Page 91 - SCANDAL AND DEMOCRACY

76 Chapter 4

to advance their agendas in clear violation of “the law and the constitution.” Their
actions, he said, were a form of treason that “aimed to topple a legitimate govern-
ment” and “threatened the unity and integrity” of the nation.
62
Military commentators likewise mixed statements of regret with suggestions
that the students were pawns of darker forces. Television news anchors on both
TVRI and the private stations reinforced this hostile interpretation with leading
questions about student alliances with certain suspicious groups. But the print
media, including the conservative Kompas , challenged this interpretation as an
attempt, in Wimar Witoelar’s words, “to divert attention away from the true issues
to be investigated—the use of live ammunition and extremely harsh handling of
unarmed student demonstrations.”
63
The crackdown showed that freedom of expression at the street level remained
illusory, a “right” that students had enjoyed only at the pleasure of ruling elites. But
news coverage during the November session also demonstrated significant gains.
Television coverage, as noted above, ultimately undercut the students’ objections to
a biased legislative process that could derail the democratic transition. But these sta-
tions also established a precedent in reporting on proceedings of the full parliament
(MPR), providing the public with access that, a year later, would include live coverage
of another special session showing legislators attacking a sitting president. Equally
important, the nation’s print and broadcast journalists showed unprecedented unity
in protesting military assaults on reporters. Finally, the combination of escalating
protests and media coverage pressured legislators to concede to numerous student
demands important to the transition, including a formal decree guaranteeing freedom
of expression.
64

“Dancing on a Rotten Stage”
Despite these milestones, media reformers feared that the window for institu-
tionalizing recent gains could close at any moment. In a troubling reminder of how
65
quickly reformasi trends could end, the vanguard talk show of “ reformasi radio,” Wacana
Jakarta , whose slogan was “we say what we want,” unexpectedly went off the air with
little explanation. The show’s staff , which included AJI activist Ahmad Taufi k and
radio personality Sri Megawati Kurniadi, were suddenly unemployed. Simultaneously,
some of the bolder print media outlets, Dë TAK , Merdeka , D&R , and Tajuk , found them-
selves confronting lawsuits over their investigative reports—a reminder of how little
legal protection journalists actually had.
66
One of the more articulate statements on the problem of legal protection came
from AJI leader Heru Hendratmoko, who expressed reservations about the ongoing
“euphoria over democracy” infecting the country. “It is as if the press were dancing on
a rotten stage,” he said. “There is no guarantee [we] can enjoy [our current] freedom
forever. Because . . . all the products of press law are very weak.” Though acknowledg-
ing the government’s repeal of the ministerial decree allowing arbitrary revocation of
media licenses, he cited new threats from the public, who “often [do] not use their
right of reply as the first mechanism to solve a problem.”
67
The heart of the matter, Hendratmoko explained, lay in the media’s lack of fun-
damental legal rights. He explained, “I imagine we could be like the U.S. [where the
press is protected by] the First Amendment, but in Indonesia we are blocked by our
constitution that [guarantees only] freedom of association, assembly and expression
of one’s opinion, as regulated by law. . . . There lies the problem. Because, it could