The concept of freedom of expression can define the fate of a country and an individual. Indonesia’s freedom of expression situation, for example, has come under fire for many reasons. One issue that comes to mind is the media censorship. Though not as closed as North Korea, Indonesia is also not as open as the United States in which people can say whatever they want with reckless abandon. Indonesian journalists are not allowed to harshly criticize authorities such as the military, the police, and the government; criticism directed toward authorities can not only lead to termination of career but can also sometimes lead to the journalists’ demise. Ms Ayu, a journalism student, commented that if lecturers do not teach them the history of Timor Leste and Papua and the killings of Chinese in 1965, then how will students be able to learn to write. Indonesian media has been oppressed for decades. According to Hendardi, a lawyer and chairman of SETARA (the Institute for Democracy and Peace), the combination of the banning of the Tempo magazine, the blacking out of foreign news, and the creation of corporatist journalists organizations for three decades has ultimately created the “society of silence” even in the modern, more open world of journalism in Indonesia. Some media, such as the newspaper Kompas, chooses a safer route, “crab journalism”. Owner of Kompas, Jacob Oetama defines it as going forward when there is no threat and retreating to the hole when there is one (Andre Vltchek, Noam Chomsky, 2012). All of the problems present in Indonesian journalism ultimately boil down to attempts to hide the corruptions and political abuses and to silence the less powerful by the Indonesian authorities.
Another major concern of Indonesia’s situation on freedom of expression is its stance on religious tolerance. Although Indonesia is fundamentally a secular country, with an 87% Muslim population, it is not surprising that there are latent religious, more specifically, Islamic values in its laws and customs. Religion is in fact so deeply rooted in Indonesia that it is a crime to be an atheist (I. E. Putra, 2016). Though exceptions exist, Muslims in indonesia are made up of “pribumi” or native Indonesians, whereas other religions — mostly Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists — are made up of Indonesians of Chinese descent. These combinations more often than not have caused discrimination and hate speech toward minorities, particularly directed at Christians. There have been cases of Islamic extremists burning down Christian churches “two days after a mob lynched three alleged heretics,” (Trevor Grundy, 2011). It is a public secret in Indonesia that Muslim extremists do not like Christians out of fear that Christians will spread their religion, replacing Islam. Muslim clerics have abused their free speech to control the masses. The most prominent case in the past year relating to religious freedom and blasphemy is the impeachment of Chinese-Christian ex-governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, or more commonly referred to as Ahok in. Since his rise as a vice governor in Jakarta, Islamic leaders, Rhoma Irama, a prominent cleric, for instance, have thrown statements such as “If Ahok who is a non-indigenous becomes a Governor of Jakarta which is the capital city of Indonesia, then the nation’s dignity is degraded and ripped apart,” (I. E. Putra, 2016). Rhoma Irama’s comment can be seen as a racist statement as directed not only to Ahok but also to upcoming non-indegenous (i.e. Chinese Indonesian) governors. During his campaign for reelection, Ahok once stated that the “his opponents had used a Qur’anic verse to trick people into voting against him,” (Kate Lamb, 2017) This comment sparked outrage, as hardline Muslims said that Ahok had insulted the holy scripture. The outrage then led to the two year imprisonment of Basuki Tjahaja Purnama. This case of religious blasphemy has once again sparked debate of Indonesia’s religious freedom and freedom of speech. The Indonesian motto “Bhinneka Tunggal Ika” which means “Unity in Diversity” is questioned upon; does the saying still holds if a voice is punished if it is a criticism of the majority by the minority?