Righting property rights

We doubt most of the demonstrators who took to the streets to protest the presidential regulation on the acquisition of land for infrastructure projects actually read the regulation. Most of the protesters were able to cite just one article from the regulation, and this article led them to accuse President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of enacting the regulation in bad faith.

The single article in question is indeed rather draconian in that it authorizes the president, based on a recommendation from the National Land Agency, to revoke the property ownership rights of anyone who refuses to sell their land for a basic infrastructure project that is in the public's interest.

However, after carefully reading all 24 articles in the presidential regulation and scrutinizing the step-by step process of land acquisition as required by the ruling, it is clear that this one "draconian article" is a last resort that can be taken only after all other avenues and consultations with landowners have been exhausted.

There is nothing new or illegal in the president's authority to revoke the ownership rights of landowners, which is laid down in Law No. 20/1961. The article in the presidential regulation should in fact be welcomed because it makes the procedure for revoking property ownership rights much more transparent.

Presidential Regulation No. 36/2005, which was issued early in May, is based on three main principles: transparency in the process of development for the public interest, honoring property rights and the fair treatment of landowners who surrender their land for basic infrastructure development. This is a good balancing act between honoring property rights and facilitating development.

Transparency is reflected in the articles that stipulate the location of all basic infrastructure projects will be based on spatial plans drawn up by local administrations.

Landowners will be consulted directly regarding the acquisition of their land, and landowners are entitled to appeal to the governor, regent or mayor if an agreement on compensation cannot be reached after 90 days of negotiations. These articles will close the loopholes that in the past have been exploited by land speculators, especially as the regulation also makes it virtually impossible to purchase land already designated for basic infrastructure.

The principle of fairness is established in the provision that the amount of compensation for landowners shall be based minimally on the current taxable value of their land and building/house.

The great concern expressed by many parties, including the National Commission on Human Rights, is that the government could arbitrarily define what is in the public's interest. However, this fear seems a little excessive. The regulation takes pains to prevent any misinterpretation by clearly defining 21 categories of infrastructure that are in the public's interest, ranging from toll roads, dams, ports and religious facilities, to sports venues, parks, power stations and public health centers.

We do not agree with the right commission's view that infrastructure such as toll roads, parks and airports cannot be classified as facilities that are in the public's interest because they only benefit those people who have direct access to them. This is like saying the rights commission, which is funded by taxpayers, does not serve the interests of the public because it only helps those whose human rights have been violated.

Not all of the infrastructure defined in the regulation directly benefits all of the people all of the time, but empirical evidence has shown that good infrastructure such as roads, dams, seaports, airports and power stations is a key driver of economic growth -- hence generating jobs for more people -- and improves access to public services and facilities for the poor.

But land acquisition has become a major obstacle to the construction of infrastructure, and poor infrastructure has impaired the competitiveness of our economy and hindered people's access to public services such as health care, education and markets, thereby hampering poverty alleviation.

It was a wise decision by the limited Cabinet meeting chaired by Vice President Jusuf Kalla on Tuesday to push ahead with implementing the presidential regulation. The challenge is for the government to prove to the critics that land acquisition for infrastructure projects is based on fixed spatial plans, and that the property rights of landowners will be protected. An effective information campaign to educate people about the regulation would help it gain public support.

We believe the inordinate concern over the regulation simply reflects the distrust some people have for the President's economic team and the trauma of the Soeharto era, when the government often trampled on property rights in the name of development.

Given the vital role of basic infrastructure, we must give the Susilo administration the benefit of the doubt.