Jakarta's anti-migrant stance is illogical and inappropriate
Jakarta's anti-migrant stance is illogical and inappropriate
Tigor Azas Nainggolan, Chairman, Jakarta Residence Forum (Fakta),
Jakarta
The Jakarta provincial administration and the City Council are
preparing a draft regional regulation on population and civil
registration to control the influx of people from other regions,
which reaches no less than 250,000 people annually, in view of
the increasing population density in Jakarta.
Only a small number of the migrants are employed in the formal
sector, leaving the rest to struggle to find work in the informal
sector as housemaids, street vendors, traditional market sellers,
pedicab drivers and scavengers, to mention a few.
These workers are seen as a problem for Jakarta's development
for their alleged violation of Regional Regulation No.11/1988 on
public order. The stigma of being the source of urban poverty and
development problems has been attached to them, thus justifying
their expulsion.
Jakarta has thus deemed it necessary to introduce a new
regulation on poulation to prevent the influx of outsiders. The
rule will stipulate that Jakarta citizens are only those who
possess local identity cards (KTP) and have registered themselves
with the regional administration. Newcomers will be allowed only
14 days to obtain a KTP and registration. Any illegals staying
beyond this period will be expelled.
The question arises whether the argument to prevent migrants
from entering the city is valid and if the new regulation is
really necessary. Or is this move merely intended to cover up the
regional administration's incompetence in providing services to
the public and the weakness of its public order regulation so far
used to expel its own citizens?
According to data from the Central Board of Statistics (BPS)
in 1995, the net migration rate from this metropolis in the
previous five years was 7.87 percent, with 1,222,800 people
leaving Jakarta as against only 505,501 entering the city. During
the period of 1990-2000 Jakarta's population increased
considerably due to births, not newcomers. The 1.13 percent
annual growth in South Jakarta, for instance, comprised 1.09
percent birth rate and 0.04 percent migration.
The BPS figures even put Jakarta below other provinces on the
annual average population growth list except Maluku and North
Maluku, with only 0.17 percent, still lower than the national
average of 1.49 percent. This growth decline since 1980 is
estimated to continue.
The BPS data leads us to conclude that there has been no
increase in the number of migrants entering Jakarta so far. At
the same time the figures indicate the provincial
administration's lack of accurate data on which its operational
policy must be based. Consequently, it has failed to draw up the
right programs for its citizens, forcing it to proceed with
untenable arguments, eviction and expulsion as well as public
deception, without offering any concrete policy to enhance
Jakarta's capacity to accommodate a larger population.
Meanwhile, the crime rate has also served as an excuse for the
administration to close the city, making the public order
operation code named operasi yustisi a mere slogan and a move to
legitimize eviction drives. No correct information has been
provided, let alone accurate data, on criminal offenses committed
by migrants. This indicates that crimes are used to justify the
population law and projects and operations worth over Rp 100
billion a year from the city's budget.
Further, are the Jakarta citizens from other regions a problem
or a potential force for development? Based on results of a
Jakarta BPS sidewalk vendor census in April 2001 and May 2001,
about 107,940 vendors were recorded. They have so far paid
illegal levies ranging from Rp 7,000 to Rp 10,000 daily or Rp
210,000 to Rp 300,000 monthly to the Jakarta government through
henchmen, which is not being transferred to the regional
treasury. The 107,940 vendors therefore spend roughly between Rp
22.6 billion and Rp 32.3 billion a month or between Rp 272
billion and Rp 388 billion a year for regional officials and
their men.
The above illustration shows that the migrants would obviously
constitute a potential source of income of at least Rp 272
billion and Rp 388 billion per annum for the Jakarta provincial
administration, if their presence is recognized and the public
order regulation revoked. There is no need to spend hundreds of
billions of rupiah a year from the regional budget on eviction
drives either. And the amount of money saved will be bigger if
contributions from the other informal workers like pedicab
drivers, market sellers and scavengers are calculated.
Thus all the arguments to support the need for a new regional
regulation on population are illogical and inappropriate. They
are only meant to cover up the incapability of developing Jakarta
to allow more space particularly for the urban poor. Preventing
newcomers from coming to Jakarta implies restricting citizens'
mobility in their own country -- a practice of colonizers.
Similarly, the KTP should serve to facilitate the movement of
citizens instead of controlling and restricting their mobility.
Unless the Jakarta provincial government wishes to be branded
a colonizer of its own citizens, it should cancel the plan to
enforce the new population regulation and revoke existing
regulation No. 11/1988. Instead, it should introduce a regulation
to provide facilities for the mobility of its citizens and to
guarantee clean regional governance. Controlling the movement of
citizens and escalating their eviction only reflects the behavior
of colonizers and an infringement of human rights.