NGO Indonesia Morality Watch (IMW).

progresifjaya.co.id, JAKARTA — The West Java Regional Chapter of the NGO Indonesia Morality Watch (IMW) has sharply criticized media coverage alleging patterns of illegal levies (pungli) at various Driver License Administration Units (Satpas) and One-Stop Administration Services Offices (Samsat) across West Java.

An inquiry revealed several reports raising serious allegations against these public service institutions. However, a major question now arises: where is the investigative data?

Did the reporters actually go into the field? Who was interviewed? What documents were examined?

Furthermore, were the accused parties given an opportunity to respond before the news was published?

The label “investigation” must not merely serve as a wrapper for recycling old information—rewriting previously circulated news and constructing a narrative as if it were the result of new journalistic findings.

Edwar, the Chairman of the West Java IMW Chapter stated, that the issue becomes even more serious when the parties mentioned in the reports struggle to secure an opportunity to provide clarification.

If it is true that Satpas or Samsat officials attempted to seek clarification but were ignored, the public will inevitably ask:

What is the purpose of the reporting if the accused party’s right to explain themselves is disregarded? Journalism is not a venue for passing judgment, nor are news reports meant to serve as threatening letters.

“Criticism of public institutions must not devolve into a tool to pressure specific parties. Reports intended to exert pressure constitute the most serious kind of accusation,” Edwar explained to the writer on Saturday, August 15, 2026.

“We are also investigating information regarding alleged demands for money made to the subjects of the reports after publication, in exchange for taking down the stories.”

“If this information is true and can be substantiated, the matter becomes extremely serious,” he added.

This is because, he continued, the line between legitimate journalism and the practice of exploiting news coverage for personal gain is a major issue. The reported allegations must be investigated and substantiated with concrete evidence—including the methods used to gather the information. Was it a staged scenario born of collusion, or did the events actually take place?

“We challenge the online media outlet that reported this to provide a public explanation. If there is video evidence of the alleged extortion, is the person in the video truly a stranger, or are they actually part of the media group that published the story? Furthermore, how was the video of such an incident obtained if the person was unknown? Logically, anyone would be angry at suddenly being filmed,” Edwar further explained.

Edwar continued, by asking whether there had ever been demands for money made to the Satpas or Samsat in connection with such news coverage. Furthermore, were there ever requests for payment in exchange for taking down a story? If no such demands were ever made, they should feel free to publicly deny it and present the facts.

“Don’t hide behind the ‘press’ label while employing methods that damage the image and quality of journalism in Indonesia. Criticizing Satpas and Samsat is certainly legitimate, as is investigating alleged violations. However, press freedom does not exempt one from the obligation to verify information,” he asserted.

According to Edwar, when an individual or institution is accused of wrongdoing, the evidence should speak for itself—not merely a provocative headline. The public also has a right to know whether the reporting truly stems from field investigations or is simply a narrative constructed from outdated information or the writer’s imagination.

“We will continue to scrutinize online media reports attacking Satpas and Samsat in West Java. This includes examining data sources, confirmation processes, field evidence, and information regarding alleged demands for money made after the stories were published,” Edwar said.

He added, that if the reports are indeed accurate, there is no reason to fear disclosing the data. However, if the circulating allegations prove false, the public has a right to know the identity of the writer who published the erroneous information.

This is not a war between media outlets. It comes down to one simple question: where is the journalistic evidence? Where are the press company’s license, editorial office address, and editorial team structure?

We must avoid situations where a single individual claims to own a press company but lacks a license and fails to comply with the regulations and standards set by the Press Council.

Only trash media—outlets that simply buy a cheap domain to publish without adhering to the press regulations enshrined in Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press—would do this. Only cardboard media (illegitimate outlets) would act self-righteously while hiding behind the guise of the press. (Bembo)