Indonesia's controversial visa policy - Calculated move or unnecessary blunder

Joe L. Spartz Business Consultant Jakarta

Many had hoped that Indonesia's restrictive new tourist visa policy would be relegated to the back-burner and discreetly forgotten. However, inspite of deep concerns and well-founded misgivings voiced by the country's long-suffering tourism and hospitality industry, the government nevertheless decided to proceed with its fateful and highly controversial new visa policy on Feb. 1, 2004

Official reasons and justifications for a more restrictive visa policy included security concerns, reciprocal extension of visa facilities as well as raising funds for the government's antiterrorism campaign.

Under the new system, free visa-on-arrival facilities would only be maintained for a number of countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Brunei, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Macao as well as Chile, Peru and Morocco.

Tourist visa-on-arrival facilities, albeit subject to a US$25 visa fee for a 30-day visit, are to be offered to a second category of countries including the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa.

Rationale and criteria used for the selection of countries enjoying "pay-visa-on arrival" facilities however are not clear and can only be described as illogical or outright discriminatory!

How else could it be explained that visitors from 9 out of 15 European Union member states (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Sweden and Greece) along with all other countries would be excluded from "pay-visa-on-arrival" facilities and need to be in possession of regular tourist visas issued by Indonesian embassies abroad prior to their departure.

The existing "visa-on-arrival" policy worked perfectly well in the past and greatly contributed to tourist arrivals totaling five million in 2001.

As a result of SARS, terrorist bombings and other security concerns tourist arrivals in 2003 decreased to only 3.8 million.

Recent surveys carried out by PATA and Casa Grande however predict that tourist arrivals may decrease by another 20 percent or more as a direct result of the government's new visa policy whereas at the same time, the Ministry of Tourism substantially increased its 2004 advertising budget for precisely the opposite reason!

If past history is anything to go by, time-consuming and cumbersome visa processing procedures at Indonesian embassies abroad will be a boon for middle-men and other "facilitation fee" operators.

In many instances, embassy staff can hardly be expected to cope with an avalanche of tourist visa applications and as happened frequently in the past, travel agencies will have to resort to brokers in order to speed up visa processing time.

A Belgian friend of mine living in Paris for instance was recently quoted no less than 120 Euros by a broker for a tourist visa to be issued within one week.

Faced with "invisible" visa expenses and bureaucratic red tape, many would-be visitors are sure to feel less than welcome in Indonesia and opt for hassle-free tourist destinations such as Malaysia or Thailand instead.

Incoming international flights at Soekarno-Hatta are to be processed through three separate immigration lanes and time needed for "pay-on-arrival-visa" handling is estimated at up to five minutes or more per visitor.

Theoretically, this could mean several hours queuing time for unlucky tourists from Germany or France which, after a long flight is not the best way to promote Indonesia as a preferred tourist destination!

Other reasons and justifications as professed by the government for tampering with its present visa policy are either unconvincing or doubtful in the extreme.

Security checks or monitoring of incoming foreigners are best carried on the spot and face-to-face upon arrival by properly trained personnel.

Reasons for reciprocal "free-visa-on-arrival" facilities are equally unrealistic.

Developed countries already facing serious illegal immigration problems cannot be reasonably expected to selectively offer free visa-on-arrival facilities to Indonesian visitors for the sole purpose of easing entry requirements of their own nationals visiting Indonesia.

As far as the professed aim to generate additional visa revenues are concerned, a simple cost-versus-benefit calculation would easily establish the opposite!

Even with additional visa revenues of $100 million, potential damages to the countries tourism and hospitality industry could possibly amount to between five and ten times that amount.

Furthermore, visa issuance and fee collection would inevitably result in additional administrative costs and expenses not to mention possible leakages or mishandling of fees collected.

The imposition visa-on-arrival fees would be perfectly acceptable since foreign embassies in Jakarta are already charging Indonesian applicants visa processing fees in the first place.

All things considered, a more sensible solution would be to entrust international airlines with the collection of visa fees from passengers concerned at the time and place of their embarkation for Indonesia.

Last but not least, bonafide tourists should be allowed to extend their stay beyond the new 30-day limit.

Inspite of its set-backs, Indonesia's tourist business remains an important mainstay of the country's economy and rather than a shot in the arm, the government's ill-advised new visa policy is more likely to be a shot in its back!

As happened with the introduction of Jakarta's new busway system, mayhem and confusion are expected to reign supreme at Soekarno-Hatta on Feb. 1.

The full impact of the new visa policy remains to be seen and only time will tell whether or not an unnecessary blunder has been committed.