Who owns Senayan complex?<\/p>\n
The Jakarta administration's dream to control the Senayan
\nsports complex, or the Bung Karno sports complex (GBK), is likely
\nto remain a dream despite the existence of laws that favor the
\ncity's ambitions.<\/p>\n
Through its working committee on GBK, the House of
\nRepresentatives (DPR) recommended in May that the State
\nSecretariat review and audit the sports complex management
\ninstead of allowing the city administration to control the
\nlucrative venue, which covers 279 hectares in one of Jakarta's
\nprime business areas.<\/p>\n
The House concluded that all GBK assets, which belong to the
\nstate but are improperly used, must be returned to the Senayan
\nFoundation under the auspices of the State Secretariat.<\/p>\n
Sutiyoso's disappointment is, in a way, understandable.
\nAccording to Law No. 22\/1999 on regional autonomy and Law No.
\n34\/1999 on the Jakarta provincial administration, the city is
\nentitled to control the sports complex, which, after all, is
\nlocated within its jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
The Bung Karno sports complex, named after Indonesia's first
\npresident Sukarno -- who initiated its construction in 1962 for
\nthe Asian Games IV -- was supposed to be used as a sports venue
\nand at the same time, function as the city's lungs, or green
\narea.<\/p>\n
However, the complex has been steadily decreasing in area for
\nfinancial reasons. Only 49 percent of the 279.1 hectares -- or
\n102.4 hectares -- is still being used for sports activities. The
\nremaining 67.52 hectares is occupied by buildings, including the
\nHouse of Representatives\/People's Consultative Assembly compound,
\nthe Manggala Wana Bhakti, Senior High School (SMU) 24, Graha
\nPemuda, the former office of the state minister of youth and
\nsports, the subdistrict's head office and a community health
\ncenter (Puskesmas). The rest of these 109.18 hectares has been
\nexploited for commercial purposes, which is where the Hilton
\nHotel, Hotel Mulia, the Hotel Atlet Century Park, Taman Ria
\nSenayan, Wisma Fairbanks, Plaza Senayan and -- most recently --
\nthe Senayan Shopping Center, now stand.<\/p>\n
It was former president Soeharto, with his Decree No. 4\/1984,
\nwho ruled that the government should give no more subsidies to
\nthe sports complex management and allow it to seek its own
\nfunding by commercializing the area.<\/p>\n
The decree was subsequently abrogated and replaced by Decree
\nNo. 72\/1999, which rules that the management of the complex
\nshould consist of the State Secretariat, the former Ministry of
\nYouth and Sports and the chairman of the National Sports
\nCommittee (KONI), and that the Jakarta governor and military
\nchief should be among the members of the board.<\/p>\n
The GBK has since benefited from the lease of the property, as
\nthe management boards of all the other, non-sports buildings are
\nonly authorized to use the plot on a contract basis. Plaza
\nSenayan and Hotel Atlet Century Park, for example, have been
\ncontributing at least Rp 4.5 billion and Rp 4 billion,
\nrespectively, in annual rent to the Bung Karno management.<\/p>\n
The city administration has been excluded in the leasing
\nbusiness, so Sutiyoso's complaint that the sports complex has
\nmade no contribution to the city's revenues is entirely
\nunderstandable.<\/p>\n
It is thus obvious that the dispute between the city
\nadministration and the State Secretariat over the sports complex
\nis about money. But if the bottom line is money, then the
\ncomplaints aired by the head of the Building Supervisory Agency
\nabout the disappearance of the green areas around the complex
\nbecomes irrelevant.<\/p>\n
However, we should raise some skepticism here: Would the Bung
\nKarno sports complex have remained green if it had been under the
\ncontrol of the city administration?<\/p>\n
In all honesty, it must be acknowledged that the city
\nadministration is notorious for its inconsistency in safeguarding
\nand protecting green areas. Many open spaces, including public
\nparks, have been transformed into concrete buildings or gas
\nstations.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no guarantee that the city administration
\nwould be able to manage the Senayan complex properly, the
\ndevelopment of which has allegedly been spoiled by collusion,
\ncorruption and nepotism.<\/p>\n
The dispute between the city administration and the State
\nSecretariat has grown into an interesting public issue. The
\ngovernment should have learned from the dispute, which clearly
\nindicates that the absence of a special agency or institutions in
\ncharge of state property is at the bottom of many problems.<\/p>\n
This situation has led to the chaotic ownership of land and
\nother property, especially because ministries and state
\ninstitutions claim to possess their own land and hence, full
\nauthority over those plots.<\/p>\n
The special body, agency or institution -- whatever its name
\n-- established to keep track of state property shall be entitled
\nto keep an updated database on them, and thus would be an arbiter
\nin the case of disputes over state property.<\/p>\n
The agency should also have the final authority to decide on
\nthe use of the plots.<\/p>\n
We have an Institute of State Personnel Administration, which
\nhas data on civil servants, and the State Logistics Agency
\n(Bulog), which is authorized to handle the purchase and
\ndistribution of food products. Maybe this is the right time for
\nthe government to consider establishing this special agency for
\nstate property, so as not to prolong the uncertainty about state-
\nowned lands and buildings in this country.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/who-owns-senayan-complex-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}