Poor service spoils fervor in land status upgrading plan

By Pandaya and Ida Indawati Khouw

JAKARTA (JP): Unusually large crowds of people clutching files have been massing at land affairs offices throughout Greater Jakarta, jostling each other and openly grumbling about the services. It is as though they have a deadline to beat.

They are city residents who don't want to miss the rare chance to upgrade the legal status of their property from basically state land into personal ownership for legal certainty.

Citizens from all walks of life, from those coming on old motorbikes to those riding in shiny luxurious cars, are willing to spend long hours hanging around the offices where almost no seats are available.

The program that began earlier this year has received enthusiastic response from the public.

Many people arrive at the office as early as 5 a.m. hoping to get a registration number which is available only before 11 a.m., otherwise they may have to wait another week or even months because registration rotates among subdistricts.

The Central Jakarta land affairs office, which has processed over 2,400 applications since the program started, reports that more than 300 people flock there every day to have the status of their land upgraded.

But why the rush?

"We are afraid the policy will be reversed once the minister (in charge of land affairs) is replaced," says Halim, who has a house-shop in Tomang, West Jakarta.

Halim's view reflects the widespread fear of government inconsistencies in introducing policies, especially where land is concerned, as is often the case.

The fear lingers despite State Minister of Land Affairs/chairman of the National Land Agency Hasan Basri Durin's promise that this time the policy will not be repealed and that there is no deadline for applications.

"The government policy on land ownership is now clear. All land in housing areas will be given ownership status," he said on June 12.

Under the old central government policy, land in housing areas was mostly owned by the state. Citizens are permitted to build on the land either to live in or open business.

People acquiring land to build a house (HGB), according to the old rule, are required to apply for a 30-year title, which is extendible for another 20 years. The title for land appropriated for business purposes (HGU), such as building a shop or a factory, is valid for 35 years and is extendible for another 25 years.

Ministerial Decree No. 6/1998, intended to help the less well- to-do, also allows procurement of personal ownership status for a shop-house.

It limits the maximum acreage of a home with personal ownership status to 2,000 square meters, otherwise the property will be given HGU status and treated as such.

But, confusingly, the decree allows people to own a maximum of 5,000 square meters of land on the condition that it consists of more than one plot and the homes are "not located in the same area".

The relatively cheap administrative fees that the government charges are a major attraction too. People seeking ownership status for up to 200 square meters of land are exempt from fees. The fee for a plot between 201 square meters and 600 square meters is set at 2 percent times the area times the value of one square meter of the land, while for a plot between 601 square meter and 2,000 square meter the fee is set at 6 percent times the area times the value of one square meter. The estimated value is determined by the government.

Corrupt practices

Some people are happy with the service, at least for now. Satisfactory service was reported during the beginning of the program early this year when the maximum acreage eligible for ownership upgrading was 200 square meters.

The unprecedented surge in the number of people seeking to upgrade their land status has, predictably, given rise to corrupt practices. Applicants complain about poor service, ununiform rules among districts, inflated fees and omnipresent scalpers.

"The officials have failed to honor their promise to complete my application in a month," said Daya who submitted his registration forms at the West Jakarta land office in Kembangan, on March 23. He had received no response by July 24.

He said he and many other applicants went and checked the announcement board twice a week since April only to find his name wasn't there. He was told to be patient.

At the same office, people who want to get quick service are willing to buy application forms from scalpers for Rp 11,000. The official price is only Rp 7,500. Some reported they were fooled by scalpers who sold registration numbers for between Rp 20,000 and Rp 40,000 each.

"When a man in the crowd shouted and charged that the officials were colluding with scalpers, the bureaucrat declared the numbers invalid and made us queue for registration," an applicant, Lili from Kebon Jeruk, said last week.

Susilowati and Sundari, who were among the crowd in the Central Jakarta land affairs office, said they had been subjected to illegal levies.

"Officials in charge of selling application forms demanded Rp 10,000 for quick service," Sundari said.

Susilowati said she had stood in line for three hours when the registration counter was suddenly closed.

"More employees should have been serving after realizing that the number of applicants would be this huge," she said.

Many are amused by the differences in the amount of fees that each mayoralty has set while they are supposed to be uniform because the program refers to the same ministerial decree.

In West and South Jakarta, some residents who tended to their applications early this year were excited because they spent only between Rp 10,000 and Rp 26,000 for a 200-square-meter plot.

But many less wealthy residents in Bogor, West Java, have been amazed to find the grand total they have to pay: Rp 390,000.

"When I expressed my surprise, the lady behind the counter replied, 'That's it. You want to pay now?'," said M. Salmona, who postponed his application because he considered it too expensive.

Bureaucrats, who have been bombarded with calls for an end to corruption, collusion and nepotism, duck for cover when the alleged poor service is mentioned.