Indonesia's controversial visa policy - Calculated move or

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.