Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) chairperson Abdul Manan says there has been a sharp rise of cases of violence against journalists in Indonesia – a record 84 during 2020

Manan said that what were referred to as violence against journalists were actions which can be categorised as attempts to obstruct journalists from doing their job.

This, said Manan, was based on the standards on handling cases of violence against journalists as set out by the Indonesian Press Council.

• READ MORE: Media freedom in Indonesia

“It covers various kinds of acts ranging from intimidation, seizure of equipment, deleting photographs, criminalisation, to murder,” Manan told a press conference on Monday.

“These are the categories which can be said to be violence against journalists,” said Manan.

Manan said that based on these categories, AJI had recorded at least 84 cases of violence against journalists throughout Indonesia in 2020, compared with 53 cases in 2019.

The most cases of violence which could be categorised as severe before this occurred in 2016 with 81 cases.

‘Largest number if cases’
“What is more crucial is that this is the largest number of cases of violence [against journalists] monitored by AJI since it began gathering data,” said Manan.

“I think that this is not good news for journalists and the Indonesian press because violence should tend to decline, not the reverse,” he said.

Manan said that considering the spread of cases, the largest number occurred in Jakarta with 17, followed by the East Java cities of Malang with 15 cases and Surabaya with 7 cases.

In terms of the type of cases, Manan said that the majority were intimidation against journalists.

Nevertheless, based on AJI’s records, the next most common type of violation after intimidation was physical violence, damaging equipment and the deletion of photographs and videos.

“If we summarise the incidents that made a big contribution to the quite significant increase in cases of violence against journalists, if we look at the data, then the largest contributor to cases of violence was indeed cases related to the Omnibus Law,” said Manan.

Massive demonstrations
Manan said the massive demonstrations against the recently enacted Omnibus Law on Job Creation by civil society, workers and students in early October, was the largest contributor to cases of violence against journalists.

He said that on October 5 the demonstrations were quite massive and occurred in several parts of the country, which of course journalists covered.

“And it was over this period of demonstrations that [there were many] cases of violence against journalist ranging from intimidation so they wouldn’t report, assault and also damage [to equipment] and seizure of video equipment as well as photographs resulting from reportage,” he said.

Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft News. The original title of the article was “Meningkat, AJI Sebut Terjadi 84 Kasus Kekerasan Terhadap Wartawan Sepanjang 2020”.

Kate Walton wanted to cook klepon and she tweeted it – showing a bag of flour, pandan, coconut etc. – and Indonesians on social media were buzzing!

A white Australian woman in Canberra could make klepon, the pandan-flavored rice balls filled with palm sugar and coated in grated coconut.

She tweeted a photo of her father: “Dad was very impatient for the klepon to cook.”

• READ MORE: Something to hide? Indonesia’s restrictions on media freedom and rights monitoring in Papua
• Indonesian double standards over press freedom endanger safety of Papuan journalists

Walton, 32, speaks fluent Indonesian, writes about Indonesia, has many Indonesian friends, and loves Indonesian food and culture.

She was banned from entering the country she had lived in since 2011 when immigration officials deported her in June 2019 after she was seen taking photos of a street protest in Jakarta.

She left behind her partner and their cats in Jakarta. Walton is not the only one. Several Australian journalists and academics are on the Indonesian government’s visa blacklist, meaning that their decades of research and linguistic skills go to waste.

Immigration officials stopped two others last year. One is Ross Tapsell, an expert on Indonesian media at the Australian National University. And the other is Dave McRae from Melbourne University, a writer on sectarian violence around Lake Poso, Sulawesi.

Social-cultural visas
They traveled to Indonesia on social-cultural visas, rather than on the specific visas required for academic research.

Immigration officials deported a US environmentalist, Phil Jacobson, from Indonesia earlier this year over a visa violation. The authorities detained him for three nights in January 2020, seized his passport, and accused him of using a business visa to work as a journalist in Palangka Raya.

Following the involvement of the US embassy, Jacobson was deported back to the US.

In 2014, the Indonesian authorities convicted Valentine Bourrat and Thomas Dandois, two French journalists from Arte TV, of journalism activities without the appropriate visa and jailed them for 2.5 months in Jayapura, Papua.

In 2015, Rebecca Prosser and Neil Bonner, two British journalists from National Geographic, were jailed for three months on Batam Island, near Singapore, on similar charges.

Every country is entitled to protect its borders, enact immigration laws and regulate visas. But Indonesia’s 2011 Immigration Law is especially harsh.

Any foreigner “who deliberately misuses or engages in activities inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the residence provided to him” can be punished with up to five years in prison and fined up to Rp 500 million (US$35,000).

The law also criminalises “every person who orders or provides an opportunity for foreigners to abuse or engage in activities inconsistent with the intent or purpose of the residence provided to him”.

Meanwhile, getting a journalist visa or a research visa for Indonesia is very complicated.

18 units in ‘clearing house’
Journalists’ applications go to the Foreign Ministry, which will take it to a “clearing house” involving 18 working units from 12 government bodies.

The bodies include the Religious Affairs Ministry, the State Secretariat (the Bureau for International Technical Cooperation), the Tourism and Creative Economy Ministry, the National Police, the Communication and Information Ministry, the Home Ministry, the Law and Human Rights Ministry with two participating units (Immigration and Trafficking of Migrants), the State Intelligence Agency, the Strategic Intelligence Agency and the Coordinating Political Legal and Security Affairs Ministry.

The clearing house serves as a strict gatekeeper, often denying applications outright or simply failing to approve them, placing journalists in a bureaucratic limbo.

At times the process has operated as a de facto ban on foreign journalists. Sensitive subjects that delay or deny applications include Papua, religious freedom, environmental sustainability and LGBT rights.

The clearing house system means any one ministry or bureau has veto power, which generally means that the most media-adverse department carries the day. Foreign researchers also have to go through a rigorous vetting process to get a research permit and then a visa.

It involves a clearing house at the Research and Technology and Higher Education Ministry with representatives from intelligence and security agencies.

The permit process seems to be even stricter now with the 2019 Science and Technology Law, which contains draconian criminal sanctions. The effect of the new law will be to discourage foreign researchers from coming to Indonesia, which would be detrimental to scientific advancement and international collaboration.

Extra sensitive in Papua
In places such as Kalimantan or Papua, officials are extra sensitive when seeing foreigners in their cities. In 2016, when Kate Walton was running a training programme in Timika, Papua, for an international development agency, she was detained and questioned for about five hours, despite having a visa that specified she could work in Papua.

She told me that the immigration officials thought she was “doing research illegally”.

In 2018, immigration and military officials detained and questioned a BBC correspondent, Rebecca Henschke, for 17 hours in Timika even though she had a journalist visa and a travel permit to be in Papua. Exhausted, she and her BBC crew abandoned their reporting plan.

I know Kate Walton, Phil Jacobson and other scholars and journalists well. They may have revealed uncomfortable truths about Indonesia but they also love this country very much.

We need people who will speak the truth. The health of a democracy depends on the quality of its journalism – local, national and international media – and its openness to academic research.

The Indonesian government should reform its laws to simplify the process for journalists and researchers to enter the country.

And in the interim, President Joko Widodo should encourage government officials to allow entry to journalists and academics, even those who have something critical to say about the country.

Andreas Harsono works for Human Rights Watch. He is a founding member of the Alliance of Independent Journalists, also sits on the board of the American Indonesian Exchange Foundation, the binational Fulbright Commission for Indonesia. This article was originally published in thejakartapost.com and is republished by the Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch project with the permission of the author.

The expert 19-member group included researchers, media professionals and human rights defenders forming the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), namely Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Representatives from Timor Leste and Mongolia were also present.

‘Jakarta conclusions’

DW Akademie, an organisation that supports the development of international media, reported the experts agreed on a three-step action plan called the “Jakarta Conclusions” which is aimed to enhance the situation for media in Southeast Asia.

The plan will require the collective efforts of civil society, media organisations and governments.

Jakarta Conclusions Action Plan:

1. Take steps to develop a special regional mechanism to improve the media environment based on existing international and regional models.
2. Create a process to engage the large global Internet intermediaries to address issues of access, accountability, sustainability, and the impact these companies have on media and society.
3. Promote programs to expand media and information literacy at a sufficient scale to have impact at the societal level

1. Develop a regional mechanism for Southeast Asia

DW Akademie’s report stated that Southeast Asia does not have a special rapporteur for freedom of expression – whereas Latin America, Africa and Europe have active and independent representatives who advocate for information, expression and media rights.

Experts expressed that the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights has not pushed for this issue.

Therefore representatives from civil society organisations suggested establishing an informal mechanism in the absence of government support.

But others advocated to continue to push for an official mechanism, pointing out that Southeast Asia could learn from the Arab world which is currently seeking to establish a freedom of expression special rapporteur.

2. Engage the large global Internet intermediaries

DW Akademie reported companies such as Google and Facebook take a large share of online advertising revenue in Southeast Asia but do little to counter the spread of online hate speech, propaganda and disinformation.

Therefore experts suggested encouraging these platforms to develop a pricing system which differentiates between general information and quality journalism.

Maria Ressa, the former CNN lead investigative reporter in Asia said members need to work collectively.

“We need to come together and confront these and other companies with the situation in our region.”

3. Promote programs to expand media and information literacy

The growing importance of media users emphasised the importance of media and information literacy.

Hugo Maria Fernades of the Press Council of Timor Leste  said such programs should enable the population to “actively and consciously” use media.

• Read the detailed report on DW Akademie.

Indonesia is experiencing an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBT sentiment.

If there was a single event that has incited the current wave of violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Indonesia we might settle upon a minister’s affront at LGBT becoming visible in solidarity.

Having been advised of a university-based LGBT support group, Indonesia’s Technology, Research and Higher Education Minister Muhammad Nasir publicly stated in January 2016 that universities must uphold standards of “values and morals” and therefore should not support organisations that promote LGBT activities.

Nasir’s supposed evidence was the existence of the Support Group and Resource Center on Sexuality Studies (SGRC) based at the University of Indonesia—it missed Nasir’s attention that SGRC was not an LGBT organisation and that the LGBT Peer Support group under its auspice was not trying to convert people but provide information to students on such things as sexual health.

The ensuing backlash against the minister’s statement resulted in Nasir stressing that he was not against LGBT and, indeed, that LGBT had the right to join organisations, like every Indonesian citizen.

Nasir further noted, “We are not against LGBTs but the activity … [T]he problem is when they are showing romance, kissing, and making love (in public).”

In other words, Nasir was not concerned about LGBT per se, but rather felt threatened by moves perceived to increase LGBT collective visibility. Similarly, the Speaker of the People’s Consultative Assembly and Chair of the National Mandate Party, Zulkifli Hasan, commented, “As a movement, the existence of LGBT must be opposed. We must limit its room to move. However, as individual people, they must be protected like any other citizen.”

At issue is fear of LGBT being visible in solidarity and, as anthropologist Tom Boellstorff notes, national belonging.

Sanctuary with invisibility
Invisibility has provided many LGBT people in Indonesia with some sanctuary. Invisibility has been achieved by marrying heterosexually, ostensibly reinforcing heteronormativity and being discerning in undertaking political activities.

A few individuals have been staunchly visible and transwomen such as television personality Dorce Gamalama are known by many—indeed, President Joko Widodo has appeared alongside Dorce at public events.

By and large, tolerance, and at times acceptance, has been accorded to LGBT in Indonesia through the community keeping an often reserved profile and through strategic political engagement. Considering this value of invisibility, the event that precipitated the current wave of aggression was unsurprisingly one perceived as an effort to increase a collective profile of LGBT Indonesians.

While homosexuality has never been illegal in Indonesia, persecution of LGBT is not new. Police and extremist Islamist groups, such as the Islamic Defenders Front, have previously targeted LGBT.

In 2013, the Pew Research Centre reported that 93 percent of Indonesians thought homosexuality should not be accepted in Indonesia—a higher percentage than any other Asia-Pacific country surveyed and worryingly close to Nigeria’s score of 98 percent.

We can’t take this figure as reliable though—only 1000 people were surveyed and the framing of the question was loaded towards getting a homophobic response.

While Indonesia is far more accommodating of LGBT than such a figure suggests, homophobia is not new to Indonesia. However, the swiftness and duration of this wave of anti-LGBT sentiment is unprecedented.

Nasir’s comment that universities should not support LGBT activities was reported in inflammatory headlines such as “LGBT not welcome at university”.

Media frenzy
National and international media went into a frenzy, quickly presenting the issue as LGBT being banned from attending university in Indonesia. Buoyed perhaps by the belief that their homophobic sentiments might suddenly get traction and win them support, conservative political ministers and religious leaders weighed in on the debate.

The debate became framed in increasingly polarised and violent terms. In the two months that followed Nasir’s outburst, numerous incendiary statements were issued and actions taken.

Republika, a conservative Islamic publication, ran the headline “LGBT poses serious threat to nation.”

Nahdlatul Ulama, the largest Muslim organisation in Indonesia with possibly 40 million members, stated that non-heterosexual orientation is incompatible with human nature and that LGBT activities must be prohibited by law.

Berliana Kartakusumah, secretary-general of the People’s Conscience Party, claimed: “Being LGBT is an infectious and dangerous disease. LGBT must be banned, like we banned communism and drug trafficking.”

Former communications minister Tifatul Sembiring effectively exhorted his one million Twitter followers to kill any gay people they find.

Direct threat
LGBT were presented as directly threatening Indonesia, with the chair of the commission of the House of Representatives, and the person in charge of defence, foreign affairs, communications, information and intelligence, Mahfudz Siddiq, stating, “LGBT issues can damage national security, identity, culture and the faith of Indonesians.”

Defence Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu described efforts to recognise LGBT rights as an attempt by western nations to undermine Indonesia’s sovereignty and he called the LGBT movement a “proxy war” aimed at brainwashing Indonesians.

Indonesia’s vice-president Jusuf Kalla explicitly rejected UN funding that would support work on ending stigma, discrimination and violence towards LGBT people.

The Indonesian Psychiatrists Association (PDSKJI) classified homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism as mental disorders and issued a statement noting, “We need to promote, prevent, cure and rehabilitate LGBT people.”

PDSKJI member Suzy Yusna Dewi commented that “We really do care about them. What we are worried about is, if left untreated, such sexual tendencies could become a commonly accepted condition in society.”

Following the World Health Organisation’s 1990 lead, Indonesia declassified homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder in 1993, although gender identity disorder remained. PDSKJI’s move to now classify homosexuality as a treatable disorder drew on Indonesia’s Law No.18/2014 on Mental Health and the Mental Disorder Diagnostic Guidelines.

While neither the law nor the guidelines mention LGBT, such omission did not stop PDSKJI from using it as support for framing homosexuals and bisexuals as ‘people with psychiatric problems’ and transgender people as having ‘mental disorders.’ That the law has been prejudicially extended to support this classification of LGBT is deeply concerning.

Radio and television bans
The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission banned radio and television stations from airing any program portraying LGBT behaviour as “normal”. This move was supported by law-makers and others who claimed that such a ban would protect children and teenagers ‘susceptible to duplicating deviant LGBT behaviours’.

Efforts were made by politicians to mandate ‘rehabilitation for every person who has LGBT characteristics’ and prohibit online content viewed as promoting homosexuality.

The fear and anxiety caused by these events forced many in the LGBT community into hiding

While it was reported that the Social Affairs Minister advocated bathing LGBT in boiling water infused with spices to cure homosexuality—she actually thinks this would only work for drug addicts—she promoted spiritual training as a cure. The world’s first Islamic school for transwomen was forced to close. A number of anti-LGBT protests took place while pro-LGBT demonstrations were supressed by police.

The fear and anxiety caused by these events, all of which occurred between January and March 2016, forced many in the LGBT community into hiding. LGBT friends in Indonesia have changed their mobile phone numbers so they cannot be contacted; they have moved out of their boarding houses to undisclosed safe houses; and they have deleted social media postings and unfriended people for fear of being identified and potentially blackmailed.

Police are checking identity cards at LGBT hangouts and detaining those without ID or from out of area. Dede Oetomo, who founded the LGBT rights group GAYa NUSANTARA in 1987, has told employees to stay away from the office for fear of harassment. Forced reclusion means, among other things, that people who need sexual health care and HIV treatment are too afraid to access services.

What is behind the intensity of current unrest? I identify six key converging factors:

First, the perception that LGBT were trying to stake a collective claim on Indonesia precipitated outbursts from high-ranking government and religious leaders.

While for Nasir and others, LGBT are not troublesome individually, as a group they are. The view that LGBT were gaining visible solidarity (under university auspice) provoked homophobic rhetoric and media furore painted the issue as an “LGBT crises”. Notably, the homophobia was not sparked by demands amongst the LGBT community for right to marry or adopt children or to ban discrimination.

Communist association
The timing of the “LGBT crises” has not gone unnoticed with at least one commentator noting that that the furore came about just as revisions were to be made to the anti-corruption law. Moreover, framing LGBT as a movement (gerakan) drew on negative connotations of the term in Indonesia, with its association with communism.

Second, once the fire was stoked, the simmering issue of perceived Indonesian moral decay rose to the surface. Tight social controls under authoritarian President Suharto (1965–98) have given way to an era of reformation, synonymous for some with sexual promiscuity.

The passing of the Pornography Bill in 2008 is one reaction to fears of sexual deviance. The current anti-LGBT movement is an extension of this fear.

Third, increasing religiosity in Indonesia is providing ammunition and support for anti-LGBT rhetoric. While religious freedom is felicitous (e.g. the 2013 revoking of a law prohibiting policewomen from wearing the veil at work), the use of Islam to justify killing LGBT, and the support that such messages are receiving, is deeply concerning.

Fourth, antagonistic relations between Indonesia and the West (primarily Australia in the aftermath of spying allegations and Indonesia’s execution of two Australian prisoners) have fuelled anti-LGBT sentiment. LGBT are framed as a western import threatening Indonesia’s sovereignty and security, a dangerous and erroneous message embraced in many parts of Indonesia.

Fifth, economic disenfranchisement among a younger generation has produced a class of men and women with little outlet for their anger. An easy target for the frustrations of neoconservative youth is the LGBT community.

Sixth, Indonesia’s embrace of social media fostered swift and widespread public engagement in the disputation. Twitter hashtags such as #TolakLGBT (RejectLGBT) quickly trended and reactions to the banning of LGBT emojis provoked comment from across the nation, propelling the debate with extraordinary fervour.

Is there hope for an Indonesia that tolerates, accepts and celebrates its LGBT community? I think so, for three key reasons. First, while much of the LGBT persecution has stemmed from a religious base, the vast majority of Indonesians follow an Islam that is accepting and accommodating of diversity.

Second, even ministers who abhor the LGBT community condemn violence and state that LGBT are part of Indonesia. And third, amidst all the malicious rhetoric and violence, the debate is making LGBT visible in a way not previously possible. There is a community of LGBT and their supporters, both in Indonesia and across the world, and while the community is discrete it is one hard to subdue.

Thanks to Dede Oetomo, Tom Boellstorff, Saskia Wieringa, Nurshabani Katjasungkana and Ben Murtagh for helpful comments and suggestions.