Land reform answer to urban poor problem

Land reform answer to urban poor problem

Various programs targeted at the urban poor have yet to show
results. Wardah Hafidz of the Urban Poor Consortium (UPC), a non-
governmental organization working with the urban poor, spoke to
The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto on the issue. The UPC recently
held the Asian People's Dialog in various cities in Indonesia.

Question: Has the central government and the Jakarta
administration sufficiently addressed the complaints of the urban
poor?

Answer: There have been no concepts or visions (regarding the
issue). They (the central government and the Jakarta
administration) tend to maintain all the problems (relating to
urban poverty) and exploit the issue to become projects which
involve huge money. Unfortunately there is no clear mechanism in
the usage of the funds.

Some time ago the Jakarta governor distributed Rp 25 million
in poverty alleviation program funds for each subdistrict. But
how should the officials show accountability for the money? There
was no clear ruling on accountability.

The program for people to switch professions has also been
improperly implemented. Asking a becak (pedicab) driver to become
a three-wheeled motorized vehicle (bajaj) driver is not simple.
The officials should have studied and found out what kind of
professions have (adequate job) markets before carrying out the
"change of profession" scheme. In this way the (former) becak
drivers could easily get a new (better) job.

Q: During this political and economic crises what should the
government do to help the poor?

A: The "informal" economic sector needs protection and security.
It should be adapted as an integral part of the national economic
system. Don't classify it as illegal and informal. Why doesn't
the government try to legalize the poor, who are mostly
squatters. The government should make an inventory on land
ownership and take over the use of vacant plots, which have been
neglected by the owners for more than five years.

There must be particular courage to issue certificates for the
plots occupied by squatters. The authorities should not have
evicted them. This could happen only if the government considers
the poor and their informal sector legal.

This is what the government should do if they want to help the
poor -- not by seeking debts and distribute the money without
public control and clear mechanisms of accountability.

The informal sector is a supporting factor to the national
economy system, isn't it?

Q: Can we expect the business circle to help the poor?

A: Businesspeople must cooperate with non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) or other credible institutions which have
adequate and proper field experience in dealing with the poor.
Businesspeople usually don't have time for that, therefore such
cooperation is a must.

Q: Demolishing slum areas and constructing apartment buildings
for former slum dwellers has never been a success in helping the
poor. Why?

A: How could such a maneuver help the poor? The apartments
constructed by developers are too expensive for the poor to buy.

The poor families should be given the opportunity to rent the
apartments. Or the authorities should make plots available for
the poor families and ask them to buy the plots in installments.
During the installment period, the (poor) people could collect
money to build their own houses without the interference of a
developer (which is profit oriented). The poor families could ask
NGOs or other institutions with the design for their houses.

Thailand and India have carried out such a concept
successfully. In India the poor families enjoy such a scheme as
the price of the house they built was one-tenth of the price set
by the developer. The government of Thailand has issued land
certificates for 170,000 poor family heads. The land is located
downtown where the poor families can do their daily businesses
easily. If the land is located in the city outskirts they will
need roads and means of transportation.

What the poor families need is guidance on how to save their
money.

Q: The idea on land reform for urban poor has reportedly also
been implemented successfully in Manila and Rio de Janeiro. Can
the concept be applied in Jakarta, given the attitude of the
bureaucracy toward the poor?

A: The paradigm must be totally changed. So far the Jakarta
administration has thought that the biggest revenues are from the
private sector (businesses) and formal sector. Why doesn't (the
Jakarta administration) consider the informal sector as its
asset, not a burden. The existing paradigm is outdated. Treating
the poor and the informal sector as an asset means that the city
administration takes care of them carefully and does its best to
empower them.

There must be a strong political will at the central
government level. There must be key figures who could assure the
Jakarta administration, which is still in the euphoria of
regional autonomy, about the new policy. The central government
must fully support it. The key figures must be able to make the
Jakarta administration understand and accept the policy.

Q: What's the criteria of being poor? What's the latest figures
of the poor in Jakarta?

A: A very poor family -- with between three and five members --
earns Rp 150,000 per month. An average poor family -- with three
or five members -- earns between Rp 300,000 and Rp 400,000 per
month.

In terms of jobs, the poor work in the informal sector; in
terms of residence, the poor are squatters.

In term of citizenship, they don't have any Jakarta ID cards
and always feel insecure for possible eviction.

The number is between 30 percent and 40 percent of the 9
million people living in the metropolis.

Q: Our Constitution says the state takes care of the poor and
neglected children (Article 34). It also guarantees that any
citizen has the right to jobs and a decent, humane life (Article
27). However, the government has never succeeded in achieving
this. Does this give the poor the right to sue the government for
this?

A: Yes, absolutely. They deserve that. The problem is that the
Constitution has been negated by gubernatorial or provincial
decrees. Paragraph 2, Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees
the citizens jobs and a humane life, but there is a Gubernatorial
decree banning the operation of becak in Jakarta. A gubernatorial
decree can nullify the Constitution in Indonesia.