Photo Credit: Flickr user KamalSelle
On June 23, Indonesian pop star Nazril “Ariel” Ilham was arrested for his appearance in two sex tapes that since early June have been distributed rapidly throughout the country via social networking sites and cell phones. He was charged under both the 2008 Anti-Pornography law and the Electronic Information and Transaction Law, which provides for sanctions of up to six years imprisonment for the electronic dissemination of insulting information. In response to the scandal, government officials have expressed their desire to revisit the issue of internet controls. In February of this year, a bill imposing stricter regulations on the internet was introduced, but it was ultimately shelved due to substantial civil society opposition. When commenting on the scandal, Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring of the Islamic Prosperous Justice Party spoke of plans to introduce a filter to block internet users from accessing sites featuring pornography, blasphemy, gambling, and violence. Furthermore, President Susilo Yudhoyono stated, “We have increasingly realized that our nation should not stay naked and be crushed by the information technology frenzy, because there will be many victims.” The House commission in charge of information and defense then ordered the Ministry of Information to resume work on a draft internet content regulation measure. In addition, the government also responded to the incident by sending out teams to set up firewalls in over 2,000 internet cafes, authorizing school officials to search students’ cell phones for the tapes, and beginning to remove online links to the videos. While some Indonesians supported the government’s efforts to protect the morality of the country’s internet users, others expressed fears that freedoms of speech and information were being violated. Meanwhile, Ariel and his girlfriend claim to be the victims of defamation, stating that the tapes were fabricated as a form of character assassination.
The response to the sex tape scandal highlights the presence of strong crosscurrents in Indonesian society and politics when it comes to issues related to freedoms of the press and expression. When social issues are at play, the sparring often pits those who promote the adoption of Sharia law-inspired norms in the country, which is 85 percent Muslim, against those who promote secularism. This tension is playing a part in the current scandal, and Islamic parties such as the Prosperous Justice Party have been at the forefront of the calls to impose new censorship regulations in order to protect societal morality. The scandal also sparked nationwide protests by conservative Islamic groups condemning the celebrities’ behavior. The still-lingering legacies of the Suharto dictatorship, which came to an end in 1998, also fuel these tensions and complicate democratic progress, as longstanding law and undemocratic practices, which often serve the interests of the same political elite that have dominated Indonesian politics for decades, face resistance from reformers and a burgeoning civil society.
The tensions regarding internet freedom are illustrative of similar complications regarding Indonesia’s progress on media freedom in general. It is important to note that Indonesia’s media environment is generally free. Since the end of the dictatorship, the country’s media landscape has become increasingly vibrant. Independent media outlets have grown from 300 to 800 since 1998, and the government has recently passed laws to better protect media freedom, one of which notably removed a provision allowing for punishment for slander against the government. Nevertheless, restrictions remain, especially within the legal environment, which is still marred by frequently employed criminal defamation laws. The government has even expanded the penalties for criminal defamation in recent years, most notably through the 2008 Electronic Information and Transaction Law, which increased prison terms and fines for those who commit defamation online. In addition, the antipornography law provides for journalists, along with ordinary citizens, to be jailed for disseminating pornography, which is vaguely defined as “any means of public communication or demonstration which stimulates sexual arousal and/or infringe public moral.” And although the 2008 Freedom to Access Public Information Law marked an important advance, it sets out a one-year jail term for those who “misuse” information. This legal environment has resulted in infringements on the rights of journalists and ordinary citizens alike. In one extreme case in February, 18-year-old Farah Nur Arafah was convicted of defamation and received a suspended jail sentence for calling a friend a “pig” and a “dog” on Facebook. This follows the 2009 case of Prita Mulyasari, who was jailed after an email message in which she claimed that a hospital had misdiagnosed her mumps was made public, prompting the hospital to sue.
In addition to regulating general media content, the government has acted to restrict reporting on certain contentious issues, most notably the separatist movements in Papua and the southern Molucca islands. For example, a French journalist who was filming a peaceful student protest in Papua was arrested earlier this month for allegedly attempting to portray Indonesia in a negative light by filming an illegal protest. A similar case occurred in 2009, when four Dutch journalists were detained for covering a demonstration held without a permit. Unsurprisingly, domestic residents who voice separatist sentiments face even harsher limits on freedom of expression. A recent Human Rights Watch report on political prisoners in Papua and the Moluccas revealed that over 100 activists are currently imprisoned for peacefully expressing their pro-independence views.
While Indonesia has made great strides towards consolidating democratic practices in the short period of time that has passed since the end of the dictatorship, Indonesia’s leaders must ensure that further improvement on key governance issues does not become a casualty of the political tensions explored above. In addition to the battles over freedom of speech, Indonesia has yet to adequately address such daunting challenges as rampant corruption and weak rule of law, all of which will require enormous time, effort, resources and political will. Democratic transitions always bring a wide array of political issues, some of which inevitably lend themselves to deep culture clashes or even demagoguery. Finding ways to address these political tensions while maintaining pluralism and protecting basic principles will be a long-term project.