Privatisation of Umang Island: Between Profit and Public Rights
Privatisation of Umang Island: Between Profit and Public Rights
Kabupaten Pandeglang — News of the offering of Umang Island in Pandeglang for Rp65 billion on a property sales website recently is not merely an ordinary business matter. This phenomenon serves as a loud alarm for our public space sovereignty. Although the management claims it was a unilateral action by a property agent, the reality on the ground reveals deeper problems: administrative disorder and potential illegal control of marine spaces.
The firm action by the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (KKP), which sealed the site in April 2026, is a step that should have been taken long ago. Legally, Indonesian laws clearly state that small islands cannot be privately owned in full, let alone sold and bought. These islands are state assets whose utilisation must meet strict requirements, including obtaining the Approval for the Suitability of Marine Spatial Utilisation Activities (PKKPRL). Without this document, business activities on the island are not only illegal but also potentially damaging to the ecological order and social access for surrounding communities.
The main problem with island privatisation often lies in the loss of public rights. In the name of exclusive luxury tourism, access for local fishermen or the general public to simply pass by or anchor is often restricted. If the state is not present physically through supervision and regulation, our small islands will gradually turn into “small kingdoms” closed off to their own people.
This phenomenon also reveals disparities in the distribution of economic benefits. Instead of becoming a driver of local welfare, exclusive tourism development risks creating economic enclaves—spaces that only benefit a handful of parties. Surrounding communities, who should be the main actors in tourism development, are instead marginalised in terms of access, decent job opportunities, and involvement in decision-making.
Furthermore, the Umang Island issue indicates weaknesses in systemic coastal area governance. This is not the first case, and it is likely not the last. Without serious reforms, similar practices could recur on other small islands in Indonesia. This is dangerous, considering that coastal areas have strategic functions, both ecologically, economically, and in terms of national sovereignty.
Looking ahead, local and central governments must not merely react when cases go viral. A comprehensive audit of all small islands in Banten and Indonesia in general is needed. Transparency in permitting, consistent law enforcement, and involvement of local communities must be top priorities in every coastal area management policy. In addition, the tourism concepts developed need to be directed towards principles of sustainability and inclusivity, not just exclusivity.
The Umang Island conflict must serve as a valuable lesson: that profits from natural beauty must not stand on violations of the law and neglect of public rights. Economic development and safeguarding sovereignty must go hand in hand, without any inch of the homeland being treated as ordinary merchandise. In this context, the state’s bias towards public interests becomes the main key—so that shared living spaces remain the property of all, not just those who can afford to buy them.