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