Roadside vendors<\/p>\n
This year's Idul Fitri festivities in Jakarta have been
\nobserved solemnly and peacefully. So say the police and other
\ncity officials.<\/p>\n
Indeed, most Jakartans would agree with the assessment, with
\none striking exception -- the roadside vendors and victims of
\nforced demolition. For them, the Islamic holy days were likely
\ncolorless and sorrowful.<\/p>\n
Those whose houses were demolished by the Public Order
\nofficers recently had to observe what was supposed to be a joyful
\ntime, in temporary shelters. Others had to spend their days at
\nthe compound of the National Committee for Human Rights (Komnas
\nHAM) in Central Jakarta.<\/p>\n
The eve of Idul Fitri proved to be a nightmare for some 300
\nroadside vendors in South Jakarta. Officers forced them to vacate
\ntheir trading area beneath the overpass on Jl. Tendean.<\/p>\n
Similar raids also took place elsewhere in South Jakarta
\nincluding Kebayoran Lama, Pondok Labu, Lebak Bulus and Pasar
\nMinggu.<\/p>\n
Many of the helpless vendors burst into tears as they shook
\nhands with one another to celebrate Idul Fitri on Tuesday
\nmorning. They wondered why the clearance operation was conducted
\non the eve of Idul Fitri. It is true that most of the vendors had
\nno legal permit to trade in the area, but was it not possible for
\nthe municipality to allow them to do business for just one or two
\nmore days before evicting them?<\/p>\n
The head of Mampang subdistrict, Herianto, dismissed the
\nvendors' plight by saying that the authorities did not have
\nenough time to delay the demolition and that a warning was not
\nnecessary because the vendors had violated the law by doing
\nbusiness in prohibited areas.<\/p>\n
Most of them have been trying to eke out a living since the
\n1998 economic crisis hit. Local administrations have largely
\nallowed the vendors to operate, but not without telling them that
\nthe administration could ask them to leave any time.<\/p>\n
The authorities appear to have failed to anticipate the
\ndownside of its own policies. The eviction is also a sign that
\nthe heretofore good communications between the administration and
\nthe vendors has broken down.<\/p>\n
Heriyanto said that before Ramadhan, 155 vendors had agreed to
\nmove, and the administration had offered the vendors a spot on
\nthe third floor of the Mampang market building. The vendors
\neventually turned the offer down, believing that the new site
\nwould bring bad luck because the floor belonged to vegetables
\nsellers. Hence, who is to blame?<\/p>\n
There is always an interesting question when it comes to the
\nimplementation of laws, regulations or policies by the
\nadministration: Why did the administration officials allow the
\nvendors to operate in the prohibited areas in the first place?<\/p>\n
It is public knowledge that roadside vendors in several
\nprohibited areas truly thought that they had a legal right to
\noccupy the spots because they paid regular fees to local
\nofficials. One roadside vendor revealed that the amount of money
\nhe had to pay was by no means small.<\/p>\n
Clearly, it would have been easier for the authorities to ban
\nall vendors from operating under overpasses as soon the
\nconstruction was complete. Furthermore, letting vendors operate
\nin such places goes against safety standards.<\/p>\n
Many of the vendors' makeshift kiosks have electricity, and
\nsome vendors even have drilled wells in the area to get water for
\ntheir daily needs.<\/p>\n
From the vehicle traffic point of view, the administration
\nshould know that roadside vendors inevitably create traffic
\nproblems. Unfortunately, the administration - again - failed to
\nanticipate its own incompetence to enforce the relevant law and
\nregulations against the vendors.<\/p>\n
There are many questions we could ask, but there has been no
\nclear or satisfactory explanations.<\/p>\n
Forced demolition seems to be the most expedient option for
\nthe administration in handling the vendors. If this is the case,
\nthe demolition is just an expression of frustration among the
\ncity officials, who have failed to find a comprehensive solution.<\/p>\n
The vendors would likely have abided by the law, that is, if
\nthe law enforcers had enforced it properly, and if the
\nadministration had been consistent and clear in its policies.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the Jakarta administration does not seem to
\nhave a clear idea -- nor has it from the beginning of the vendor
\nissue -- on just how to regulate and manage the roadside vendors.<\/p>\n
Comparative studies in several cities by Jakarta officials
\nhave apparently made no difference in the vision and wisdom
\nneeded to deal with roadside vendors.<\/p>\n
The administration should have prepared itself with an
\nintegrated plan and appropriate steps to deal with roadside
\nvendors. Letting them operate without adequately monitoring their
\nactivities is not suggested, but demolishing their kiosks and
\nkilling their businesses at the height of the holidays is
\ndownright inhumane.<\/p>\n
Criticisms and suggestions have seemingly fallen on deaf ears
\nat the administration, which has set April 2004 as the deadline
\nfor all vendors to leave the areas under the 27 overpasses in
\nJakarta.<\/p>\n
What we have witnessed from the administration can be likened
\nto shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. And then
\n- unfortunately - their solution seems to be to just shoot the
\nhorse.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/roadside-vendors-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}