A New Year & A New Minimum Wage for Jakarta...

Every year the minimum wage for Jakarta is increased. This is done through the issue of a gubernatorial regulation. The most recent of those was issued in November of 2010. The regulation, No. 196 of 2010, came into immediate force on 15 November 2010. However, the reality is that it came into effect on 1 January 2011.

The new minimum wage for Jakarta is IDR 1.29 million per month. In Australian dollar terms, having had a look at the exchange rate at the hole in the wall money changer yesterday, it is give or take AUD 100 per month. Admittedly, it is cheaper to "live" in some parts of Jakarta than others. It is also, perhaps, cheaper to live in Jakarta than, say, Sydney (or Australia, generally). Therefore, the best way to look at the minimum wage is whether it is considered sufficient to cover the basic living costs of Jakartans where they live, Jakarta.

The data that exists says that the minimum basic wage required to sufficiently cover one's costs in Jakarta is slightly above IDR 1.4 million per month. So, despite an increase of 15%+ over the 2010 minimum wage of IDR 1.18 million per month, the 2011 minimum wage still falls short,a nd considerably so, of what is needed to live at an acceptable level of comfort.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the minimum wage provisions only apply to those with less than one year of permanent employment. Those with more than one year of permanent employment are expected to be earning more than the minimum wage. It must be remembered that unemployment is still high in Indonesia, and especially in Jakarta as rural Indonesians migrate to the capital in search of permanent employment. For those who do not have permanent employment or whose employment can be best described as occasional then the minimum wage provisions contained in the regulation appear like a mirage in the distance that one will never meet.

Looking at the regulation in isolation hides the fact that it is still estimated that at least 50% of the population exist on less than USD 2 per day.

If you want "proper" analysis of the regulation and a copy if it, then head over to Hukumonline (that's where I go to get copies of legislation, the analysis I do myself :D).

Indonesia: Import Duties on Goods

It is obvious that since leaving hukumonline.com I have been pretty slack at keeping up-to-date with Indonesian legal developments outside of the specific areas that interest me most. As a result, I missed a Minister of Finance Regulation dated 29 October 2010 (in Indonesian). This regulation deals with the duties payable on goods over a certain value that are brought into Indonesia.

What is interesting about this regulation is that it seems to be targeting passengers and getting them to declare all goods on entry. Yet, the last time I traveled to Indonesia I am sure that I had to fill in a Customs declaration form that listed what I could and could not bring into Indonesia and what values they could be before I had to declare them and pay any duties that were payable on these goods.

Is this a case of gaining on the merry-go-round and then losing on the swing? The government will soon be facing a rather large financial black hole when the Fiscal Tax that Indonesians and other permanent residents paid for leaving Indonesia shores is removed. Is this regulation really a not-so-subtle attempt to fill that hole?

The basic framework for the regulation, No. 188/PMK.04/2010, are Articles 10B(5), 13(2) and 25(3) of the Customs Law (Law No. 10/1995 as amended by Law No. 17/2006) If you contact hukumonline.com they might forward you Indonesian Legal Briefs and Indonesian Law Digests that I wrote on this area many years ago. Generally, ministerial regulations are used to facilitate implementation of provisions in superior laws.

The regulation distinguishes between personal effects and commercial goods. This is done with a view to establishing what duties are payable. Personal effects are defined as any personal goods that do not satisfy the elements of being commercial goods.

In essence, anyone that must declare personal effects or commercial goods that they are importing / bringing into Indonesia are to do so. They have up to 30 days prior to the date of arrival or 60 days from the date of arrival to do so. There are some variations in specific circumstances for these time limits. For passengers of an airline this can be done on the day of arrival.

The regulation stipulates in Article 8 that the duty free limits are USD 250 for individuals and USD 1000 for families. For any value over these limits duty is payable. Additionally, it is permissible to import 200 cigarettes, 25 cigars, 100 grams of tobacco and 1 litre of alcohol. As I recall, this is pretty much as it was when I last landed in Jakarta. The duty free limits for cabin crew and airline staff, presumably on official duties, are less than for other individuals.

The system is continues to be a red line (declaring goods) and green line (nothing to declare). The regulation lists in Article 13 all the goods that must be declared irrespective of value and sets a limit on cash that may be carried. The cash limit is IDR 100 million or the equivalent in foreign currency. Where a Customs Officer has any suspicions about a passenger, then that Customs Officer is entitled to conduct a physical inspection of the passengers personal effects. In the event the physical inspection uncovers goods that have not been declared, then the passenger / owner of those goods is required to pay the duty that is due. Receipts for any duties paid must be provided to the passenger paying them.

As far as I can tell the regulation does not expressly provide exceptions for goods that have been owned for more than 12 months. I will need to go and check associated regulations to determine this (I have not downloaded them onto my current laptop). However, off the top of my head I recall that there exceptions applied to goods that had been owned for more than 12 months.

For example, if you were an Indonesian student going to study in a foreign university and took your laptop with you. When you returned in 12, 18, 24, or 36 months time with the same laptop there was no need to declare this as a personal effect that was subject to duty.

An article from Kompas (in Indonesian) that includes some comments from the Director General of Customs at the Ministry of Finance does not provide any insight on this front. The example provided only suggests that a camera that is valued at USD 300 will be subject to duty on the USD 50 that exceeds the USD 250 duty free limit. Unfortunately, the Director General does not note any exception for second-hand goods or goods that have been owned for more than 12 months.

If I find anything relevant to a better understanding of what is subject to duty, outside of what I have noted here, I will post it as a postscript.

The regulation comes into force on 1 January 2011.

Is Ariel A Victim in the Peterporn Scandal?

Is Ariel a victim in the Peterporn scandal? The current police theory of the case is that the videos were stolen off Ariel's laptop by a music editor that works for his band, Peterpan. The music editor has been identified only by his initials to date, RJ. Apparently, RJ is currently enjoying the hospitality of Indonesia's National Police Force as he is being interrogated in a police station somewhere in Bandung.

I wonder if the police have asked him yet whether or not it is true that there were 32 tapes or so of Ariel's sex-capades with various Indonesian starlets? I wonder if RJ has made provisions for the release of those tapes as well before he was arrested?

It would seem that if the police are now working on the theory that the videos were stolen from Ariel, then surely this makes him a victim, doesn't it? And, if Ariel is a victim, then isn't it time that the police released him? Now, if Ariel is a victim, then doesn't this also make Luna Maya and Cut Tari victims as well? If they are victims, then isn't it time that the police came clean and were clear on what status Luna Maya currently enjoys in this investigation?

Yesterday, it was reported that Luna Maya had been arrested, then it is reported that she has been detained only for the purposes of conducting an interrogation. However, the police seem to be moving towards a case theory that says both Luna Maya and Cut Tari are going to be charged based on the belief that the videos clearly show that they knew they were being filmed.

This raises some interesting legal questions. Hopefully, the respective lawyers of Nazriel "Ariel" Irham, Luna Maya, and Cut Tari will make them. The first question is, in a very narrow legal interpretation is it illegal to videotape yourself engaged in a consensual sex act in Indonesia? This question is narrow as it relates only to the videoing and the sex act. It does not relate to any subsequent dissemination to the general public through YouTube, LiveLeak, Rapid Share, Bit Torrent or any other site dedicated to the uploading and downloading of movies.

If it is illegal, then what specific provision are the police and prosecutors going to rely on?

If the thought is that the police and prosecutors are going to rely on Article 4 of the Pornography Law, then it would seem that the Elucidation to this law makes a specific exception for pron that is made by an individual of themselves and for their own purposes. There might be arguments made for internal inconsistency in the law because other articles such as Articles 8 and 9 of the same law which seemingly suggest that people cannot appear in pornographic material.

Nevertheless, it would seem that despite the broad nature of the provisions the intent of the law was not to get into the bedrooms and hotel rooms of individual Indonesian citizens and monitor what they were doing in their own time. Some might argue that this is not the intent, rather the intent was clearly to get into the individual bedrooms of all Indonesians and restrict any activity that the moral police construed as being naughty.

The point being, if Ariel made the film with the consent of his sexual partners, then has he broken the law? Furthermore, if Ariel had no intent to distribute the films or show them to anyone other than himself and the woman in each of those films, then has he committed an offence as defined by the Pornography Law?

The Pornography Law has survived a Constitutional Court challenge. However, this has not seemingly ended the debate on the subject as there still appears to be considerable opposition to the law. Nevertheless, the opposition needs to be a little more organised and consistently vocal in its opposition if it is to be ultimately successful in overturning this legislation.

I have some personal views on this, but this post is rather to invite anyone interested in these issues to offer an opinion, and then have some constructive debate about that. I appreciate that my blog is not that popular in terms of people visiting and commenting on certain posts. However, I promise to respond to all comments.

Enjoy your weekend!

If you want to get a copy of the law in Indonesian then go to http://www.hukumonline.com and go to the pusat data section. If you want a version in English then let me know (I only have a soft-copy of my own at the moment).

IKRAP and KRAP -- I Kid You Not!

A serious version of this is available at http://en.hukumonline.com. However, the acronyms / abbreviations used in this regulation were worth writing about by themselves irrespective of whether the substance of the regulation was serious or not.

It is obvious one of two things happened during the drafting phase of this particular Minister of Communication and Information regulation; the drafters really did not consider the humor that a bilingual Indonesian / English speaker would derive from the acronyms or the drafter was aware, and decided to do it anyway.

I am going to lean towards the latter, as that shows a fine sense of humour on the part of the drafters of this regulation.

What appears below is an amended version of what was posted to hukumonline.


Radio communication between citizens or CB Radio (Citizen Band Radio) finds its regulatory basis in Government Regulation No. 52 of 2000 and Minister of Communication Decision No. 77 of 2003. However, with the issue of Government Regulation No. 38 of 2007 there is a need to revoke and replace Decision No. 77. Therefore, the Minister of Communication and Information has issued Regulation No. 34/PER/M.KOMINFO/8/2009 for this purpose.

Citizen Band Radio (Komunikasi Radio Antar Penduduk / KRAP) is specifically prohibited from broadcasting certain material and from being commercialized. However, in contrast, CB radio must broadcast material relating to danger, natural disasters, and the like when those events arise. So, CB radio stations are therefore by law required to broadcast all the "Oh Krap" news and information; 'Oh crap, here comes the flood waters!"

The CB radio frequencies are those frequencies that have been set up and confirmed by the Minister. The frequency band set aside for CB radio is between 26.960 MHz and 27.410 MHz on the High Frequency Band. This is then divided into 40 distinct canals. These are listed in Article 18. The succeeding articles through to Article 23 set out the technical specifications.

All users of CB radios are required to be licensed (Izin Komunikasi Radio Antar Penduduk / IKRAP), and these licenses are to be issued by the Director General. The license is valid for a period of five years and can be renewed. The license permits the license-holder to own more than one set of CB radio equipment. Nevertheless, any person holding IKRAP is permitted only one call sign.

Which has me wondering whether if IKRAP in Jakarta whether my KRAP is going to be the same if IKRAP in Aceh or Bali? So, I wonder whether it is right to say that, 'no matter where IKRAP it is always the same'.

However, holding a license is not sufficient if one wants to be a CB radio user. In fact, the regulation is explicit that all license holders are required to become a member of an organization. The organization is Radio Antar Penduduk Indonesia (RAPI).

Each province in Indonesia is to use its own specific code. These codes are set out in Article 8(6) of the regulation. The procedures for licensing are listed in the regulation. Generally, there are three types covered: New IKRAP, IKRAP Renewal, and an IKRAP extension. The requirements for each are slightly different and are listed in Articles 12, 13, and 14.

The regulation sets out administrative sanctions that allow the Director General to cancel a license. A breach first requires two written warnings and a third warning results in the cancellation of a license. The Director General also has the power to cancel a license if the holder of that license has been convicted of a crime and the decision regarding that crime is already final and binding.

It would seem that the Director General has the power to control if, when, and where IKRAP by requiring me to have a license to KRAP which can be taken away if I KRAP in the wrong way or break the rules.

The regulation also includes a list of Attachments that contain all the standard forms required to comply with the provisions of the regulation. The Attachments also include a sample copy of what a CB radio license is to look like.

So, don't forget to smile for your very own IKRAP identity card.

By the way, anyone looking at getting into the KRAP-ping game, the requirement to hold a license under these provisions has been in force since 31 August 2009.

A Brief Overview of the New Law on Agricultural Land and Sustainable Crops...

This first appeared on http://en.hukumonline.com. This is a slightly modified version of that article.

The House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) has passed the Bill on the Protection of Agricultural Lands for Sustainable Crops. The bill was enacted under the mandate of Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning which requires that a law be enacted to protect agricultural lands for sustainable crops. The bill also recognizes the right to agricultural land for sustainable crops is a human right that must be guaranteed. The bill also recognizes that there is a need to ensure the supply of land for sustainable crops as a means of ensuring crop independence.

The premise of the bill is that agricultural land for sustainable crops is an integral part of the lives and prosperity of the nation. The rapid development of Indonesia that encroaches upon land that was previously farmed means that the ability to produce sustainable crops diminishes each time agricultural land is converted into residential or industrial zones. The government has determined that the best way to protect this agricultural land from future residential or industrial development is to designate it as agricultural land and then put in place provisions to protect it.

Therefore, the bill sets out that there are certain parcels of land that are protected for use for sustainable crops. However, the government has also realized that with an ever-expanding population, the mere protection of land for agriculture is not sufficient by itself. As such, the bill also sets out provisions to allow for enhancing the productive capabilities of that land. The bill achieves this by regulating all matters relating to planning, determining, developing, utilizing, managing, controlling, and supervising the lands.

It is worth noting that the provisions that protect agricultural lands designated for sustainable crops from transformation is not absolute. Where there is a public interest need to transform then land, then this may be authorized. The elucidation to Article 44(2) defines what sort of projects would constitute the public interest. Some of these projects include, among others, roads, irrigation channels, airports, train stations and rail networks, and electricity generation sites.

When the government acquires designated agricultural land in the public interest, compensation is to be paid. This compensation can be financial or it may be in the form of a land swap.

There are two types of sanctions set out in the bill: administrative and criminal. The administrative sanctions are standard warning letters and fines, among others. The criminal sanctions provide for terms of imprisonment up to a maximum of 7 years, and criminal fines of up to IDR 7 billion.

All implementing regulations mandated by the provisions in this bill are to be implemented within 24 months of the bill’s enactment.

Another issue that the bill sort of alludes to but does not really address is food sustainability with respect to supply. The idea that protecting agricultural land for sustainable crops is an honorable one. However, a more pressing concern over time is going to be feeding the people. Indonesia is heading towards a scenario where there are going to be more people to feed and an inability to feed them. Simply, there is not enough land to protect as agricultural land without reducing more of Indonesia's natural forests to farm land in order to be food self-sufficient.

Climate change, irrespective of whether it is attributed to human-made global warming or a natural phenomenon, is also going to be a major consideration going forward.

The bill is interesting for what it tries to protect, but really for the bill to have meaning it needs to be part of a much greater regulatory initiative directed to greater and longer-lasting food self-sufficiency.

Hospitals, Living Wills, and the Law...

This is a slightly edited version from what was posted here at hukumonline.com's English website.

The Bill on Hospitals was always destined to be. Simply, the regulatory framework for such an important and critical component of Indonesian life needed to be regulated in the form of a law. The deficiencies of the current regulatory regime in the modern era highlighted that there were insufficient provisions to govern matters such as malpractice, discrimination in the provisions of medical services, poor safety procedures, and even poorer procedures for patient complaints to be heard.

Perhaps if the hospital bill had been passed earlier in the year Prita Mulyasari would have had an avenue to complain about the service she received as a patient, rather than resorting to telling her friends about it, and then being sued for defamation.

It was clear that the government was keen to see the hospital bill passed before the end of the current parliamentary session.

The bill is pro-patient in many respects. The Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, has gone to great lengths to highlight this fact. However, it is also important to note that the bill focuses on four key medical practices, namely: promotion, prevention, cure (treatment), and rehabilitation. The bill is comprehensive in that it also sets out specifications for hospitals with respect to buildings and facilities that must be provided to satisfy minimum standards. For example, hospitals must have an emergency room, operation theatre, radiology room, and a morgue, among others.

Hospitals can employ foreign staff. However, this is premised on need. Generally, it is expected that Indonesian hospitals will utilize Indonesian expertise where the expertise exists. Foreign medical staff will need to prove that they are qualified and licensed in their country of origin. It is also expected that any foreign medical staff engaged will transfer their skills and knowledge to local doctors and staff.

The bill also sets out the types and classifications of hospitals. Public hospitals are to be classifies across four levels, A to D. Article 29 of the bill deals explicitly with the obligations incumbent upon hospitals. The idea that the bill is pro-patient finds support in this article. Hospitals are required to provide medical treatment to the level of their capabilities without discrimination.

Furthermore, all hospitals must provide services to those who are unable to pay or who are poor and cannot pay set rates for services. The services must be provided to the poor and unable to pay in emergency situations without a requirement to pay any upfront fees. It would seem that the days of emergency treatment only being rendered after a down payment is made have passed.

The bill also sets out the obligations and rights of patients. As was noted earlier this Charter of Rights for both the hospitals and the patients may have allowed Prita Mulyasari and Omni International Hospital to avoid the defamation litigation that they continue to find themselves in. Patients have a right to a second opinion, either from another hospital doctor where they are or to get another doctor from outside the hospital to provide that opinion.

Patients also have explicit rights to their complete medical records. Patients also have the right to sue hospitals either as a civil or as a criminal matter if they believe the services provided to them breach any of the prevailing laws ans regulations in this sector.

Hospital fees will be set out in a national fee document. It is expected that the fee pattern will provide guidelines for fees based on actual cost of the services provided. And, hospitals are required to set their fees at levels commensurate with what is stipulated in the fee pattern as determined by the Minister.

The bill also sets out a new independent body called the National Hospital Supervisory Agency to maintain and supervise hospitals. The Agency is set up by the Health Minister in order to guarantee any matters relating to hospitals. It has the function to not only maintain and supervise the rights and obligations of patients and hospitals, but also receive complaints, and to settle disputes.

However, it must be noted that the bill includes a provision in Article 44 for the hospital to breach doctor / patient privilege and confidentiality where the patient sues the hospital and then goes public with their claim. Any patient that goes public is to be deemed to have released the hospital and relevant doctors from any confidentiality obligations regarding a patient’s medical records.

Furthermore, Article 45(1) absolves a hospital and doctors from responsibility for a patient’s death in care if the patient or the patient’s family refuses treatment or medical care. However, the provision requires that the hospital explains the consequences of refusing any such treatment or care. This is the concept of a living will. A living will allows people to set out whether or not they want to be treated or resuscitated by medical staff and doctors.

There is currently an interesting case in the United Kingdom. Doctors refused to treat a suicidal woman who had a living will. The woman drank poison in order to kill herself. The woman was still conscious and called an ambulance. Medical staff and doctors refused to treat her because they believed that if they did treat her and save her life, then they could be sued for assault.

The Elucidation to this provision states that treatment and care cannot be stopped for financial reasons alone. If a patient or the patient’s family is no longer able to afford treatment or care, then the government will guarantee treatment and care.

Article 45(2) states that hospitals, and presumably doctors, cannot be sued or prosecuted for attempting to save the life of a person, if that person is to later die.

All current hospitals are given a two-year grace period to come into compliance with the provisions of the bill once it is enacted into law.

The bill comes into immediate force once it is enacted. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.

Transmigration in Indonesia -- Amended Regulatory Framework...

This is something that was written for en.hukumonline.com. The original can be found here.

The era of “reformasi” was the spur for many changes in Indonesia, and this includes the drive to amend the 1945 Constitution of the Republic. There have been four amendments to date. These amendments were enacted in the period between 1999 and 2002. Furthermore, the amendments have since required that other legislation (laws and regulations) also be amended to ensure that those pieces of legislation comply with the amended Constitution.

The previous law on Transmigration Law No. 15 of 1997, has been amended in order to comply with the Constitution as it now stands, particularly with respect to matters of regional autonomy.

The Amendment Bill on Law No. 15 of 1997 was passed by the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) and is currently awaiting the signature of the president before it can be promulgated as law. The amendments focus almost exclusively on the decentralization of certain transmigration related authorities from the Central Government to the relevant Regional Governments. The amendments also endeavor to create a more conducive transmigration sector; conducive to investment.

Articles 7 – 9, 13 – 15, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35 have been amended, as has the Title of Chapter VII. Additionally, Chapter IX and Article 34 have been repealed. Finally, three Chapters have been inserted and replace Chapter XI, specifically: Chapters XA, XB, and XC.

One of the most notable changes is that the authority to: determine, establish, and develop areas for transmigration has devolved to the relevant regional governments. This is notable for two reasons; this places greater administrative control on the regional governments themselves to be pro-active in providing support for the transmigration program and accountability.

In effect, the amendments would provide the opportunity to enterprising regional governments to either go it alone or enter into private / public partnerships to develop and exploit their regional potential by enhancing opportunities for transmigration. Whether this eventuates remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the potential for such a development is clearly available under the provisions of the amended law.

The new law provides for sanctions to be imposed on anyone who breaches the prevailing provisions. This is irrespective of whether the breach is conducted by a government official, a business entity, a transmigrant, or some other individual or group. Generally, the sanctions provide for:

• Oral / written warnings;
• Cancellation of licenses (for business entities), transmigrant status (for transmigrants), and / or the Minister of Labor and Transmigration (for groups of people); and
• Criminal sanctions. Not all of the amendments are significant in terms of size.

For example, the provisions of Chapter VIII have been amended to merely change one word; “guidance” (pembinaan) to “development” (pengembangan). Nevertheless, there is seemingly a significant difference in terms of what is required between providing guidance and facilitating development. Yet, the amendment is just one word.

The bill comes into immediate force once it is promulgated. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.

The Creative Economy in Indonesia

This is something I wrote for somewhere else. The original of this can be found at http://en.hukumonline.com.

The creative economy is in essence a focus on the creative industries and the contributions that they may make to the overall national economy. The government has finally realized that the creative economy holds very real and very large potential for the future development of Indonesia. The benefits of Indonesia’s creative talents are yet to be fully exploited. Nevertheless, in an attempt to better exploit theses resources the President has issued a Presidential Instruction, No. 5 of 2009, which sets out what is expected and how the stipulated goals are to be achieved.

The instruction covers the period from 2009 – 2015. The overall program will be based on a Creative Economy Policy. Then, this will require a comprehensive annual program to be devised and then carried out for each year. The first of these, 2009, is to be Creative Indonesia Year. The instruction is addressed to all the relevant ministers, the heads of all the relevant institutions, and all of Indonesia’s governors, regents and mayors.

The creative industries that form the creative economy are listed at point two. These include, among others, the following:
• Advertising;
• Arts and antiques;
• Handicrafts;
• Fashion;
• Film, video, and photography;
• Architecture;
• Music;
• Performance art; and
• Radio and television.

The instruction also establishes a Coordination Team for the Development of the Creative Economy and who is on the team. Furthermore, the instruction establishes a Secretariat and relevant Working Groups that are to assist the Team in the performance of their tasked duties. The Team is required to report at least every six months. However, the president can demand reports at any time and the Team will be required to furnish the requested report.

In addition, any budget expenses required in the fulfillment of these provisions will be allocated to the central and regional government budgets as required.

The instruction includes a detailed Attachment. This attachment sets out all of the objectives of the creative economy and who is responsible for seeing certain aspects of the program carried out.

The Instruction has been in force since 5 August 2009.

What is a Fair Wage for a Journalist in Jakarta?

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.

hukumonline.com

The hukumonline.com experience is a unique and fascinating view into the mind of successful individuals giving back to the community that has provided for them over their professional and personal journeys.

The hukumonline.com journey started with a desire to build a repository of Indonesian laws and regulations that were easily accessible at a central location. Considering, this is the age of technology it made sense to make this central and easily accessible repository one that was available online. Thus was born the www.hukumonline.com concept. Seven years into the future this concept has evolved and grown into Indonesia's premier legal news, information, and legislation database.

This past 14 July 2007 was hukumonline.com's 7th birthday and the celebrations are set to culminate with a re-launching of new products and new ventures, in essence a re-visioning of that original dream into the realities of 2007. This will see the launch of an English language version of the hukumonline.com site and a vast range of new interactive and collaborative ventures that will allow hukumonline.com's more than 70,000 registered users and subscribers to add their very own content to the hukumonline.com site, a sort of hukumpedia if you prefer.

The successes over the years have been mounting and within legal professional, government, and business circles where there is a need for real time legal news and analysis hukumonline.com has already become synonymous with accurate and telling analysis of issues that effect the way law is practiced in Indonesia. It is the goal of hukumonline.com to build and expand on this success to continue to influence the way law is practiced in Indonesia and to continually provide a forum for a greater understanding of Indonesian law, not only for Indonesians but for anyone with an interest in the law.

So, Happy 7th Birthday hukumonline.com, may it be the first in a long line of many more to follow.