Ban on photos at tourist sites
Ban on photos at tourist sites
Deeply disappointed by what happened at Kebun Raya Bogor
(Bogor Botanical Gardens), my guest from New Zealand cut short
his holiday here. He left Jakarta on Aug. 4, 2001 instead of Aug.
11, 2001 (his scheduled departure date).
He is a retired volcanologist who is really keen on nature
study in Indonesia. As a regular visitor to the botanical gardens
since 1987, he had always taken pictures of it as his personal
keepsake and memento, or to be shown to his fellow countrymen.
This year, despite alarming news of riots, he came to
Indonesia with the intention of exploring Bogor and stayed in the
city, starting June 2001. The news of the blooming of
amophopallus titanium in Bogor came as a very pleasant surprise
that made him prolong his stay in the city. He intended to make a
perfect personal video document (not for commercial gain) of his
"dreamed-of flower". (I am saying that this is his dreamed-of
plant because he also has one in his backyard, but of a different
species). Then, he came to Kebun Raya every other day and hung
around for four or five hours to take pictures of it.
On Aug. 3, 2001, he was disappointed because the Botanical
Garden officers (Mr. Yoziumi and another woman officer)
prohibited him from making a video film of the flower, arguing
that he was doing it for commercial gain. They also said that
many other photographers had done the same thing for personal
gain. Despite his efforts to clarify that what he was doing was
purely for his personal use, it was to no avail.
My friend tried to argue with them thus: even if it were
really used for commercial purposes, wouldn't it be for the
benefit of the Botanical Gardens itself? And if many people saw
the pictures, many more people would be interested in going
there. I wonder if such a regulation only exists in Indonesia?
This was his second experience in Indonesia. First, in the
early 1990s, he lodged a protest against a regulation issued by
the authorities at the Borobudur Temple banning visitors from
carrying a video camera and he was happy his protest was
positively responded to by the people concerned.
My questions are: why are things that are detrimental to the
tourism industry still happening here while the country is in
dire need of revenue from this sector? Why has not the Ministry
of Tourism issued a ruling that every tourist is free to take
pictures of tourist objects anywhere in this country, so long as
they do not harm or move them? (The making of commercial films
can sometimes harm or damage tourist objects).
Our government should allow tourists to take pictures of
tourist objects either by a camera or video camera, as it will be
advantageous to the tourism industry.
Is this an example of "mismanagement" in our efforts to
popularize tourist spots and resorts in Indonesia?
PURNOMO
Bekasi, West Java
Deeply disappointed by what happened at Kebun Raya Bogor
(Bogor Botanical Gardens), my guest from New Zealand cut short
his holiday here. He left Jakarta on Aug. 4, 2001 instead of Aug.
11, 2001 (his scheduled departure date).
He is a retired volcanologist who is really keen on nature
study in Indonesia. As a regular visitor to the botanical gardens
since 1987, he had always taken pictures of it as his personal
keepsake and memento, or to be shown to his fellow countrymen.
This year, despite alarming news of riots, he came to
Indonesia with the intention of exploring Bogor and stayed in the
city, starting June 2001. The news of the blooming of
amophopallus titanium in Bogor came as a very pleasant surprise
that made him prolong his stay in the city. He intended to make a
perfect personal video document (not for commercial gain) of his
"dreamed-of flower". (I am saying that this is his dreamed-of
plant because he also has one in his backyard, but of a different
species). Then, he came to Kebun Raya every other day and hung
around for four or five hours to take pictures of it.
On Aug. 3, 2001, he was disappointed because the Botanical
Garden officers (Mr. Yoziumi and another woman officer)
prohibited him from making a video film of the flower, arguing
that he was doing it for commercial gain. They also said that
many other photographers had done the same thing for personal
gain. Despite his efforts to clarify that what he was doing was
purely for his personal use, it was to no avail.
My friend tried to argue with them thus: even if it were
really used for commercial purposes, wouldn't it be for the
benefit of the Botanical Gardens itself? And if many people saw
the pictures, many more people would be interested in going
there. I wonder if such a regulation only exists in Indonesia?
This was his second experience in Indonesia. First, in the
early 1990s, he lodged a protest against a regulation issued by
the authorities at the Borobudur Temple banning visitors from
carrying a video camera and he was happy his protest was
positively responded to by the people concerned.
My questions are: why are things that are detrimental to the
tourism industry still happening here while the country is in
dire need of revenue from this sector? Why has not the Ministry
of Tourism issued a ruling that every tourist is free to take
pictures of tourist objects anywhere in this country, so long as
they do not harm or move them? (The making of commercial films
can sometimes harm or damage tourist objects).
Our government should allow tourists to take pictures of
tourist objects either by a camera or video camera, as it will be
advantageous to the tourism industry.
Is this an example of "mismanagement" in our efforts to
popularize tourist spots and resorts in Indonesia?
PURNOMO
Bekasi, West Java