Interning at Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) reminded me of family dinners at my Italian-Australian grandparents’ house in the late 90s: Cigarettes and instant coffee in the kitchen. Trophies, awards and decorative tissue box in the meeting rooms. And, everybody wanted to feed me. It was truly a dream-come-true for a wannabe foreign correspondence journalist like myself.

But, RRI is far more than just an example of sensational Indonesian hospitality. They’ve made a weighty contribution to Indonesian’s national identity. In many ways, they have mirrored the rapid social progression of their environment. However, the organisation’s legacy is still a huge part of their identity. It defines the spirit with which they approach each passing challenge. The placement taught me about Indonesian history, challenged my beliefs and changed the way I will work cross-culturally forever.

The legacy of building a nation

RRI’s legacy has been shaped and continues to be shaped, by Indonesia’s eventful modern history. Stained by a struggle for independence from colonialism, a period of authoritarian leadership and rapid reformation in recent years.

While in Indonesia, I learnt that half a millennia ago there was no such thing as Indonesia. Instead, there were 17 thousand islands populated by countless cultural and ethnic groups. I didn’t realise how recently Indonesia declared itself a sovereign nation.

Unifying such a diverse population was no small task. A perceived sense of national identity, despite cultural differences, was an important political tool to solidify the infant nation’s unity. Nobody recorded the original declaration of independence. But, 25 days later Sukarno re-stated it for RRI listeners. This was their first broadcast and the recording is the main feature in their lobby.  

These days, privately owned media is the norm. However, this was only given the chance to flourish free from bureaucratic choke-hold in the late 90s. For the first two decades after independence, the state controlled the radio frequencies across the archipelago. RRI and Television Republik Indonesia (TVRI) were the sole broadcasters. Media was seen by the government as a tool to build a nation. 

A fight for press freedom

Kabul Budiono has worked for in state-funded broadcasting since the late seventies. he has Performed numerous roles; from an announcer, to director of RRI.

I walked nervously into TVRI’s head office; it was far more modern than RRI’s. Mr Budiono wore thick-framed glasses, brightly coloured batik and a jovial grin throughout our entire meeting. It was easy to forget I was sitting across from the elected member of TVRI.

Impartiality has always been central to RRI’s official mandate. When Budiono began working for RRI In the late seventies, this was not put into practice.

One election year, the city was bursting at the seams with people and politics. Budiono was a young journalist working in Jakarta. He was forbidden from reporting criticisms of President Suharto and his political party Golkar.

While Suharto won the election, Golkar lost sorely in Papua. Budiono wanted to know why. He contacted academics and pieced together a story. That day, the 1pm state-funded broadcaster criticised a president for the first time in its 25-year history. The Ministry of Information was not impressed. But, “I am still here,” he told me with a satisfied smirk.

Perhaps this could have served as a canary in Suharto’s authoritarian gold-mine. After his regime fell during the Asian Financial Crisis of the late 90s, RRI made the official shift from state to public status. Officially, they now represented the citizens of Indonesia, not merely the President.

Impartial but not at every cost

RRI, as with the rest of the nation, has changed a lot since the 1998 reformation. They now operate in a starkly different political climate.

Since 2002, their independence has been protected by the KPI (Indonesian Broadcasting Commission). According to political scientist Douglas Ramage, “Indonesia has one of the freest media’s in all of South East Asia”.

Several of my colleagues at RRI told me they are free to say whatever they want.

They have a station dedicated to criticising the government (Pro3) and strive to present multiple sides of every argument.

Independence is important. But, so is their national image. Reporters I spoke to see foreign broadcast as an opportunity to showcase Indonesia as more than just the land of tsunamis, earthquakes and the Bali bombings.

On top of that, national security also impacts editorial decisions. Budiono said TVRI and RRI will always be on the same side as the Republic of Indonesia in these matters. “We’re not like the BBC in that way,” he said referencing the British broadcasters stance against the Thatcher government during the Iraq war. 

When I asked Budiono about RRI’s coverage of the pro-independence movement in West Papua he said, “we are free to have an open dialogue. But, if there is a weaponised movement trying to become free from Indonesia, we have to think about the sake of the nation.”

My reflections

RRI and TVRI are no longer governed by the state. However, they possess an entrenched state culture. This seemed fitting considering their crucial role in developing the national psyche. 

However, I’ve been taught to view Journalism as a figure operating primarily to hold those in power accountable; like a final puzzle-piece essential to a picture of a healthy democracy. The memory of my first-year lecturer howling “the fourth estate” in her thick Australian accent is etched in my memory. As a result, I found some of my experiences at RRI challenging. 

Most of the reporting I did was inside air-conditioned hotels and government buildings. I recognise the importance of authoritative sources. But, it seemed strange to spend a morning drinking tea and talking achievements with diplomats, government officials and academics.

But, of course, I didn’t come to Indonesia to have every one of my standing beliefs about Journalism affirmed. I don’t agree with the way RRI does every little thing. But, am I supposed to? Unlike many of the reporters at RRI, I’ve never lived through a period of civil unrest in my country.

Every day journalists at RRI walk a fine line between considering national interest and elevating individuals in their society. It is complex and messy and truly impressive. It requires an attention to social, historical and cultural nuance probably impossible for a foreign journalist.

Working at RRI was an invaluable experience that taught me the impact history and culture has on media. It is an experience I will take with me throughout the rest of my studies and beyond.

Lisa Grace Favazzo is a student living in Melbourne, Australia. This summer she took part in a journalism professional placement program run by the Australian Consortium for In-country Indonesian Studies (ACICIS). Her trip highlights include speaking (terrible) Bahasa Indonesia, eating onde-onde and interning with the countries public radio broadcaster; RRI.

This article was originally posted by The Conversation.

Australia’s trade minister Simon Birmingham and his Indonesian counterpart Enggartiasto Lukita signed the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement on Monday. Only afterwards (as is often the case) did we get to see what was in it.

We might never see an independent assessment of its costs and benefits.

Beforehand the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade released a summary of the good news about increased Australian agricultural and education exports, together with statements of support from export industry representatives.

It said more than 99% of Australian goods exports by value would enter Indonesia duty free or under significantly improved preferential arrangements by 2020. Indonesia will guarantee automatic issue of import permits for key products including live cattle, frozen beef, sheep meat, feed grains, rolled steel coil, citrus products, carrots and potatoes. Australia will immediately eliminate remaining tariffs on Indonesian imports into Australia.

But most deals have winners and losers. The devil is in the detailed text, released only after the ceremony.

Employment rights? The environment?

First, what’s missing. There are no chapters committing both governments to implement basic labour rights and environmental standards as defined in the United Nations agreements, and to prevent them from seeking trade advantages by reducing these rights and standards.

Such chapters are increasingly included in trade deals like the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP-11) encompassing nations including Brunei, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam, and the Australia-EU Free Trade Agreement at present under negotiation.

They acknowledge that trade agreements increase competitive pressures, and are intended to prevent a race to the bottom on labour rights and environmental standards.

The fact they are missing from the Indonesia-Australia agreement shows neither government sees them as a priority.

Extra-national tribunals

The deal does include something else contentious that was included in the Trans-Trans-Pacific Partnership; so-called investor-state dispute settlement clauses, in Chapter 14, Section B.

They give special rights to foreign corporations to bypass local courts and sue governments for millions of dollars in extra-national tribunals if they believe a change in law or policy will harm their investment.

The tobacco giant Philip Morris tried it in 2011 using investor-state dispute settlement provisions in an obscure Australia Hong Kong agreement after it lost a fight against Australia’s plain packaging laws in the High Court. It eventually lost in the international tribunal, although after four years and at the cost to Australia of nearly 40 million dollars.

Temporary migrant workers

Article 12.9 of the Indonesia-Australia agreement will give Indonesia an additional 4,000 temporary working holiday visas, and a commitment over the next three years to negotiate arrangements for more “contractual service providers”.

Unlike permanent migrants, who have the same rights as other workers, temporary workers and contractual service providers are tied to one employer and can be deported if they lose their jobs, and so are vulnerable to exploitation, as shown by recent research.

After signing, the implementing legislation has to be passed by both the Australian and Indonesian parliaments before it can come into force.

And not for some time

In Australia, the next steps are for the treaty to be reviewed by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. But the likely calling of the federal election in April will dissolve this committee. The committee will be reconstituted after the election with the winning party having a majority.

Last year Labor faced a strong backlash from its membership and unions when it supported the implementing legislation for the TPP-11 despite the fact that it was contrary to the then Labor policy.

This led to the adoption of an even stronger policy at its national conference and a draft bill that would apply to both future and existing trade agreements.

It requires independent assessments of the economic, social and environmental impacts of future trade agreements before they are ratified, outlaws investor-state dispute settlement clauses and the removal of labour market testing for temporary workers, mandates labour rights and environmental clauses and requires the renegotiation of non-compliant agreements should Labor win office.R

If the Coalition wins office but not a Senate majority, and Labor implements its policy, a Coalition government could face opposition to ratification of the Indonesia-Australia agreement in the Senate.

If Labor wins government, it will face pressure from its base to implement its policy to conduct an independent assessment and renegotiate the provisions before ratification.

In Indonesia, which has elections in April, the deal could also face a rocky road.

Criticisms of the process led civil society groups to lodge a case which resulted in a ruling by the Indonesian Constitutional Court in November that the Indonesian President cannot approve trade agreements without parliamentary approval.

The opposition parties have been sceptical about the deal. Azam Azman Natawijana, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee overseeing trade, was quoted in The Australian saying he expected the ratification process to be protracted.

Welcome back to Member Spotlight where we introduce you to the personalities behind AIYA. This week, we introduce you to AIYA NSW Socio-Cultural officer, Maddie!

Read More

Welcome back to Member Spotlight where we introduce you to the personalities behind AIYA. This week, we introduce you to AIYA NT President, Bintang!

Read More