Who owns Senayan complex?

Who owns Senayan complex?

The Jakarta administration's dream to control the Senayan
sports complex, or the Bung Karno sports complex (GBK), is likely
to remain a dream despite the existence of laws that favor the
city's ambitions.

Through its working committee on GBK, the House of
Representatives (DPR) recommended in May that the State
Secretariat review and audit the sports complex management
instead of allowing the city administration to control the
lucrative venue, which covers 279 hectares in one of Jakarta's
prime business areas.

The House concluded that all GBK assets, which belong to the
state but are improperly used, must be returned to the Senayan
Foundation under the auspices of the State Secretariat.

Sutiyoso's disappointment is, in a way, understandable.
According to Law No. 22/1999 on regional autonomy and Law No.
34/1999 on the Jakarta provincial administration, the city is
entitled to control the sports complex, which, after all, is
located within its jurisdiction.

The Bung Karno sports complex, named after Indonesia's first
president Sukarno -- who initiated its construction in 1962 for
the Asian Games IV -- was supposed to be used as a sports venue
and at the same time, function as the city's lungs, or green
area.

However, the complex has been steadily decreasing in area for
financial reasons. Only 49 percent of the 279.1 hectares -- or
102.4 hectares -- is still being used for sports activities. The
remaining 67.52 hectares is occupied by buildings, including the
House of Representatives/People's Consultative Assembly compound,
the Manggala Wana Bhakti, Senior High School (SMU) 24, Graha
Pemuda, the former office of the state minister of youth and
sports, the subdistrict's head office and a community health
center (Puskesmas). The rest of these 109.18 hectares has been
exploited for commercial purposes, which is where the Hilton
Hotel, Hotel Mulia, the Hotel Atlet Century Park, Taman Ria
Senayan, Wisma Fairbanks, Plaza Senayan and -- most recently --
the Senayan Shopping Center, now stand.

It was former president Soeharto, with his Decree No. 4/1984,
who ruled that the government should give no more subsidies to
the sports complex management and allow it to seek its own
funding by commercializing the area.

The decree was subsequently abrogated and replaced by Decree
No. 72/1999, which rules that the management of the complex
should consist of the State Secretariat, the former Ministry of
Youth and Sports and the chairman of the National Sports
Committee (KONI), and that the Jakarta governor and military
chief should be among the members of the board.

The GBK has since benefited from the lease of the property, as
the management boards of all the other, non-sports buildings are
only authorized to use the plot on a contract basis. Plaza
Senayan and Hotel Atlet Century Park, for example, have been
contributing at least Rp 4.5 billion and Rp 4 billion,
respectively, in annual rent to the Bung Karno management.

The city administration has been excluded in the leasing
business, so Sutiyoso's complaint that the sports complex has
made no contribution to the city's revenues is entirely
understandable.

It is thus obvious that the dispute between the city
administration and the State Secretariat over the sports complex
is about money. But if the bottom line is money, then the
complaints aired by the head of the Building Supervisory Agency
about the disappearance of the green areas around the complex
becomes irrelevant.

However, we should raise some skepticism here: Would the Bung
Karno sports complex have remained green if it had been under the
control of the city administration?

In all honesty, it must be acknowledged that the city
administration is notorious for its inconsistency in safeguarding
and protecting green areas. Many open spaces, including public
parks, have been transformed into concrete buildings or gas
stations.

Therefore, there is no guarantee that the city administration
would be able to manage the Senayan complex properly, the
development of which has allegedly been spoiled by collusion,
corruption and nepotism.

The dispute between the city administration and the State
Secretariat has grown into an interesting public issue. The
government should have learned from the dispute, which clearly
indicates that the absence of a special agency or institutions in
charge of state property is at the bottom of many problems.

This situation has led to the chaotic ownership of land and
other property, especially because ministries and state
institutions claim to possess their own land and hence, full
authority over those plots.

The special body, agency or institution -- whatever its name
-- established to keep track of state property shall be entitled
to keep an updated database on them, and thus would be an arbiter
in the case of disputes over state property.

The agency should also have the final authority to decide on
the use of the plots.

We have an Institute of State Personnel Administration, which
has data on civil servants, and the State Logistics Agency
(Bulog), which is authorized to handle the purchase and
distribution of food products. Maybe this is the right time for
the government to consider establishing this special agency for
state property, so as not to prolong the uncertainty about state-
owned lands and buildings in this country.