Jakarta - When the idea of replacing metal zinc roofing with clay\ntiles emerged, it appeared to be too minor a technical matter to discuss\nat a national forum. Yet this assumption obscures the reality that the\nissue touches far deeper layers of policy.<\/p>\n
President Prabowo\u2019s concept of \u201cgentrification through roof tiling\u201d\n(gentengisasi), presented at the National Coordination Meeting of\nCentral and Regional Government on February 2, 2026, and linked to the\nASRI Indonesia Movement, quickly became a public talking point. The\nreason is simple yet compelling: the issue directly intersects with\npeople\u2019s everyday experience, is easily visualized, and touches on the\naesthetic dimension of living spaces \u2014 a topic rarely present in fiscal\npolicy discourse.<\/p>\n
Behind its seemingly trivial appearance, gentengisasi actually\ntouches three layers of policy simultaneously. First, quality of life \u2014\nparticularly the comfort and health of housing. Second, the people\u2019s\neconomy \u2014 through the local tile production chain, cooperative\ninvolvement, and material substitution potential. Third, fiscal\ngovernance \u2014 determining who pays, through which budget line, and\npotentially at the cost of sacrificing other programs. This combination\nis what made the idea go viral and sparked lively debate both online and\noffline.<\/p>\n
In brief, gentengisasi can be defined as a national movement to\nreplace metal roofing with tiles, particularly clay tiles, on people\u2019s\nhomes. The government\u2019s stated objectives include improving housing\ncomfort, enhancing environmental aesthetics, and strengthening tourism\nappeal. In various statements, the policy has also been linked to the\ninvolvement of Merah Putih Cooperatives as drivers of production and\ndistribution, as well as encouraging the use of fly ash as a tile mixing\nmaterial. Thus, tiles are positioned not merely as building material but\nalso as an important instrument complementing socioeconomic policy.<\/p>\n
Gentengisasi can actually be read as a quality-of-life improvement\nintervention with relatively limited cost per house but tangible impact.\nIn many hot and humid regions, metal roofing tends to increase indoor\ntemperatures and accelerate material degradation. Clay tiles have more\nstable thermal characteristics, making homes more comfortable. This\ncondition has the potential to reduce the need for air conditioning and\nhousehold electricity consumption, without needing to claim specific\nsavings figures. From this perspective, gentengisasi can be understood\nas a micro-policy whose effects are immediately felt.<\/p>\n
The connection to tourism also has its own logic. Tidy, harmonious,\nand visually clean residential environments signal destination quality,\nespecially in culture and nature-based tourism areas. The government has\neven stated that funding for this program has been calculated and\ndeclared budget-ready.<\/p>\n
However, budget readiness does not automatically answer the most\nfundamental question in public policy: is this program worthy of being a\npriority compared to other equally urgent agendas?<\/p>\n
A critical stance is needed in viewing this policy as a whole. Every\nnational program targeting millions of homes will face three core state\nbudget questions. First, total cost scale \u2014 the result of multiplying\nper-unit cost by the number of targets \u2014 and clarity of funding sources.\nSecond, the disbursement mechanism \u2014 whether through direct grants,\nmaterial subsidies, performance-based Special Allocation Funds, or mixed\nfinancing schemes involving the national budget, regional budgets,\ncooperatives, and the private sector. Third, opportunity cost \u2014 what\nprograms must be delayed or sacrificed when fiscal space is allocated\nfor roof replacement.<\/p>\n
This last question is often missing from popular discourse.\nGentengisasi needs to be objectively compared with development agendas\nthat have more fundamental impact, such as clean water provision,\nsanitation, stunting reduction, damaged school rehabilitation, extreme\npoverty alleviation, and adequate housing provision. Available data\nshows approximately 9.9 million household heads do not yet own their own\nhome. This figure affirms that the national housing issue is not merely\nabout roof quality but also about access to housing.<\/p>\n
This raises the question: does gentengisasi target existing homes as\na form of improvement, or is it part of a broader housing strategy?<\/p>\n
To avoid being trapped in policy symbolism, gentengisasi needs to be\nplaced within the right fiscal design framework. If implemented, this\nprogram should begin with pilot projects in areas with the clearest\nbenefits, such as tourism destination zones or settlements proven to be\nheat-vulnerable. Co-funding schemes need to be developed so the national\nbudget does not bear the entire burden, while encouraging the role of\nregional budgets, cooperatives, and the private sector. Targets must be\nstrictly designed \u2014 for instance, for poor households vulnerable to heat\nor areas with strategic value for tourism.<\/p>\n
Technical and safety aspects must also not be overlooked. Tiles are\nheavier than metal materials and could pose risks in earthquake-prone\nareas if installation does not meet standards. Without quality control\nand clear technical standards, this program risks becoming mere material\ndistribution without guaranteed long-term benefits.<\/p>\n
Gentengisasi, in my belief, is intended as a symbol of the state\u2019s\npresence in the small things directly felt by the people. Nevertheless,\nfinancing through the national budget must still adhere to the principle\nof fiscal prudence \u2014 allocated only when the benefits can be objectively\nmeasured, target groups are precisely identified, and the policy design\ndoes not displace funding from higher-urgency sectors.<\/p>\n
The discourse on gentengisasi should not be trapped in a dichotomy of\nagreement or rejection. What is more fundamental is ensuring the policy\nis placed within a rational, needs-based national development priority\nstructure. Support for such a program remains possible as long as it\nfulfills the prerequisites of outcome-based accountability, has\nmeasurable performance indicators, and demonstrates greater additional\nbenefit compared to alternative budget uses.<\/p>\n
This approach is not a form of resistance to the program but rather\nan effort to ensure that state intervention truly delivers benefits\ncommensurate with the use of the public funds entrusted to it.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/gentrification-and-development-priorities-1771164346", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }