviewed copies of
all imported newspapers and magazines. Yunus has abolished the censor's
office, effectively eliminating censorship. And Yunus advocates removing
the remaining government controls on the media.
He has sought advice from Goenawan and other journalists on how to reform
Indonesia's press laws, and he has eliminated the stranglehold of the
PWI, allowing AJI and other journalistic associations to function freely.
Yunus has even been a target of criticism from within his own ministry
for being too liberal.
Under Yunus, approximately 350 new publication licenses have been granted
since May. New and old titles abound. Along with Tempo, other
banned publications have been revived, such as the fiery magazine Detik,
also shut by the government in 1994, which has reopened under a new
name, Detak.
While repressive laws remain on the books, the nation's future is being
openly debated, and Indonesia is no longer the exclusive province of
one man's family and cronies. "The most likely thing the press could
contribute in this new period is to develop a culture of transparency
and accountability in the bureaucracy and the government," says Goenawan.
"Tempo will hopefully become a place that will defend and expand
our freedoms."
"This is a new experience for us. We are free now," adds Lukas Luwarso,
the president of AJI.
Back to Top
MALAYSIA HOLDS FIRM
Contrast the new freedom in Indonesia with Malaysia, where economic
crisis and political opposition have been met with stiffer repression.
 The
first sign that Mahathir was going to move against Anwar Ibrahim, his
erstwhile deputy, came in July, with the forced resignations of three
prominent editors identified with Anwar's wing of the ruling United
Malays National Organization (UMNO) party, which along with other pro-government
political parties controls most of Malaysia's media. With a docile press
now ensured, the charges of sodomy and corruption brought against Anwar
went scarcely challenged in the media.
When foreign television reports documented the popular unrest and demonstrations
that greeted Anwar's ouster, Malaysian authorities banned the use of
domestic satellite facilities to transmit images of the demonstrations.
A private doctor's report confirming that Anwar had been beaten made
headlines abroad but wasn't reported by the Malaysian media.
Mahathir has frequently dismissed press freedom as a form of Western
imperialism. In 1997, at the onset of the economic crisis, he said,
"This is part of the freedom of the press -- the freedom to influence
adversely against other countries, the freedom to tell lies, which is
part of the freedom as interpreted by them."
After Anwar's arrest, Malaysian officials predictably lashed out at
the foreign press. Malaysian Information Minister Mohamed Rahmat told
local reporters, "I think the role of the local media is important in
defending the country from its enemies. Unfortunately, the Western media
and certain foreign organizations are now working hand in hand with
insiders to destroy all the good in this country."
As a result of the tight control exerted on the press, many Malaysian
journalists say they live in a climate of fear and self-censorship,
constantly worrying that their phones are tapped and that their jobs
are at risk if they offend the powers that be. "The press is not only
oppressed, it is totally shackled," said one veteran Malaysian reporter,
who feared reprisals if his name was used. "They are trying to bury
the press."
Back to Top
NEW MEDIA, NEW STRATEGIES
 If
the lessons of Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines are any guide,
Malaysian officials can at best fight a rear-guard action against the
public's right to know. "Information is just like water, in that when
a rock impedes the flow, water still flows by the side of the rock,
or through the crevices," wrote Goenawan in March, just as Suharto's
crisis was deepening. "The more restrictions are imposed, the more new
activity in the media will be generated."
The use of the Internet has had a profound effect in the region. In
Indonesia, during the last days of Suharto, students went online to
coordinate demonstrations and share information instantly in ways the
government found impossible to control. Similarly, the Net has begun
to play an effective role in disseminating news otherwise not easily
available in Malaysia. Anxious to bill itself as a high-tech research
and manufacturing center, Malaysia has allowed relatively easy Net access.
Websites and discussion groups about Anwar's arrest have proliferated,
carrying debate absent from the old-order press onto the World Wide
Web.
No wonder the region's authoritarian leaders are afraid of the Internet.
China, Burma,
and Vietnam all restrict Internet access; Burma's generals
have imposed prison terms of up to 15 years for possession of a modem.
But time is on the side of those who believe in the free flow of information.
Even Singapore, with its reputation for a timid press, has had to retreat
from initial attempts to restrict political content on the Internet,
because investors found the restriction onerous.
Back to Top
THE CHALLENGE
It has become axiomatic that the turmoil in the Asian economies was
aggravated by the absence of a vibrant and vigilant press. After
decades of cooperation with repressive governments and avoidance of
sensitive media issues, the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund now see press freedom as an ally in global economic recovery. Addressing
its recent annual meeting in Washington, World Bank president James Wolfensohn
called the free flow of information necessary for good governance and sustained economic growth.
Unfortunately, it took an economic collapse to focus the attention of
the world on the issue of the press in Southeast Asia. But it would be
a mistake to believe that international financial institutions or Western
pressure alone will force governments in the region to open their systems
to greater freedom and accountability.
Free expression is the first right, and without it democracy and accountability
are impossible. The big lie of Asian values as a justification for repression was
the demeaning notion that freedom was somehow less valuable to an Asian than it was
to anyone else. Fortunately, the new openness in Indonesia, the democratization of
Thailand, and the tradition of freedom in the Philippines are creating a culture of
free expression that is exemplified by the recent founding of the Southeast Asia Press Alliance (SEAPA) and the growing debate within ASEAN.
Through SEAPA, independent journalists in the region can band together to
promote and protect one another. The press in Burma, Vietnam, Malaysia,
Laos, Singapore, and Cambodia continue to operate under severe constraints.
They are either directly controlled by their governments or forced to labor
under a regime of threat and self-censorship. Instead of relying on protests
lodged from outside the region, SEAPA will try to expand the scope of regional
press freedom in a spirit of solidarity and respect for their colleagues and neighbors.
At stake is the future of free expression in Southeast Asia and the ability of
the ASEAN nations to emerge into a stable and more open future. "Those of us in
Indonesia know what it is like to lose our freedom," said Goenawan Mohamad.
"But if we can right ourselves, maybe we can serve as something of an example
for the rest of ASEAN. There are still so many problems in the rest of the region.
We have to work together."
| CPJ Home | Contact CPJ | Membership | More About Press Freedom in Asia | Links |
|
