New visa policy ill-timed

Dewi Anggraeni, Journalist, Melbourne

Indonesia is not the only country where state departments appear not to speak to one another. However this inter- departmental autism became acutely obvious when the government announced the presidential decree to revoke the 60-day, free on- arrival visa policy to 48 countries, including Australia, the Netherlands, the USA and other Western European countries, notably where most of Indonesia's much-needed tourists come from.

The country's tourism is reeling from the successive blows of the Bali bombing, the 2003 Gulf War and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), bringing a number of related industries floundering downward as well. There is no doubt they need this decree like a hole in the head.

People may disapprove of allowing the country's economy to be so dependent on tourism, yet in these times of macroeconomic slumping, tourism has played an important role in keeping some sectors going. The hospitality industry is one of the most labor- intensive sectors, and it involves a wide network of supporting businesses, from supplier manufacturers, distribution sub- networks, to various service industries.

Revoking the visa-free facility may, on paper, project a possible jump in revenues for the Immigration Department -- that is, of course assuming the number of tourists remains the same. However, it is unrealistic to expect this to happen.

The costs of the new visa will certainly make holiday-makers from many countries where tourists come from, think twice. Most holiday-makers are ordinary wage-earners who have worked hard during the year and need somewhere stress-free, inexpensive and hopefully welcoming, to spend some time to unwind.

Indonesia is not the only such place offering such a holiday, so, faced with the additional expenditure of a visa, they are likely to turn to other holiday spots, such as Thailand, where the tourism business receives coordinated attention from the government, Singapore or any of the Pacific nations, where the natural surroundings are still pristine.

The Minister for Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra mentioned national security as a reason, saying that a few foreign activists supporting separatist movements had misused their visas. Ironically, this assumption implies that law enforcers in this country are so powerless that a handful of foreigners who may not even speak Indonesian can threaten national security during their 60-day stay, but somehow would be deterred if they had to pay US$40 for 30 days.

Another reason expressed is national pride. Countries who do not reciprocate on the visa-free facility with Indonesia are equated with those who do not respect Indonesia.

This is a moot point. There may indeed be some lack of respect for Indonesia in Australia and Japan, just as there may be in Singapore and Hong Kong, however is this lack of respect a reason for these countries to reciprocate or not to reciprocate with Indonesia on a visa-free arrangement?

Does it mean that Singapore, Hong Kong, Turkey or Chile, which are among those who do extend free visas to Indonesian visitors, respect Indonesia more so than Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Japan, who require visitors from Indonesia to pay for a visa in advance?

Curiously, this revocation of the visa-free facility also affects the government's desperate attempts to try to attract foreign investment into the country to help inject life into the economy. National pride, it seems, does not come into the equation here.

Instead, the picture painted is that one arm of the government is trying to encourage anyone with capital to come and park it in Indonesia while another arm is waving away those who are already bringing revenue into the country. Worse still, as Bali, SARS and Iraq hit, slowing the flow of revenue significantly, instead of taking measures to improve the situation, an obstruction is set up to slow it all down further.

If there is any thought that the measures would screen out some visitors in such a way that only those who spend a lot would come, and the country's tourism would thus be rescued, just one look around might bring some enlightenment.

It is the budget travelers who keep tourism alive in many countries. The big-spenders fly in, spend, an average of five days in five-star hotels, play golf with other tourists, go for shopping sprees in fashionable centers and plazas, and fly out. The budget travelers on the other hand usually stay longer, frequent ordinary businesses and retail outlets, thus getting to know the locals better.

Of course, it can always be argued that the government is entitled to impose visa fees on any country it chooses, whatever the basis for consideration. But with the ailing economy, and the existing tourism industry in need of boosting rather than dismissing, is this the right time?