MARCH 31 — Indonesian TV can be pretty boring.

Spend around one hour watching, and you can pretty much determine which brand has the most money by which advertisement you already want to murder after watching it for the umpteenth time.

So when I was there recently, watching a debate between two vice-presidential candidates seemed like the most natural and most exciting thing to do on a Sunday night, cooped up as I was in the tourism enclave of Nusa Dua in Bali.

It was not like I had much choice.

Advertisement

Almost all local channels were showing the debate between elderly ulama Ma’ruf Amin who is incumbent President Jokowi’s surprise running mate, and fresh-faced Sandiaga Uno who is pairing with returning rival Prabowo Subianto.

To be frank, the debate itself was pretty dull. Many commentators seem to agree that both of them were speaking to their own choirs, rather than challenging each other and promising exciting things should they win.

But what is interesting was the follow-up coverage by local press, from the night itself up to the next day.

Advertisement

There was something for everyone.

If you were one of those keeping track of Sandi’s habit of sipping on lemon-infused water, there were just too many stories to count — much to the chagrin of someone who just discovered the fact, like I was.

CNN Indonesia, for example, dedicated an article on the difference in style between the two men separated by a generation gap. Sandi with his lemon water and notebook, Ma’ruf with his empty desk and sarong.

But much more noticeable than the light stories were dedicated and thorough fact checks of the remarks made by the two, and critical analysis of both candidates’ arguments.

Such fact checking and analyses continued for the 4th round of the presidential debate between Jokowi and Prabowo last night.

Both the debates and coverage were a refreshing taste of the sort of democracy that we could have, if we wish for it.

As it is now, even Pakatan Harapan seems too namby-pamby to commit to such a public dissection.

But a functioning democracy also requires a democratic space, and the freedom for the press to breathe. And freedom of the press comes with a heavy responsibility too.

Nusa Dua, a tourism enclave, located in south-east Bali. — Picture by Zurairi AR
Nusa Dua, a tourism enclave, located in south-east Bali. — Picture by Zurairi AR

I was in Bali for a regional seminar and workshop titled “The Nexus between Freedom of Religion or Belief and Freedom of Expression in South-east Asia”, jointly held by Indonesia’s Journalist Association for Diversity (Sejuk), the International Association of Religion Journalists (IARJ) and Bali’s Institute for Peace and Democracy.

A running thread in many discussions at the seminar seems to be that regardless of one’s belief, a journalist’s first obligation is not merely to the “truth”, but rather “journalistic truth.”

Human Rights Watch’s researcher Andreas Harsono even went as far as suggesting that it is simply futile for journalists to be discussing theological and philosophical truths, as they only lead to endless debates.

Journalists have the opportunity and privilege to help shape discourse that would ensure that freedoms and rights can be enjoyed by everyone, regardless of their backgrounds. To defend the dignity of every person. To give voice to the voiceless, and to not further marginalise the marginalised.

Within this context, Malaysian media may have dropped the ball in ensuring that none of our fellow citizens are racially discriminated against when we failed to deliver quality reporting when it came to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) — arguably resulting in Putrajaya’s refusal to ratify it for now.

Veteran newsman A. Kadir Jasin summed it up nicely in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia’s (Suhakam) meet-the-press session last month when he chided some in the media for emphasising the emotional reactions towards the United Nations treaty.

“It should be discussed in a wiser manner, and rationally to create understanding in society,” said the special adviser on media to the prime minister.

“Media should take a more careful look, instead of reporting emotional and irrational political reactions.”

Not only did some media reports lack the objective comprehension of the issue, but worse, they may have further obfuscated the public and maliciously clouded public comprehension of what is at stake. More often than not, this was intentional, coloured by irrational ethno-religious fervour.

We have the chance to make it right when reporting on the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court. We do not want Malaysia to be known as not only the country that is too cowardly to erase racial discrimination, but also blasé when it comes to genocide and war crimes.

This is especially important as the conversation is being derailed by ill-meaning politicians who have desperately shifted their objections from claiming the Statute will threaten Malay rulers, to Putrajaya sidelining the Agong, to Malaysia losing its sovereignty — as soon as each argument got shut down by facts.

It is not often one gets to hear from someone as distinguished as Vitit Muntarbhorn, a professor emeritus of law who was also formerly a UN special rapporteur and a member of the UN Commissions of Inquiry on Human Rights.

In his lecture at the seminar, Muntarbhorn spoke of a “Positive Circle”, where:

  • Diversity in religion, contributes towards...
  • Diversity in expression, which contributes towards...
  • Diversity in media, which contributes towards...
  • Diversity in gender, which contributes towards other further kinds of diversity...

Resulting in respect of “The Other” in a diverse and plural society.

The role of media here in building a peaceful, inclusive, and just society is immense.

Muntarbhorn’s call to action uses as its buttress the existing UN core human rights conventions, which naturally prompted me to ask him afterwards: “What do you do in a country where most of them have not been ratified?”

“The conventions only serve as guidance,” he replied, grinning.

I have thought much about his reply since, and I take it to mean that one does not have to wait for the conventions to be ratified to start heeding them, just as ratifying does not ensure a State heeds them.

After all, it takes more than ratification to protect and defend our rights.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.