The State Administrative Court in Jakarta has rejected a petition by the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Aliansi Jurnalis Independen / AJI) to overturn the Indonesian Film Censorship Board (Lembaga Sensor Film / LSF) ban on the film Balibo. The story is told from the viewpoint of Roger East. Roger East was also murdered on the docks of Dili by Indonesia military forces.
The film says in its promotional material and trailer that it is based on a true story, and suggests in no uncertain terms that the five journalists (Greg Shackleton, Malcolm Rennie, Gary Cunningham, Brian Peters and Tony Stewart) that have come to be known was the Balibo Five were murdered by Indonesian forces invading East Timor.
Recent developments, including a coronial inquiry in the New South Wales Coroner's Court, found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with further investigations of the perpetrators for committing international crimes of a serious and grievous nature; a war crimes investigation.
In many respects, it is not surprising that the film was banned in the first place, nor is it at all surprising that the ban was upheld by the State Administrative Court. It is not rocket science to understand that there are some things in Indonesia's past that she would not want to revisit, and this is one of them.
It is worth noting that the Australian government is not jumping up and down wanting to know why the film is subject to a ban. This is not surprising either. It is not surprising because Australia was very much complicit in the invasion as it gave the green light for the Indonesians to go in and forcibly integrate Portuguese Timor into the Unitary State of Indonesia. It is also not surprising because it shows how little thought the government of the time gave to the safety of the five journalists on the ground or to Roger East.
Nevertheless, it is surprising that the State Administrative Court has seemingly been asleep at the wheel when it came to hearing the evidence and actually listening to the evidence put forward by the Legal Aid Foundation - Press, legal representatives, of AJI. The State Administrative Court has utilised provisions that were not argued and appear to be poor choices on which to base the decision to uphold the ban and reject the AJI petition. In an important case, such as this one, where there are implications for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which Indonesia supposedly guarantees, then the judges have a responsibility to get the law right.
On a side note, the film has already been screened in Indonesia despite the ban and no problems have been reported. Indonesian, Timorese, and Australia relations have not irretrievably broken down, there has not been mass rioting on the streets in the places where the film has been shown, and there has not been any inkling of the country degenerating into a state of anarchy. This suggests that, despite the Indonesian Censorship Board's concerns, Indonesian film viewers are more mature and critical of the material they watch than either the Government, the military, or the Censorship Board gives them credit for.
The following was originally posted on the English language version of hukumonline, here.
The journalist profession is one that is determined by deadlines. However, a deadline must never be construed as an arbitrary number of working hours. The reality is that journalist might put in many more hours than the minimum to get their story to print on time. It is these time sacrifices that the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Aliansi Jurnalis Independen / AJI) seeks to recognize in its annual report on the fair wage for journalists in Jakarta.
AJI is of the view that there are many media companies who do not adequately recognize the contributions of their journalists. In an effort to assist those companies in recognizing a fair universal wage for all journalists AJI has done the research on the company’s behalf and established a fair minimum wage.
So, for the past two years AJI has provided a guideline minimum fair wage for Jakarta-based journalists. The announcement of the 2009 minimum fair wage was made amongst considerable fanfare at the AJI Secretariat in Jakarta on Tuesday (26/05). The number, IDR 4.5 million per month, is not surprising considering that the previous year the minimum fair wage according to AJI was IDR 4.1 million per month. The 2009 figure reflects inflationary pressures. In comparison, the minimum monthly wage for Jakarta’s workers, as set by the Regional Government, stands at around IDR 1 million.
The minimum fair wage applies for all journalists that have been employed for at least 12 months and who have been appointed as permanent employees of the company where they work. The wage is based on the cost of living in Jakarta, but this is not the sole consideration. The minimum wage is based on six core components, namely: cost of food, accommodation, clothing, transportation, telecommunications (such as mobile phones) and other relevant tools of the trade (voice recorders and laptops), and insurance. These figures were gained through an AJI conducted survey.
There is little doubt that in a time of high technology that any equipment that gives a journalist an edge in meeting their deadline or beating a rival journalist to the deadline makes good business sense. However, it remains a little unclear why this is a compulsory component of a fair wage and not something that is at the discretion of employers who might not have the budget flexibility for such expenses. AJI’s response to this is that a reasonable laptop is only IDR 5 million and this is not a substantial expense for a media company.
Similarly, AJI states that the company must not only facilitate the telecommunication equipment needs of their journalists, but must also pay for the use of the equipment. A minimum requirement according to AJI is to provide a monthly allowance for calls and internet connections. This presupposes that the company has already provided the journalists with a mobile phone and a laptop computer.
In addition, to the announcement of the minimum fair wage, there was also considerable discussion of how the minimum fair wage was to be adopted. Simply, the minimum fair wage is to be used as a starting point or benchmark for negotiations between employers and journalists. Unfortunately, there was little discussion regarding what action journalists should take where employers are unwilling to come to the wage party.
Nevertheless, the basic idea is that there is strength in numbers. AJI is actively encouraging journalists to form new unions or join existing unions as a means of developing greater power in the negotiation process. This is a simple, and generally effective, take on the “united we stand, divided we fall” philosophy of unionism.
The other reason for the minimum wage level being set at IDR 4.5 million is that this is considered to be a sufficient amount that will deter journalists from accepting cash incentives to write favourable news. It goes without saying that standard practice in Indonesia currently is for those holding a press conference or other press event to provide a financial or other incentive for journalists to attend.
According to Wahyudyatmika, the Chairperson of AJI’s Jakarta Chapter, a fair wage is critical in ensuring that journalists won’t be tempted into manipulating information or write news that is biased in favour of a particular interest.
An issue that has not been openly discussed is that there are likely many media companies that will claim that they are just not financially capable of paying the AJI determined minimum wage. And, if forced to pay the AJI determined minimum wage then there may be no choice but to lay off other staff in order to balance the books.
In order to counter this issue, AJI is calling on media companies to become more transparent and share company financial information with unions so that any negotiations that journalists or their union representatives enter into can be best described as informed.
Furthermore, AJI is also lobbying the Department of Labor and Transmigration to issue a sectoral wage for journalists that sets the minimum fair wage for journalists. If the government is convinced on this front then the minimum fair wage for journalists in Jakarta would be set in legislation. This would then mean that employers would be required to justify to the relevant government authorities why they are unable to pay the minimum fair wage.
It is unlikely that AJI is going to adopt a name and shame campaign against those media companies not paying the minimum fair wage. However, AJI is encouraging media companies that are not paying their employees the minimum fair wage to consider other opportunities for their journalist staff in lieu of salary such as further education.
The debate about what constitutes a minimum fair wage for journalists is far from resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. However, open and frank discussion can only be to the benefit of all.
