Visa-on-arrival policy proof of lack of vision and consistency

Patrick Guntensperger, Business Consultant, Jakarta, ttpguntensperger@hotmail.com

Now that the new visa-on-arrival policy is in place, it would be worthwhile to consider the policies that led to its implementation. Since the general consensus seems to be that it is an irritant to the travellers from countries it applies to, some reasonable justification must be in order. Presumably there is an overall philosophy that makes it worthwhile.

One way or another, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the new policy will have a negative impact on tourism; this was known when the legislation was drafted and was anticipated when it was enacted into law.

Among the justifications for the policy are security concerns and a need to raise funds to fight terrorism. Diplomatic reciprocity and national pride and dignity have also been cited. However, individually, these rationalizations don't bear up under even casual scrutiny; taken as a whole, they border on the absurd.

Consider, for a moment, the suggestion that adding a US$25 visa fee and restricting a terrorist's stay in Indonesia to 30 days will deter him from acts of international terrorism. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

Raise funds to fight terrorism? Is there a coherent plan in place to allocate the money collected to a special anti-terrorism budget? Is there such a budget? Is there a plan for the expenditure of the relatively paltry sum that would actually find its way into that fund?

Anybody who has had any experience dealing with the various government departments that would be involved could make a reasonable stab at the answers to those questions.

A gesture in support of national pride and dignity is probably closer to the mark when trying to understand the true justification for the new policy. That reasoning is supported (or rationalized) by the concept of diplomatic reciprocity. Once again, the thinking behind that position is flawed.

It is hard, for example, to understand how the interests of national pride are served by adding self-inflicted damage to an already ailing economy.

Does respect for Indonesia increase in the world as the result of a self-destructive little cash grab aimed at the very countries that would be her greatest market for the tourism industry? Are international diplomatic aims achieved by reducing ease of access to citizens of those countries who could be the greatest supporters of a successful Indonesia? In short, what purpose is served by telling potential allies, partners and friends that they are not welcome here?

Perhaps those who enact such legislation can experience a little frisson of national pride, a tiny moment of fierce independence as they figuratively give wealthier nations the middle finger.

Such gestures, however, are best left in the schoolyard, where there is a chance that such conduct will be grown out of. Indonesia deserves better from her leaders.

What is lacking is a coherent overview; a vision of what sort of role Indonesia wants to play on the international stage. As we approach the elections, one of the qualities that voters ought to be looking for in their leaders is the ability to hold such a vision. Rather than a government that hastily enacts stopgap measures, that reacts viscerally or opportunistically to real or perceived slights, Indonesia needs a government with governing principles.

Rather than an administration with no one apparently at the helm and with the branches clearly out of touch with one another, Indonesia needs a leadership that actually leads. And to lead, one must have an idea of where one is going.

Most North Americans couldn't find Indonesia on a map of the world. That's probably true of most Europeans as well. Nonetheless tourists from those continents come to Indonesia and spend billions of Rupiah. Those Rupiah are circulated throughout the economy and represent millions of dollars and Euros and other desperately needed hard currencies that are dumped into this country's economy.

The more uncomfortable we make it for those people to spend their money in Indonesia, the less benefit the country as a whole derives. Tourism, if properly sought and sensitively managed, can be the savior of a struggling economy and, if handled with foresight and vision, has no real downside.

There is nothing inherently undignified in having tourism as a significant economic component. Countries like Monaco and Bermuda do very well with tourism as their only real industry and hardly seem to be degraded by the experience.

Other countries have tourism as a significant industry among many others and survive the humiliation of actively soliciting foreign capital. Switzerland and Australia don't seem to be lacking in national pride while depending to a great extent on the income generated by tourism. To shun tourism as a point of pride would be to shoot oneself in the foot.

A government that creates policies that encourage the foreign visitor to feel welcome, that recognizes that it takes an adventurous tourist to travel to Indonesia these days, and rewards him with memories of a perfect vacation will do far more for Indonesia's dignity and pride than a government that insists on penalizing those who give the country a chance. A government with a coherent and workable vision is needed in Indonesia.