Tuesday, March 18, 2008

'Membaca Daniel S Lev'

pic: Daniel Lev
Jurnal JENTERA edisi khusus 2008 berisi delapan artikel yang sebagian besar berisi pembacaan atas pemikiran seorang indonesianis, almarhum Daniel S Lev. Pak Dan—begitu kami menyebutnya—telah mewariskan pemikiran-pemikiran politik dan sejarah hukum yang cukup penting bagi Indonesia. Studinya tentang demokrasi parlementer pada 1950an menjadi karya klasik yang jadi rujukan utama sejarah periode itu.

Di jurnal ini, kebanyakan artikel berisi tentang penafsiran penulis tentang pemikiran Pak Dan. Tafsiran ini dikontekstualkan dengan kondisi hukum dan politik Indonesia zaman sekarang. Pak Dan pernah mengingatkan betapa pentingnya nilai-nilai Republikanisme. Ini ditulis ulang oleh Robertus Robet di jurnal ini. Sejalan dengan pemikiran Dan, menurut Robet, kita memperlakukan demokrasi tidak hanya secara 'berlebihan' tapi juga secara salah yakni dengan menempatkan demokrasi sebagai satu-satunya sumber dari segala yang baik tentang politik.

Ada juga artikel dari Andang Binawan yang menulis tentang pilihan minimal hukum Pak Dan. Menurut Andang Binawan, pemikiran hukum Pak Dan sangat realis. Dengan latar belakang pemikiran libertarian, Pak Dan mendasarkan keberpihakannya pada universalitas hak asasi manusia. Tidak sekadar pembelaan terhadap institusi.

Usaha pembentukan negara hukum Indonesia, dalam kacamata Pak Dan, sangat dipengaruhi oleh para advokat di zamannya. Para advokat ini menjadi promotor utama gagasan negara hukum. Namun sayang, menurut Patra M Zen dalam artikel berikutnya, peran mulia ini belakangan dibelokkan oleh sebagian kalangan advokat demi meraup kepentingan ekonomi-politik sendiri.

Pak Dan juga mengamati relasi penegak hukum semasa dekade 1940 sampai 1950an. Antara hakim dan jaksa, antara jaksa dengan kepolisian. Tulisan berikutnya dari Bambang Widodo Umar menyebutkan bahwa konflik antar penegak hukum sudah terjadi sejak awal-awal berdirinya Republik. Ini disebabkan karena pertentangan interest dan prestige.

Selain itu, masih ada dua artikel lain perempuan dalam jalur politik formal dan jejak neoliberalisme dalam pembentukan hukum di Indonesia. Masing-masing ditulis oleh Maria Hartiningsih dan Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum.

Di luar topik 'Membaca Daniel S Lev', kami menerbitkan artikel tentang pengadilan hubungan industrial, sebuah pengadilan baru, yang dikerjakan oleh Surya Tjandra. Serta proporsionalitas kaitannya dengan daerah pemilihan dalam pemilihan umum ditulis oleh August Mellaz dan Pipit R Kartawidjaja.

JENTERA edisi khusus yang layak Anda miliki.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Legal atau Legislative Drafting?

Dua minggu lalu saya mengikuti sebuah pelatihan perancangan perundang-undangan di Banda Aceh. Saya perhatikan label acaranya: pelatihan legal drafting, bukan legislative drafting. Menurut saya pemakaian istilah legal drafting ini kurang pas.

Kata legal berasal dari bahasa Inggris yang dalam Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia berarti "sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan atau hukum".

Meski kadang kita menemukan padanan kata legal ini dengan kata law, namun sesungguhnya dua kata ini memiliki perbedaan jenis. Kata legal diartikan sebagai kata sifat, sedang law kata benda. Keduanya, kata legal dan law, sering juga diterjemahkan dengan hukum.

Terus apa beda istilah 'legal drafting' dengan 'legislative drafting'?

Saya kuliah di fakultas hukum. Salah satu mata kuliah pokoknya adalah 'legal drafting'. Saya ambil mata kuliah ini sekira semester delapan menjelang tugas akhir. Mata kuliah 'legal drafting' ini menjadi syarat untuk mengambil mata kuliah pilihan.

Saya ingat kelas ini diajar oleh Heru Suroso, sepertinya seorang dosen tamu di kampus. Dia mengajar tiap Selasa sore dengan mahasiswa rata-rata semester lama. Suroso mengajar kelas ini dengan metode satu arah. Mata kuliah ini teknis sekali.

Di mata kuliah 'legal drafting', Suroso memberikan kisi-kisi bagaimana membuat sebuah peraturan perundang-undangan. Bagaimana menulis konstitusi atau undang-undang yang diamandemen. Ini berbeda teknis penulisannya dengan aturan yang baru sama sekali.

Dosen itu juga menerangkan isi dari konsiderans 'menimbang' atau 'mengingat' sebagai sebuah alasan sebuah peraturan dibuat. Di bagian 'mengingat' sistematika penulisannya harus urut dari jenis peraturan yang paling tinggi ke rendah. Tidak boleh keliru.

Saya saat itu tidak menyadari bahwa secara terminologis, nama mata kuliah 'legal drafting' itu kurang tepat. Legal drafting memiliki arti luas. Ia bisa dimaknai sebagai draft dokumen hukum macam surat perjanjian, kontrak, anggaran dasar, atau putusan hakim.

Begitu lulus, Maret 2005, saya langsung bekerja di PSHK sebagai redaktur jurnal. Organisasi ini sering memberikan pelatihan perancangan-perundang-undangan kepada anggota dewan atau staf perancang. Saya sesekali terlibat dalam acara beginian. Trainernya diambil dari para peneliti.

Pada 2005, PSHK memberikan pelatihan perancangan kepada beberapa fraksi DPR. Pelatihan diadakan di Hotel Aryaduta di Karawaci, Tangerang. Hotel ini luas dengan suasana yang menyenangkan. Kabarnya, hotel ini dimiliki oleh pengusaha warga negara Jerman.

Binziad Kadafi adalah salah satu trainer di pelatihan itu. Dia peneliti, dan juga ikut mendirikan PSHK pada 1998. Orangnya gemuk dan kalem. Gaya bicaranya tenang, tidak meledak-ledak.

Meski jadi trainer perancangan, namun sejatinya Kadafi konsen pada hukum pidana. Dia pernah menulis soal asas legalitas di jurnal JENTERA. Ia juga pernah menjadi koordinator riset advokat yang laporannya dibukukan dengan tajuk 'Advokat Indonesia Mencari Legitimasi'.

Kadafi memiliki pola makan yang konservatif. Ia kurang terbiasa dengan menu a la Barat seperti salad. Suatu saat kami pernah sarapan semeja di restoran Hotel Aryaduta. Kami mengobrol santai. Saya bertanya kepadanya mengapa PSHK memakai istilah 'legislative drafting', bukan 'legal drafting'?

Menurut Kadafi, istilah 'legislative drafting' itu terkait dengan fungsi legislasi dari dewan. Jadi ini soal perancangan peraturan perundang-undangan, bukan perancangan klausula kontrak atau perjanjian. Legislative drafting dengan demikian lebih spesifik dari legal drafting.

Saya rasa Kadafi benar. Kampus-kampus fakultas hukum yang masih menggunakan nama 'legal drafting' untuk mata kuliah perancangan peraturan perundang-undangan, perlu segera meralatnya dengan 'legislative drafting'. Agar nama sesuai dengan maknanya.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Jakarta Television

Newspapers and television in Indonesia have different history of ownership. Some dailies like Kompas, Suara Merdeka (Semarang), Waspada (Medan) or Pedoman Rakyat (Makassar) were brought up by several journalists with limited economic resources. Television is a different case. This media were mostly built up by rich businessmen who mostly spread their business claws to many sectors.

Let’s begin with Trans TV, one of the youngest television stations in Indonesia. Officially aired on 15 December 2001, Trans TV witnessed the ups and downs of media development in Indonesia after the fall of Soeharto. All of the shares in the television belonged to Chairul Tanjung. 99.9 percents of the shares was owned by PT Para Inti Investindo, while the rest was taken by PT Para Investindo, both belonged to Para Group business corporation owned by Tanjung
.

Who is Chairul Tanjung? “He is purely a businessman. His main intention is business,” said Riza Primadi. Riza was the former journalists of BBC London, who worked for Astro Nusantara, a cable television provider. Riza took part in developing SCTV and Trans TV. When working on Trans TV, Riza cooperated with Alex Kumara, the former operational director of RCTI and IShadi SK, the former director of TVRI.

Riza felt that it was fine to work for Tanjung. “None of his companies were included in BPPN (), Tanjung himself was never charged of any crime cases, unlike most of our rich. To me, these are all things we can be proud of, no problem at
all.”

Tanjung was born in Jakarta in 1962. Since his college days, he had initiated his business. Ten years later he owned a business corporation called Para Group, which initially dealt with exporting children shoes. The first share of 150 million rupiahs was borrowed from Exim bank.

Tanjung stretched his business empire through Bandung Supermall. He also took the biggest share in Bank Mega, which he bought in 1996 from Bapindo group. Bank Mega was very critical at that time, yet after being taken by Tanju
ng, it gradually improved. On the memorable 28 March 2001, the bank had for the first time successfully enlisted its shares in Jakarta Stock Market for 1.125 rupiah per sheet.
Two years later, interviewed by Warta Ekonomi magazine, Tanjung stated that Bank Mega became the biggest cash cow for Para Group. “With contribution around 40 percent.”

The contribution of Trans TV was considerably significant too. The station had at least reached its break event point in the second year after it operated. It means, the station did not need any fund from the owner. “It happened around May 2003,” Riza Primadi said.

Trans T
V had revealed the sign of success even since the first quarter of 2002. According to the survey of Nielsen Media Research, Trans TV was the fifth stations that gained biggest earnings from advertisements. The value was 149,2 billion rupiah.

SCTV was also established and managed by incredibly rich businessman. The circles of “Cendana” – businessmen that were close to Soeharto family – such as Sudwikatmono, Peter Gontha, Henry Pribadi, Halimah Bambang Triatmodjo and Azis Mochtar had ever took biggest shares in the station. Now, SCTV was taken by another rich businessmen: the family of Sariaatmadja.

The fa
mily business dealt with information technology. They initially took their shares through Abhitama Mediatama Co. in 2002. Then, after purchasing the shares of Henri Pribadi’s Citrabumi Sacna and those of Agus Lasmono’s Indika Multimedia, they stood out as the main shareholder of Surya Citra Media Inc., the parent company of SCTV. Agus Lasmono was the son of Sudwikatmono.

In the structure of SCTV Commissary Board issued in 2003, the Sariaatmadjas was represented by Eddy Kusnadi Sariaatmadja and his brother, Fofo Sariatmadja. Eddy was 52, while Fofo 42. Both were masters of engineering science, graduated from University of New south Wales, Australia. Fofo has life philosophy of togetherness. His idol was Bill gates.

Beside Abhitama Mediatama Inc., Sariaatmadja business group also had several another companies that were affiliated to the group, such as Abhitama Cithra Abadi In
c., Abhimata Persada Inc., Bitnet Komunikasindo Inc., and Elang Mahkota Teknologi Inc.

All of these corporations were consolidated unfer the group of Elang Mahkota Teknologi – abbreviated as Emtek. In 1980s, Emtek is the single license holder of Compaq brand in Indonesia. This group was also assumed to supply computers and other needs of information technology in several departments during Soeharto’s presidency.

The rapid growth of television since the fall of Soeharto urged this family to take the hand of publishing group called Mugi Rekso Abadi (MRA). They established O Channel, a Jakarta local television that primarily exposed metropolitan living: food, parties, fashion and life style.

Amelia Hezkasary Day from Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) stated that S
ariaatmadja group was also aided by Singleton Group from Australia, a business conglomerate in communication that owned radio and television network, public relation corporation and advertising agencies. In addition, they also moved in business operation and media financial management consultancies.

Singleton Group Limited is the metamorphoses of John Singleton Advertising Limited (JSA) in 1996. Singleton Group itself actually had merged to the conglomeration of STW Communications group Limited, or commonly abbreviated as SGN. In the profile of this corporation listed the name of John singleton, the founder and the holder of majority shares. John Singleton, according to Miladay – the nick name of Amelia Hezkasary Day – was the friend of Sariaatmadja, when the latter went to college in Australia.

FRIDAY, last 30 September, ANTV jolted the circles of Batavia television with shock: in Executive Club, Hilton Hotel Jakarta, the chief director of Cakrawala Andalas Televisi Inc., ANTV’s parent company, Anindya Novyan Bakrie announced the purchasing of 20% of the shares by Star TV that was owned by global media conglomerate, Rupert Murdoch.

Anin was the eldest son of Aburizal Bakrie, now the Coordinator Ministry for People Welfare, from Bakrie Group, one of the biggest family corporations in Batavia. This group owned business in property run by Bakrieland, in finance consul
tancy by Bakrie Investindo and Bakrie International Finance, and in telecommunication by Bakrie Telecom Inc, the producer of Esia, a provider of CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) cellular phones.

Anin stated that Murdoch bought new shares. The composition of old share holders did not changed at all. Who own the rest of the shares then?

According to the Note on Changes of Corporation’s Basic Statue issued by Cakrawala Andalas Televisi Inc in 2004, Bakrie Investindo, Inc. owned 191.443 shares, CMA Indonesia, Inc. 60.000 shares, Bune Era Mandiri, Inc. 53.880, Satria Cita Perkasa, Inc. 457.378 and Kencana Cita Kusuma, Inc. 72.222. Nirwan Derma
wan Bakrie, Anin’s uncle, owned 87.108 shares.

CMA Indonesia, Inc. used to hold major shares when ANTV was drowned under the heap of 1,2 trillion rupiah debt in 2002. The fund management company was founded by credit providers who agreed to convert their unpaid credit into ownership shares. Anin was the chief director.

The infiltr
ation of Murdoch to ANTV intensified fragmentation in television business. According to “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”, a documentary directed by Robert Greenwald, Murdoch at least owned 300 television channels, several film companies and cinema network. In addition, Murdoch also owned News Corporation and Fox News, two biggest media conglomerates in the world. Three publishing companies : HarperCollins, Reagen Books and Zondervan Christian Publisher also stood out under Murdoch’s knees.

All Murdoch’s companies served at least third fourth of world population. Murdoch stretched his claws in hundreds of newspapers in Australis, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, England, and United States. Also in television industry by conquering Fox Station Group, BskyB in England, Sky Italia, Sky America Latin, Foxtel
Australia, North and Latin AmericaDirectTV, and Star TV in Asia.

Murdoch clearly invested fewer shares in ANTV. Newsweek magazine investigated that Murdoch’s shares in ANTV valued less than 20 million US$. Yet, his presence in Jakarta marked the opened television market in Indonesia. The integration with global market was imminent. Murdoch had changed the map of television ownership in Indonesia rapidly, as it had suspected that other international companies such as Malaysian Astro TV would also do the same.

These investors, including Murdoch and Bakrie, spread their wings to television industry not to serve public, but to dig more money from this promising busine
ss. Imagine this: 220 million consumers centrally controlled with weak rule of law, easily bribed bureaucracy and not critical to media. The 2005 data of AC Nielsen Media Research implied that in 2004, 82% of media consumption was for television.

According to the similar source, television gained around 16 trillion rupiah, or around 70% of total advertisement expenses that reached 23 trillion rupiah in 2005. Newspapers and magazines were in the next line with 26% and 5%.

WHO o
wned Lativi? This television station was founded and dominated by Alatief Corporation, which was owned by Abdul Latief, a businessman and playboy Soeharto ever appointed as Minister of Manpower. Firstly aired in August 2001, this television station was formerly a company named Pasaraya Mediakarya which was founded by Latief to support his clothes retailer, Pasaraya. It was nearly the airing time that the name was changed into Lativi Mediakarya, Inc.

This change was recorded in the Note on the Change of Company Statues of Pasaraya Mediakarya, Inc. that was signed in the presence of Vita Buena, a notary, on 7 August 2000, and was formally approved in Supplement to Gazette no.24/1
837 2001.

I did not find the name of Abdul Latief in the document. On the other hand, I noticed the name of Usman Ja’far as the chief director. Usman Ja’far, a Malayan, one of Latief’s hands, used to take the position of Pasaraya commissary. Now, Ja’far was the governor of West Kalimantan.

The case of 1,5 trillion unpaid credit in Mandiri Bank in May 2005 marked the dark era of this television station, as it gained 328,52 million rupiah credit from the ban
k. The director of Lativi, Hasim Sumiana, the successor of Usman Ja’far, used to bring to court as one of the suspects. Abdul Latief and Usman acted as witnesses.

According to Gunawan Alif from advertisement magazine Cakram, Lativi was the eight position of televisions with highest advertisement income. This position is not fairly different from ANTV’s (the sixth) and TV7 (the seventh). “They hang on because of Spongebob show and programs exposing (a bit of) sexuality,” said Alif. Spongebob is a children cartoon about under-the-sea-animal-living.

“If they don’t manage to increase their rating, it will be difficult (for them to exist),” added Alif. “As the top five are old, established television.”

Amidst this critical situation, the news of international private fund’s entrance in Lativi – similar with what Murdoch did in ANTV – filled the air. This time, T
V3 was the one coming. The television was owned by Malaysian Media Prima Berhad (MPB), who was also known to hold 43% of shares in New Strait Times daily.

Miladay from KPI argued that what TV3 did to Lativi was like foreign investment. TV3 injected his fund aid, and Lativi would restructure its debt, as well as its composition of ownership. But that was for later.

Similarly, TV7 used to be reported to being infiltrated by international fund. In terms of ownership structure, the station was different from others. TV7 was founded by Kompas Gramedia Group, a business corporation, one of potential players
in media industry. But, is it true that media is their one and only playground? Not really. The corporation actually dealt with hotel and trade business and Gramedia Bookstore network.

Moreover, TV7 did not explicitly mentioned Kompas Gramedia Group as their owner. The television’s company statue mentioned six owners. Three corporations and three individuals.

Three individual shareholders were Sukoyo (3.000 shares or 1%), Yongky Sutanto (10.500 shares or 3,5%) and Lanny Irawati Lesmana (5,5%). While the three
corporation shareholders were Teletransmedia, Co. (48%), Transito Tatamedia (38,7%), and Duta Panca Pesona, Co. (3,3%).

My investigation finally showed that Lanny Irawati Lesmana had familial relationship with Karna Brata Lesmana, the director president of Inter Delta, Co, a distributor for Canon and Kodak photographic utilities. In TV7, he was related to Duta Panca Pesona, Co. Sukoyo was a fishery businessman from East Java. He initially held the airing license of Duta Visual Nusantara, Co., the corporation of TV7. Then, Kompas Gramedia Group bought it and changed the name into Duta Visual Nusantara Tivi Tujuh. “Sukoyo hims
elf gained great amount of money from this purchase,” Milady said. He then founded local television in Jakarta called Space Toon.

When Murdoch almost reached a deal with ANTV, news on the prospect of the media conglomerate buying TV7 emerged heavily. TV7 nevertheless claimed the news false. “ We had not so far gotten information from upper circles,” said Moko Pamungkas, the spokesperson of TV7 public relation to me.

Similarly, Uni Lubis, the vice-redactor of TV7, stated, “We always had meeting every Thursday in Palmerah (the headquarter of Kompas Group). But our leaders never mentioned anything about the matter,” said Uni. The composition of ownership was still the same.

IN ORDER TO secure the interest of Cendana clan, the first five television stations founded in the era of Soeharto were owned by members of the clan. From Bambang Triatmodo, Siti Hardijanti Rukmana, Sudwikatmono, Sudono Salim to Peter Gontha.

The
wind now has blown to the direction of economic liberalization. Foreign players were free to enter the business, as guaranteed by article 17, 2002 Law on Broadcasting.

The law allowed foreign investors to own maximum 20% of the whole shares of television station. Yet, non-Indonesian citizens were allowed to take positions as technical-related and finance-related officers in the station.

Yet, so
me big television stations, say Indosiar and RCTI, had not yet released from the web of Cendana.

Indosiar, for example, could not be detached from the business trace of Sudono Salim, the biggest conglomerate during the era of Soeharto. The second generation of Salims, Andree Halim and Anthony Salim were recorded as the owners of the television in 1999. Their share portions were almost the same. Fifty fifty.

During
the crisis of economy, Salim Group tumbled. Their debt was enormous. Their assets, such as BCA, were confiscated by BPPN (Comission for Healthy National Banking). Indosiar was, too. BPPN then created a holding company named Holkindo Perkasa, Co. to put together all Salim Group’s companies.

In 1999, Holdiko entered Indosiar and held half of Indosiar’s whole shares. The young Salims owned the rest. This time, they did not appear as indivi
dual, but using other companies named Prima Visualindo, Inc, where the siblings, Andree and Anthony, held 33,3% of shares each. As a closed company, Indosiar had not yet registered in Stock Market at that time.

In 2001, Holdiko held 67,37% of the shares, while Prima Visualindo 32,67%. Very imbalanced.

Like a gas baloon, Holdiko shrank as time goes by. As I cited from Proposal of Provi
ding Service in BPPN issued by Trimegah Securities, Inc., it was at the same year that Holdiko’s shares shrank into 8,26%. Trust magazine supposed Salim was behind this case.

To take some proofs, Salim also held the major shares in Prima Visualindo, Co., which owned 27,7% of shares in Indosiar. Salim was not recorded in the documents of company foundation, but Widodo Purnomosidhi, the chief director of Prima Visualindo when it was founded in 1990,
was.

Purnomosidhi was also one of the founders of Indosiar beside Karel Budiman. In the archive of Apa Kabar Mailing List, I found that the duos worked for Pertiwi Asri, Inc., which used to have conflict with the Department of Forestry.

Through TDM Asset Management, Inc., Salim had 29,02% of shares in Indosiar. Thus, Salim had managed to reclaim the ownership of Indosiar and had full control over the station. Indosiar had already been enlisted in Stock Market at that time, with the holding name of PT Indosiar Visual mandiri. It used IDSR as its s
tock ticker symbol. Public held the rest of 43,2%.

As if not enough, Salim kept striking back. After successfully taking over Indosiar with its two companies, now Salim launched another strategy: lessening public ownership, and adding its own portion. A new holding company was then established to replace IDSR in stock market. Monday, 4 October 2004, Indosiat Karya Media Inc. emerged. IDKM was enlisted as stock ticker symbol. Indosiar Visual Mandiri was delisted.

Angky handono, the chief sirector of Indonsiar stated, “The shift of holding comp
any is aimed to facilitate the company to expand to other multimedia sector easily.”

Yet, some analysts assumed that all of this was all tricks to cover Salim’s expansion. The most recent fact showed that Prima Visualino Inc. held 95,24%, the majority of the shares. Here comes the episode of Salim’s domination over Indosiar.

What about RCTI? The circles of Cendana family were clearly around in the television. Particularly when RCTI, TPI and Global TV were synergized under one giant media company: Media Nusantara Citra, Inc. from Bimantara Citra, Inc.

Bimantara was a company founded in Jakarta in 1981 by Bambang Triatmodjo, the third child of Soeharto, and his two school mates, Rosano Barrack and M. Tachril Sapi’ie.

The fall of Soeharto scattered his children’s business. Together with the father’s chronicles, they were dragged to the courts. Investors avoided busi
ness with them. Bimantara Citra, Ltd also experienced it, as their alleged association with Cendana family – through Bambang Triatmodjo – did not wither whatsoever. Their share price was stagnant. Investors were anxious of pro-Soeharto label. The regime itself was considered anti-democracy, corrupted and involved in murder of thousands of people.

Up to 2001, Bambang Tri held major share, 31, 49%. He used Asriland, Inc.

Such c
ondition actually did not affect Bambang Hary Iswanto Tanoesoedibjo- familiarly called Hary Tanoe, a young Chinese broker from Surabaya. Hary Tanoe, on the other hand, entered the show and became a hero. “Hary Tanoe did not originally come from media. He was a fund manager who knew very well how to distribute money,” said Miladay from KPI.

In 2002, Hary Tanoe took some of Bambang Tri’s shares and directly took over 29,94
% of the shares through Bhakti Investama, Inc. The shares of Asriland shrank to 12,37%. As a result, Bimantara’s shares in stock market increased.

The following years were the years of ups and downs. Asriland used to increase its shares into 14,20%, and Bhakti Investama 37,33%. In 2004, Bahkti Investama held 39,60% of the shares, while Asriland was in its anticlimax, holding only 11,39%. The rest of the shares was held by Almington asset Limited (10,89%), Astoria Development limited (5,59%), Sinarmas Sekuritas Inc (5,41%), Rizki Bukit Abadi Inc (4,51%), and Matra teguh Abadi Inc. (0,78%). The public and cooperatives owned 22,19% of the shares.

Bimantara was the sub-holding company for Bhakti Investama in the sector of media and broadcasting. In order to consolidate the business, they established Media Nusantara Citra Inc. of which 99,99% of its shares was taken by Bimantara Citra. The rest of 0,01% was held by Infokom Elektrindo Inc, the child company of Bimantara Citra. Now the sub-holding of Bhakti Investama held 100% of shares in RCTI and Global TV.

What was the trace of Bimantara in TPI? In the third oldest private television station, Bimantara left 25% of the shares for Siti Hardijanti Rukmana –a.k.a Tutut, the oldest daughter of Soeharto, who previously owned the station.

Artine Utomo, the chief executive operation of TPI told me that Bimantara entered TPI by the request of Tutut two and half years ago. It was Tutut that directly asked Bambang Tri. “This company was almost bankrupt because of debt. Then Bimantara came. It was a rescue operation, although many people thought we did take over the company,” she said.

“So, it was not Bimantara’s taking over?” I asked.

“So it was assumed formerly. We did not know when we decided to enter the television, now it became like this,”

Bimantara also plunged into the business of printed media by launching Trust magazine and appointed Artine as the magazine’s director. In addition, Bimantara also published Genie tabloid and Seputar Indonesia daily.

The expansion did not stop here. The company also owned Trijaya Network Radio Station which superseding Dangdut Radio 97.1 FM., Women Radio 94.3 FM, and Arif Rahman Hakim (ARH) Radio 88.4 FM.

Sari Widuri, the broadcaster of Women Radio, provided her own analysis on this ownership. “MNC is a giant who wanted to take over the media. They seem to consolidate radio and television. The segment of RCTI was made to pair with those of Trijaya and Women Radio. TPI with Dangdut Radio, and Global TV with ARH FM,” she said.

The radio stations were included in MNC Radio Network, of which 95% of the shares were owned by Media Nusantara Citra. The launching of this network on last 7 September was lively broadcasted by RCTI, Global TV and TPI for 90 minutes, as well as by the radio network, including women radio.

The impact of this broadcasting is flood of complaints directed to Indonesian Broadcasting Comission (KPI). “My cellphone inbox was filled by sms of complaint,” Said Milady. The commission argued on broadcasting monopoly. Sinansari Ecip, the vice-chief sent a letter of request for clarification to RCTI.

The reply came a week later. Gilang Iskandar, the deputy corporate of RCTI argued that, first, the show was one time off show, not permanent one, and second, referring to the survey of AC Nielsen, only 20% of audiences watched the show. Global TV 1%, RCTI 12% and TPI 7%.

Similarly, Artine Utomo from TPI stated that “ TPI has been included in MNC for almost two and half years. During the time we only had three or four times joint live shows. Your question refers to anxiety of having uniform shows in televisions? TPI has its own program and segments. So does RCTI and Global TV. You can monitor each station’s News program,” she said explosively.

“Therefore, your anxiety is relevant if such a show is broadcasted each week.”

Miladay refused the arguments of Iskandar and Artine Utomo. She argued that such action was a monopoly. “In Germany, 20% (share of audience) is a sign of monopoly, although it is one time off show. Because of the broadcasting of joint show, the public, for example, could not watch their usual program. Their needs are not accommodated.” She said.

“In Indonsia, however, we have not found the right model. We are looking for the data first. What is their concentration? All rights, they said their audience is 20% of all. What about Trijaya Radio Network? That makes more than 20%,” said Miladay rhetorically.

There is absolutely nothing wrong if a businessman founded television stations. Yet, it became critical when television is used as part of business strategy, as a means to dig more gold. If that is so, then television moves to where money flows.

The difference between television and old newspaper industry lies in the essence of the industry. Ideally, a media company is a public institution, not a social institution that provides donation. It indeed needs to seek for benefit, but still serve public needs in order to – according to Bill Kovach, a thinker on journalism, - “be able to govern itself”.

The televisions in Jakarta tend to act as merely business institutions. When programs on crime were popular, almost all television station competes to present blood on their screen. And when sexuality themed shows gained great rating, all television station produced talk shows and (not funny) comedy on sex and sexuality. Now the trend has shifted to ghost stories, started from myth related reality show to soap operas on after-life realm.

I noted that such soap operas recently dominated prime-time show, from 19.00 to 21.00. Around 20 soap operas with similar themes were aired every week.

RCTI aired “Pintu Hidayah” and “Habibi dan Habibah”. TPI “Rahasia Ilahi” and “Takdir Ilahi”. Trans TV ”Taubat”, ”hidayah” and ”insyaf”. SCTV did not want to be left behind and aired ”Astaghfirullah”, ”Kuasa Ilahi”,”Suratan takdir” and ”Kiamat Sudah Dekat.” ANTV “Jalan ke Surga” and “Nauzubillah Minzalik”. Indosiar “Titipan Ilahi”.

The rating for these soap operas is considerably high. “Rahasia Illahi”, for example, used to reach 14,2 and reach 40% of audience share. “Takdir Ilahi” that was aired next, was able to reach the number of 12 even before its tenth episode was aired. “Taubat”, in less than 2 months, successfully reached 6,4.

Harianto from SCTV Public Relation told me that before airing a program, SCTV considered four criterions: audience share, variation of program, business and need. “These four aspects are related to each other,” he said. “A program may be of high quality, but public may say otherwise. Our Programming division must consider such a matter.”

“Our main consideration before airing a program is whether the market will like it or not,” said Eko Suprianto, the manager of Local Acquisition Programme in Lativi, as cited by Media Indonesia daily.

Public do not have any opportunities to consume various TV shows. Arswendo Atmowiloto, a cineaste, stated “The dumb one here is the management of television station. They are reluctant to provide alternative shows for their audiences. They are not able to explore alternatives, including airing healthy, beneficial and educative programs.”

Arswendo basically stated that these owners of televisions were dumb. Television often becomes the right hand of their owner – businessmen to promote their products.

In Trans TV, for example, we noticed that advertisement of Bank Mega was aired routinely. Esia was often advertised in ANTV, while Trijaya Radio Network, Trust magazine, Genie Tabloid and Seputar Indonesia daily in RCTI-TPI-Global TV. Indosiar routinely put “Gebyar BCA” on the show, referring to Salim Group owned bank.

Lativi is no difference. I used to pay close attention to “TopNews” program in Wednesday, 27 September 2005, midnight. The program included a news-like promotional report of Pasaraya Grande in Blok M. The report showed pictures of retail design, food court, children playground, and interview with Amelia Handayani, the business director of Pasaraya.

Adiences was fed with news on exquisite shopping center. Lativi guided the audiences’ opinion to a comfortable shopping center named Pasaraya Grande. It was not made known to public that the clothes retailer and Lativi belonged to the same group.

It is clearly unfair for television to serve its owner channels for promotion or means for harvesting money. Television had the capacity to invite audiences more than other medias, as it was accessed by most of Indonesian public.

Survei International Foundation for Election System (IFES) revealed, 85% of the people in Indonesia got any information from television. While Media Index Wave 2005 concluded that 92% of the people in Indonesia consumed television, while only 28% read newspapers and 19% magazines.

Where did the power derive from? Clearly from public frequency that was exploited to meet political and economical interest of television owners. Then, what did public get? “If television lied in the hands of businessmen, what remained was only money,” said Miladay.



WIDIYANTO works as an editor of Jentera Law Journal that is published by Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia (Indonesia Centre for Law and Policy Studies). This article was published on Bisnis Indonesia, March 2006.

Acehnese Youngsters: Those Far Away from Home

The night had been half way through, but Zul Asmi was still awake. Many cigarettes were continuously lighted up. The man had been seriously watching a talk show in television on the proposal of law on Aceh. Sometimes he uttered comments or even protests over the debate, sometimes a grunt of dissatisfaction to a friend watching the show with him.

The young man from Kuta Binjei, Julok, East Aceh had always been closely following the update of situation in Aceh. When the disastrous tsunami hit the land in 2004, he directly volunteered himself to provide aid. For 15 days, together with other thousands volunteers, he carried dead bodies, prayed for them according to Islamic tradition and buried them. As a consequence, his study in the Faculty of Law, Indonesia Islamic University (UII) Yogyakarta had been left unattended for a little while.

Going to college in Java island, Zul Asmi had never disengaged himself from Aceh. The skinny young man also formed an organization of students from Aceh, which he named Ikatan Mahasiswa Korban Daerah Operasi Militer Aceh/ The Association of Aceh Military Operation Territory Victim Students (IMKDA).

The organization was small. They borrow a corner in Bale Gading, Aceh Students Residential House in Sagan as their secretariat. Only 14 people become the members, while the organization was structured into two divisions: one on network and the other on education. Asmi was the chairman.

“We initially needed a media to gather all students that became the victim of military operation that got scholarship to go to college free,” he told me.

The program of sending Aceh students to college for free was initiated by Asmi’s college and two other Islamic colleges in Yogyakarta, namely Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta (UMY) and Universitas Ahmad Dahlan (UAD). The program had been providing opportunities for many students (both men and women) from Aceh to go to colleges in Yogyakarta since 1999.

According to SF Marbun, the former Rector Assistant of UII, the program was the form of University’s concern to Aceh. He did not expect to lose a generation at the expense of war between GAM and Indonesia.

“We presented the arguments to the people of Aceh and alim ulamas – religious leaders in Aceh – when the latter intended to meet the members of House of Representative in Jakarta,” Marbun said.

A year after Soeharto fell, the socio-political situation in Indonesia was opened. The people began to gain their freedom of expression, without fearing military torture, jail punishment or abduction.

The ideas of ‘freedom’, ‘referendum’, and ‘federalism’ emerged everywhere, from Irian Jaya to Aceh in the tip of Sumatera.
“Let us work for a better Indonesia, since when it happens, Islam will also gain its grandeur. It is better to do so rather than establishing independent, small countries,” Marbun said.

It was not clear whether it was because of UII’s success in imposing their arguments or of other causes, the meeting; which was attended by 30 alim ulamas and Aceh people figutres; had agreed to provide scholarship for bright, good mannered, but poor because of conflict, Aceh students.

Executing the agreement, UII worked with The Commission for “The Disappeared” and Victims of Violence (Kontras), which selected the candidates of beneficiaries. Kontras was an NGO that concerned to fight for justice for the victim of human rights violence. The institution was founded in Jakarta by Munir, who passed away of poisoned during his air trip to Amsterdam, the Netherlands. State Intelligence was suspected to get involved in this murder case. Although some of the suspects had been dragged to court, many people considered that they only the executors, not the architect.

The activists of Kontras Aceh employed various ways to execute the selection. They put ads in media, printed leaflets, invited journalists to press conferences, designed radio talk show and even directly visited high schools, promoting the scholarship. 30 people were expected to pass the selection every year. Bustami Arifin, te general secretary of Kontras – Aceh at that time was glad to help. The requirements of the program were easy to fulfilled. “He/she (the beneficiary) must be a directly effected victim. The true victim can be their parents,” he said.

Administration business was simple. Just writing letter of willingness and filling forms of parents’ permission.

“So many people were eager to participate, but their school diplomas were unfortunately burnt to ashes,” Bustami said. “We do not accept such candidates as it did not meet the requirements set by the universities.”

In order to check if the candidates truly deserved the scholarship, activists of Kontras – Aceh directly visited their houses. Those who were economically established were dismissed from the list.

“We used to reject one proposal, as the people in question, thanks to our careful checking, had a rich relative owning a big house. This did not meet the requirement,” Bustami said.

The first generation of scholarship beneficiaries comprised of 10 people among 50 tested. The second generation 12, while the third 11. In 2002, the final year of scholarship program, 22 people passed the selection.

Zul Asmi belonged to this last generation.

He took law as his major. The scholarship covered his five years tuition. If he went beyond that span of time, he was supposed to pay his own tuition for the rest of his study time.

The scholarship did not cover daily expenses, however. It was such a luck for Asmi that his older brother sent him some money and the government of Aceh province sometimes offered a hand.

But when these helps came later than he expected, he unwillingly borrowed money from friends. “As soon as the money arrived, I paid the debt,” he said.

On the left side of Bale Gading stood an old house. Huge. Sturdy. The wall was dull. Some people strolled around in front of the building, Aceh women dormitory. One of them was Sitti Halimah. Tall, light skinned, veil wrapped her head, hiding her hair, exposing her face, as Islamic women dress code usually required.

Halimah lived in the dorm. During her four years living in Yogyakarta, not once did she ever go home to Aceh. Sometimes she called her family in Aceh. She took Pshychology, now in her eight semester. Similar to Zul Asmi, she was granted scholarship as the victim of Military Operation Region (DOM).

“My family actually forbade me to leave. Even until now. But I was eager to learn. I thought I had to go to Jogja to study, whatever happened,” she said.

Since Halimah left, her mother had been sick. Depressed.

“My mother should have gone to therapists. It was hard to leave her, as we were very close,” she said.

Separated temporarily from family is likely to be the difficult thing some of scholarship beneficiaries must pass. Parents also seemed to unwillingly let them go. Yet, commitment to study made these Acehnese youngsters stronger.

Muhammad Nasir, a student of Governance Science of Muhamadiyah University Yogyakarta from Idi Cut, East Aceh, was nevertheless not bothered by the feeling of missing family and relatives. His father fully agreed on his leaving, but his mother was a bit anxious.

“I am afraid I cannot see you again,” said Natsir, mimicking her mother.

Yet, the anxiety of Zul Asmi’s parents was more political. They were afraid that their son became the military’s target of operation as he had left Aceh.

“They were afraid that I would be kidnapped, not sent to school,” Asmi said.

Aceh had become the region of military operation for almost a decade; from September 1989 to August 1998. According to the report of Kontras published under the tittle of Aceh Makes Peace with Justice?, 3.430 cases of torture by military, 1.958 cases of missing person, 128 cases of rape, 1.321 cases of murder, and 597 cases of intentional burning occurred during the application of military operation in the regions. All of those cases are ones recorded. There were probably many that were not.

“DOM (Military Operation) had created traumatic experience for Acehnese. The economic was devastated, so was the education,” Asmi said. His father died when he was in the first year of Junior High. His family used to be beaten by the military. His uncle was shot to death, while his brother was shot in his hand, but managed to live.

“I believe DOM is government’s anarchic attitude to its own people, without counting its impacts on humanity and environment. Not many people had known that they were actually robbed by their own country. It was all for the reason of security,” said Halimah whose brother was murdered by GAM because of joining Indonesian Armed Forces.

Although his late brother worked for Indonesia, Halimah strongly detested the Military Operation implemented by Soeharto’s government. According to Halimah, it was better to bring to court those who did wrong. Such a process is better rather than setting war with the opponent.

“It is because of conflict that the people will not grow up healthily. And it is the very conflict that causes the nurturance of the causes of separatism,” she said angrily.

The conflict was less intense between 1999 and 2002. Some of Aceh youngsters were able to go to school again. The program of free school for victims of DOM run smoothly, though the number of beneficiaries never met the intended target.

Unfortunately, the situation in Aceh heated up again during Megawati’s presidency. Megawati was known to be close to the military. She even did less effort to inquire justice for her supporters who died or missed in defending their party office from hoodlums’ raid on 27 July 1996. Megawati decided to re-impose the military operation in Aceh in 2003. The scholarship program was consequently halted. Aceh was torn apart.

“We were disappointed to see the program was devastated. We were really sorry. Kontras has big expectation that this program would sustain, but it depended on the universities,” said Bustami.

I confirmed this to Marbun.

“Please go to the university. I don’t have the same position as before,” he said shortly.


*)Widiyanto is the contributor of Pantau Syndcate. This article used to be published in the syndicate.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Pelatihan Legislative Drafting di Banda Aceh

Selama tujuh hari kemarin, saya meninggalkan Jakarta untuk mengikuti pelatihan perancangan perundang-undangan di Banda Aceh. Ini pelajaran baru buat saya.

Penyelenggara acara itu dari kantor kami (PSHK) bekerja sama dengan satu organisasi sosial Mitra Sejati Perempuan Indonesia (MiSPI). Empat orang trainer dari PSHK, sedang panitia dari MiSPI. Peserta berjumlah sekira 18 orang. Ada birokrat, dosen, komisioner, politikus, aktivis perempuan, polisi, dan pendamping anak.

Pelatihan itu dirancang untuk membuat, menilai dan memperbaiki metode pembuatan perundang-undangan. Ketentuan hukum membolehkan tiap daerah mengeluarkan aturan sendiri. Aturan daerah berada paling dasar struktur hirarki sumber peraturan perundang-undangan. Artinya, ia tak boleh bertentangan dengan sumber hukum di atasnya seperti konstitusi atau UU.

Kesannya mengekang, namun memang demikian ketentuan normatifnya. Bila di daerah lain disebut peraturan daerah, maka di Aceh, aturan lokal dinamai qanun. Istilah ini diambil dari bahasa Arab yang berarti peraturan.

Istilah qanun ini besar kemungkinan ini karena arabisasi yang sedang mekar di Aceh. Jadi hampir semua aspek sosial masyarakat disimbolkan dengan kosakata dan gambar-gambar bernuansa Arab.

Menurut Suraiyya Kamaruzzaman, penerapan Syariat Islam ini merupakan satu rekomendasi solusi konflik Aceh dengan Jakarta. Ini rekomendasi tim penasehat Aceh yang dibentuk oleh Presiden Habibie pada 1999. Tim ini diketuai oleh H. Usman Hasan, seorang tokoh Aceh.

Mulai saat itu, syariatisasi muncul secara massif dan sistematis di Aceh. Perempuan wajib mengenakan jilbab, pegawai pemerintahan berhenti kerja ketika azan terdengar, rumah makan wajib tutup bila ada azan magrib. Dari sisi masyarakat, muncul kelompok-kelompok macam milisi yang bertindak sebagai penegak syariat. Mereka menggebuk, menangkapi, menahan orang-orang yang dituduh melanggar.

Tak kurang dari dua undang-undang tentang Aceh yang kemudian disahkan parlemen Jakarta: UU no 44 tahun 1999 tentang Penyelenggaraan Keistimewaan Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Aceh, dan UU no 37 tahun 2000 tentang Kawasan Perdagangan Bebas dan Pelabuhan Bebas Sabang. Aturan pertama belakangan direvisi ketika zaman pemerintahan Megawati yang memberikan status daerah otonomi buat Aceh.

Dasar diterapkannya qanun dan syariat Islam di Aceh adalah UU no 44 tahun 1999. Praktis sejak itu semua peraturan daerah berganti nama dengan qanun. Pelatihan kemarin hendak menawarkan metodologi dalam perancangan qanun. Ini guna menghindarkan aturan yang tidak operasional. "Antara implementasi dengan hukum itu merupakan satu kesatuan," kata Irfan Hutagalung, salah satu fasilitator.

"Jadi bukan soal implementasinya saja yang bermasalah, namun perlu dicek jangan-jangan aturannya yang bermasalah."

Trainer lantas memberi contoh sebuah perda yang mengatur soal larangan seragam yang sama buat tukang ojek. Ini contoh salah karena yang diatur itu seragam, bukan tukang ojeknya. Subyek harus orang atau lembaga yang disebut secara khusus. Bukan benda mati.

Peserta diminta mengoreksi perda-perda yang salah secara metodologi. Kami harus menunjukkan di mana letak kesalahan dan bagaimana yang benar. Patokannya banyak. Selain dari aspek subyek, ada juga dari kalimat. Kalimat perundang-undangan atau qanun setidaknya mengandung norma wajib atau harus, atau dilarang. Ini penting sebagai penegasan dari prinsip 'siapa melakukan apa'.

Reny Rawasita, trainer yang lain, menyarankan agar perancang menghindari kata-kata yang bermakna sangat umum, seperti demokrasi, pemerintah, atau negara. Kata ini berpotensi menimbulkan perdebatan, dan bermakna abstrak. Kata macam ini perlu dielaborasi lagi sehingga operasional.

Dalam pelatihan itu, kami juga diajari membuat naskah akademis sebagai basis pembuatan aturan. Naskah ini intinya berisi soal analisis masalah sosial yang hendak diatur. Ada faktor sosial, siapa aktor yang terlibat di situ, bagaimana perjalanan sejarah masa lalu masalah sosial, hingga rincian solusi yang ditawarkan.

PSHK menyebut metode ini dengan Metode Pemecahan Masalah, disingkat MPM. Metode ini memakai tujuh alat analisis meliputi aturan (rule), kesempatan (opportunity), sosialisasi (communication), kapasitas (capacity), kepentingan (interest), proses (process), dan pandangan masyarakat (ideology). Kami biasa menyingkatnya dengan ROCCIPI.

Poin penting yang tak saya lupakan bahwa tak semua masalah sosial dapat dipecahkan lewat aturan. Banyak model solusi yang lebih murah dan efektif ketimbang sebuah aturan. Saya setuju dengan hal ini. Alasan saya lainnya karena institusi-institusi sosial dan pemerintahan senantiasa masih dikuasai elit oligarki yang tak merakyat.

Elit membajak institusi atau lembaga-lembaga sosial itu untuk melayani kepentingan mereka. Rakyat masih saja dipinggirkan. Contoh paling hangat ketika politisi Senayan mengesahkan UU Pemilihan Umum, Senin (03/03) lalu.

Dari Aceh saya berkaca.


Note: Saya mengganti titel dari semula 'Pelatihan Legal Drafting' menjadi 'Legislative Drafting'. Penggunaan istilah pertama kurang tepat dilihat dari penamaan.