Forced eviction, homelessness and the right to housing in Indonesia

Paper presented to the International Conference on Homelessness, New Delhi 9-13 January 2006

Tjahjono Rahardjo

Post Graduate Programme on Environment and Urban Studies

Soegijapranata Catholic University

Abstract

To promote economic growth and attract investments while maintaining political stability Indonesia’s repressive New Order regime suppressed the rights of workers. Strikes were outlawed and anyone who questioned the government’s policy was dealt with severely.

The same approach was also applied in the management of cities. Many people had to give up their land and homes, often without any (or with very little) compensation, when the authorities declared that these were needed for “development” purposes, which in practice, however, meant that they were going to be used for more economically profitable purposes. As in the case of labour, any resistance was seen as disturbing the public order and were not tolerated. As a result many people were rendered literary homeless.

The fall of Suharto following the devastating financial crisis in 1997 brought about fundamental changes in Indonesian. On the one hand Indonesia was able to hold a truly democratic election, the first in 44 years; its press has enjoyed a much greater freedom then those in most countries in the region. On the other hand, however, Indonesia has not been able to curb the rampant corruption that has given it the dubious reputation of one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

This paper would like to see what influences the current changes have had on the housing situation of the poor. Furthermore, it would like to argue that the poor housing condition in Indonesia, is not only caused by poverty, as in many countries, but, more seriously, by the disregard of the people’s right to housing.

Keywords: Indonesia, forced eviction, right to housing, homelessness

FORCED EVICTION: PAST AND PRESENT

The basic policy of General Suharto’s New Order government was to promote economic growth while maintaining political stability. Under this policy the rights of workers were suppressed for the sake of attracting investments, many of which were closely connected to the ruling elite. Strikes were outlawed and anyone who questioned this policy was dealt with severely (Budiman, 1993).

The same approach was also applied in the management of cities. Many people had to give up their land and homes, in most cases without any (or with very little) compensation, when the authorities declared that these lands were needed for “development” purposes, which in practice, however, meant that they were going to be used for more economically profitable purposes. As in the case of labour, any resistance was seen as disturbing the public order and were not tolerated. As a result many people were rendered literary homeless.

Following the Asian economic crisis, in which Indonesia was the worst hit, Suharto was forced to step down in May 1998 after only serving one month in his seventh term as president. In 1999 Indonesia embarked on its tortuous road towards becoming a democracy and carried out it first truly democratic parliamentary election in 44 years. In October 2004 Indonesia held the first direct presidential election in its history, which put Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in office.

Although since the demise of Suharto’s repressive regime Indonesia is supposed to be on its way towards becoming a democracy, forced evictions have not stopped and in fact still occur on a massive scale[1]. In 2003 the Centre on Housing Rights and Eviction (COHRE) picked out Indonesia, followed by Guatemala and Serbia & Montenegro, as being the country with the highest forced eviction incidence (COHRE, 2003). COHRE has estimated that in Jakarta, where most of the displacements in Indonesia have taken place, between 2000 and 2005 more than 92 thousand people have been forcefully evicted from their homes, while another 1.5 million people are in constant danger of being evicted. In addition about 23,000 becak (pedicab) drivers and 62,000 sidewalk vendors have been banned and displaced from their respective work places.

The Report of the International Fact Finding Mission on State Violence against the Poor in Jakarta[2] informs that between January and October 2001 some 5,785 houses in Jakarta were demolished, making more than 23,000 people homeless. In October 2001 alone 2,470 families lost their homes due to forced eviction, (premeditated) arson or a combination of both (Anonymous, 2001). Because of their supposedly illegal status no compensations were given to the victims. Ironically, despite its record in human right violation, i.e. the right to adequate housing, the city of Jakarta received the UN Habitat Scroll of Honour of 2005, a decision that has been questioned and even challenged by many people and organisations.

Such cases are not just found in Jakarta. In Semarang, for example, residents in the village of Karanganyar in Ngaliyan sub-district were evicted in from their land in 1976. They had held the land for generations under customary law. Corrupt officials who were in the pay of a private housing developer tricked them to surrender their land. The developer, however, failed to build any houses and eventually was declared bankrupt. In 2002 some of the people tried to move back and build their houses on the land[3]. Within a month unidentified thugs demolished the houses, while the police who were present only looked. Later, however, the police detained and questioned some of the victims and accused them of illegal occupation (Septiviant, 2003).

The Urban Poor Consortium (UPC) (2005) has calculated that between 2000 and 2005 in Indonesian cities a total of 95,470 people, or about 19,000 households, have been evicted from their homes and rendered homeless. This figure does not include those who became homeless as a result of arm conflicts (such as the hostilities in Aceh and Papua), and natural disasters (such as the devastating tsunami that hit the northern part of Sumatra in December 2004).

In January 2005, less than a month after the tsunami disaster in northern Sumatra, the Indonesia Infrastructure Summit was held in Jakarta. Delegates representing nineteen different countries as well as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank as well as the Indonesian government and private sector attended the meeting. At the end of the summit the Declaration of Action on Developing Infrastructure and Public Private Partnership was signed by the representatives of the respective delegates.

At the summit the Indonesian government made it known that it needed investments to improve and develop its infrastructure amounting to a total of IDR 1,305,000,000,000,000[4]. To begin with, the Indonesian government invited investments for 91 projects having a total value of IDR 205,500,000,000,000. In return the Indonesian government promised to issue 14 new regulations to meet the needs of the investors.

One of the new regulations passed is the Peraturan Presiden (President Regulation) 36/2005 on land acquisition. The issuance of this regulation was immediately followed by widespread criticisms and protests. This regulation is seen as repressive and totalitarian as it makes it possible for the government to arbitrarily and forcefully expropriate land, now in the name of “public interest” instead of for the sake of “development” (www.walhi.or.id/kampanye/psda/050728_perprerstnh_kp/). It is seen as very much favouring large private investors at the expense of the people.

The new regulation, which is seen by many as being even harsher than an earlier regulation that it replaced that was enacted by the Suharto regime, states that compensations will be decided through negotiations mediated by a committee set up by the government. It states further, however, that if within 90 days no agreement has been reached the committee can arbitrarily set the amount of compensation.

Most of those against the new regulation see that the negotiation process itself is inherently unfair, as the committee’s status as a body formed by the government would naturally raise questions about its impartiality; it is suspected that it would be inclined to act more in the government’s interest instead of the people’s. With a government bureaucracy that is notoriously corrupt (Rahardjo, 2000) this would, in turn, mean that the interests of large, financially powerful private investors would prevail[5]. Meanwhile, the right of the other parties in the negotiations to be accompanied by a lawyer is not even clearly stated in the regulation (Gofar, 2005).

According to Chalid Muhammad, executive director of the Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI), a leading Indonesian NGO as quoted in Kompas Daily (10 June 2005), the regulation will in effect legalise forced eviction; It would have the potentials of causing wide spread human rights abuse as it will make it much more easier for the government to forcefully evict people from their lands and homes. Even without the President Regulation eviction is already widely practiced in Indonesia; the new regulation will give the government an even stronger basis for continuing such practices (Gofar, 2005) and many more people would be made homeless.

HOMELESSNESS IN INDONESIA

The Report on strategies to combat homelessness (UNCHS, 2000) classifies the following

circumstances as being in the category of homelessness:

1. Rough sleepers
2. Pavement dwellers
3. Occupants of shelters
4. Occupants of institutions
5. Occupants of unserviced housing
6. Occupants of poorly constructed and insecure housing (vulnerable sites, precarious tenancy)
7. Sharers
8. Occupants of housing of unsuitable cost
9. Occupants of mobile homes
10. Occupants of refugee and other emergency camps
11. Itinerant groups (nomads, gypsies)

The report, however, acknowledges that not all of these categories would be regarded as homelessness in all parts of the world. Though Indonesia, for example, does not yet have any official definition for homelessness[6], the national census of 2000 has categorised people into two groups: those having a permanent place to stay (mempunyai tempat tinggal tetap) and those not having a permanent place to stay (tidak mempunyai tempat tinggal tetap). Included in the second category are residents of so-called illegal settlements (permukiman liar) as well as nomadic communities and boat crewmembers[7].

Following the census grouping, only rough sleepers (category 1), pavement dwellers (category 2), occupants of insecure housing (in the sense of precarious tenancy) (category 6), occupants of refugee and emergency camps (category 10), and itinerant groups (category 11) of the above list would be regarded as being homeless in the Indonesian context.

For the purpose of this paper homeless people would be defined as adults (in contrast to street children) who are living permanently on the street, and those living in settlements categorised as “illegal”. This would include residents living in permukiman liar as well as the more obviously homeless tunawisma (rough sleepers as well as pavement dwellers). Occupants of refugees and emergency camps do exist in Indonesia as a result of the various natural disasters and political and ethnic conflicts that have broken out in the country. However, because they are a very special case and their problems much too complex compared to other categories of homelessness they would not be discussed here.

While the street homeless live under bridges, in the shade of large trees, or in abandoned buildings, permukiman liars are located on riverbanks, along drainage canals, along railway tracks and in station yards, and near market places. The residents of permukiman liar settlements build their dwellings out of used non-durable material such as cardboard, plastic sheets, pieces of wood and scrap metal. In some cases, however, one can find some dwellings that have been reasonably up-graded.

The majority of people who actually live on the street, those who live under bridges, in the shade of large trees or under overhangs of buildings more or less share the same characteristics of those living in permukiman liar. Their dwellings might be less permanent, but they work in the same informal occupations such as rubbish collectors, itinerant vendors, becak (pedicab) drivers, construction workers and other unskilled occupation, although some street homeless do make their livings by begging.

Both squatters and street homeless people are often subject to raids. The more violent evictions usually happen to squatters because usually it involves the sensitive issue of land ownership. The occupants usually refuse to be removed on the ground that they have been living there long before the land had any commercial value.

The more peaceful raids towards street homeless people are carried out because they are thought to be creating a nuisance or - using an expression often used by city officials and planners - ‘disturb the attractiveness of the city’. The street homeless, unlike the squatters, usually do not resist. They see their displacement as temporary (such as when there is a visiting dignitary or a national day celebration). After things have returned to ‘normal’ they are usually allowed to come back again to their old places. For the residents of permukiman liar, however, it is impossible to return because their settlements have been taken over by other users.

THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING

The right to adequate housing is recognised in a number of international legal instruments. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), for example states that:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control” (UDHR, article 25(1)).

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right (ICESCR) (1966), requires States to respect, protect and fulfil the contents of the following article:

“The States parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The State Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-cooperation based on free consent” (ICESCR, article 11(1)).

Other international human right instruments which enshrine and protect housing rights include the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1959), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the International Convention on All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979), The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990).

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has identified certain aspects that must be taken into account to determine housing adequacy. They include (a) legal security of tenure, (b) availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, (c) affordability, (d) habitability, (e) accessibility, (f) location, and (g) cultural adequacy.[8]

In Indonesia, Act 4/ 1992 on Housing and Settlement acknowledges the right of all citizens ‘to live in and/ or to have the use of and/ or to own an adequate house located in a healthy, safe, harmonious and orderly environment’. Furthermore, the Act defines adequate housing as ‘a house structure that, at least, meets building safety, minimum floor area and health requirements.’ A healthy, safe, harmonious and orderly environment is defined as an environment that ‘meets spatial planning, land-use, ownership and service provision requirements’. Thus, according to the Act there are basically two aspects of housing adequacy: physical and legal. This is a rather limited definition of housing adequacy compared to that spelled out in the CESCR General Comment No.4. Perhaps this is because the Indonesian government still sees housing only as a basic need, albeit a strategic one, and not yet as a human right. Housing is considered as a strategic basic need, because it is seen as an entry point for the fulfilment of other basic needs (Republik Indonesia, 1994).

In September 2005 Indonesia ratified the ICESCR. However, it stated is reservation towards article 1 on self-determination. In addition, Indonesia does not recognise the complaint mechanism outlined in articles 20 to 25 of the covenant. Therefore, there are no possibilities for individuals and private groups to lodge complaints to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights against violations of economical, social and cultural rights in Indonesia. Thus, many see this as an indication of Indonesia’s a half-hearted ratification of the covenant.

HOUSING, THE KARTU TANDA PENDUDUK (KTP) AND EXLUSION OF THE POOR

All Indonesians above the age of seventeen should possess an identity card called the Kartu Tanda Penduduk (KTP) issued by their respective local authority. According to Yayasan Humana (2001) “A KTP is the sole defining element for both inclusion and identity”. Not having a KTP means that one is not officially registered as a citizen of ones city. Furthermore, it is a serious offence for which a person can to go to prison and be expelled from the city.

At a more private level, even to obtain a marriage certificate, for example, one needs to be in possession of a KTP. Those who do not have a KTP cannot legally marry and get a marriage certificate. Consequently, their children are not issued birth certificates, which will be a problem when they are about to enter school.

From a human rights point of view all kinds of national ID cards are problematic (Fussell, 2001). Not surprisingly, proposals to introduce national ID cards in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries have raised debates on issues of government control and individual privacy[9].

The Indonesian KTP has its share of controversies. The better known one is the indication of religion as one of the item on the back of the card. There are only five religious categories: Islam, Katolik (Christian-Catholic), Protestan (Christian-Protestant), Hindu and Budha (Buddhist). As no other categories are possible this in effect discriminates other religious groups and those not having any religion[10]. Other forms of discrimination include the fact that until 1996 former members of the outlawed Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) had the letters “ET” for ex- tahanan politik (ex-political prisoner) stamped on their cards and that up to 1998 the category non-pribumi (non-native) as opposed to pribumi (native) appeared on KTPs held by Chinese Indonesians.

In October 2005 the Indonesian government stopped subsidising fuel. The subsidies on fuel have been seen as posing a too heavy burden to the state budget and, therefore, the government decided to end it. This has caused the costs of fuel (petrol, diesel fuel, kerosene) to rise by 87.5 percent to 187.5 percent. To assist poor families in coping with the rise of living costs the government devised the so-called bantuan tunai langsung (literary meaning“direct cash assistance”) scheme in the form of cash money amounting to IDR 100,000 per family/ month. This “well targeted subsidy” – to use a well known World Bank terminology - is seen as being more fair and effective in helping the poor compared to the indiscriminate fuel subsidies, which is seen as benefiting both the rich as well as the poor.

The registration of poor families and the distribution of the financial assistance, however, have not proceeded smoothly. There have been many complaints of people who are relatively well off receiving the assistance while the really poor, including those who are unemployed, ill or aged, have been passed over[11]. In any case, however, only those having KTPs are registered. Those who do not have KTPs – many of them residents of permukiman liars (illegal settlements) or tunawismas living under bridges, on sidewalks, in market places and in railway station yards - are automatically counted out.[12]

However, there is another, less obvious form of discrimination caused by the KTP system that is often overlooked: the inability of homeless people to access formal housing. To be able to obtain a KTP, which literary translates to ‘card indicating domicile’, on the one hand a person has to have an officially recognised address[13]. On the other hand, the homeless (whether they are squatters or tunawismas) do not have any official address. Therefore, they are not eligible for KTPs, are not registered as residents of the city where they live and do not appear in any official statistics. They are, in effect, caught in a vicious circle: having no officially recognised address they cannot obtain a KTP; having no KTP, they cannot gain access to formal housing (and, therefore, no formal address, which brings them back to square one).

They are also not organised into community and neighbourhood units (rukun warga and rukun tetangga)[14] in which every household (at least theoretically) should be a member of. Even if they are, their organisations do not enjoy official recognition. Thus, they are not able to gain access to urban services such as education, health care and, of course, housing, though the Indonesian government has launched many housing programmes for the urban poor such as the Kampung Improvement Project (KIP), the Community Based Housing Project and the Community Based Initiative for Local Development (CoBILD).

The Dutch colonial government under its Ethical Policy originally initiated kampung improvement. Called Kampong Verbetering in Dutch, it was implemented in the newly formed urban municipalities following the introduction of the Decentralisation Law at the beginning of the 20^th century. The programme was triggered by the growing fear among the European population that the appalling health condition in the native settlements (kampungs) could pose a danger to their well being as well (Yodohusodo, 1991; Jellinek, 1995). It should be noted that, surprisingly, the colonial government never had any plans to remove those native settlements.

With the Japanese occupation and the ensuing struggle for independence this programme could not be continued, but in 1972 the Indonesian government with the support of the World Bank implemented its version of this programme in large and medium sized cities all over the country which was called the Kampung Improvement Project (KIP) [15]. This scheme, however, was only implemented in regular, legal settlements because there was a fear that improving illegal settlements could be seen as a de-facto recognition by the government.

The Community Based Housing initiative was introduced because the government realised that subsidised low-cost housing credit scheme has missed its intended target group and has instead benefited those who are economically better off. To support this initiative a special credit scheme was introduced. Instead of providing loans to individuals, this scheme, called the Triguna credit scheme, is aimed at community groups who otherwise (being informally employed individuals having no fixed incomes) would not be eligible for other types of housing loans.

The Community Based Housing initiative is based on a very simple concept. In practice, however, it was too complicated for the poor to handle. To apply for the Triguna loan which is manages by the government owned Bank Tabungan Negara (BTN), for instance, they had to prepare proposals. These proposals would have to include a large number of documents issued by different local government agencies as attachments. Besides being very time consuming, to obtain these documents more often than not entailed the paying of bribes; among the required documents were also copies of the KTPs of each community member.

Because of this complication, the Triguna scheme was only successful in a very small number of isolated places; it never became a viable and effective nationwide housing supply system for the urban poor as it was intended to be.

Recently, with the assistance of the UNDP the community-based housing concept was revived in twelve cities in Indonesia. But instead of depending on BTN’s Triguna loan as a source of finance, the Community Based Initiatives for Housing and Local Development (CoBILD) makes use of a Dutch government grant. The grant is managed as a revolving fund to be used to repair existing houses as well as to build new ones by a specially established independent financial institution accountable to the relevant stakeholders in each city.

Initially, CoBILD was planned as a long-term revolving programme. In its first phase it was planned that about 10,000 households in 100 kampungs in twelve cities all over Indonesia will benefit from the programme. Like previously mentioned housing schemes, only registered residents (in other words only those possessing KTPs) are eligible for CoBILD loans. Due to mismanagement and corruption, however, CoBILD has been successful in only two of the twelve cities: Semarang and Yogyakarta,[16] while in other cities it was discontinued after the first phase.

A LOOK AT THE FUTURE

The ratification of the ICESCR by the Indonesian government is an important move towards ensuring that the people’s economic, social and cultural rights are recognised. As a state that has ratified the ICESCR, Indonesia would have to adjust all its legal instruments to be in accordance with the content of the covenant. Indonesia, therefore, would be, among others, required to promote and protect the right to housing and prevent forced eviction from happening. Moreover, it would be obliged to report to the international community on the implementation of the ICESCR in Indonesia. However, as mentioned earlier, Indonesia has stated is reservation towards article 1 and does not recognise the complaint mechanism outlined in articles 20 to 25 of the covenant. This raises the question of the effectiveness of Indonesia’s ratification of the covenant in preventing forced eviction.

The KTP system in its present form can be (and has been) used to justify forced eviction. Persons without KTPs are not considered as being legal residents, thus removing them from their homes is not seen as a serious issue. The KTP system has, in many cases, been used to deny people their civil rights, including the right to housing. The KTP, therefore, should be reformed and should only be a citizen registration instrument, not the all-important document associated with ones domicile status.

It is perhaps too optimistic to hope that forced eviction will be something of the past, given the long history of forced eviction in Indonesia and the fact that corruption is so widespread. It is generally agreed that many of the problems faced by Indonesian cities are the results of the collusive interests of corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and rent seeking elements of the private sector. As long as systematic and structural corruption is still widely practised in Indonesia, there is little hope that forced evictions will cease.

On the contrary, recent developments - such as the issuance of the controversial Peraturan Presiden (Presidential Regulation) 36/2005 which has given forced eviction an even stronger legal basis – seem to point out that forced evictions will continue, probably at an even greater scale than what is taking place today. Together with the fact that Indonesia’s economy has not recovered from the 1997 crisis (which has forced a large number of people into poverty), those factors mentioned above can be seen as signs that we can expect more homeless Indonesians in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank my friend and colleague Benny D. Setianto for his help and support in the process of writing this paper. Besides supplying me with some important reference materials, he also shared with me his extensive knowledge of international law. I, however, take full responsibility for the contents of this paper.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymous (2001) Report of the International Fact Finding Mission on State Violence against the Poor in Jakarta, November 4-8, 2001

Anonymous (2002) “Hak atas Perumahan yang Layak bagi Masyarakat Miskin di Kota” Suar, vol.3 no. 07 February 2002 pp. 3-5

Budiman, A., (1993) “Stabilitas Politik dan Pertumbuhan Ekonomi” in INFID (ed.) (1993) Pembangunan di Indonesia: Memandang dari Sisi Lain, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta

Centre for Housing Rights and Eviction (COHRE) (2003) The COHRE Housing Rights Award 2003, http://www.cohre.org/waigo/presskit.doc (downloaded 11 August 2005)

Fussell, J. (2001) Group Classification on National ID Cards as a Factor in Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing. Paper presented to the Seminar Series of the Yale University Genocide Studies Program, November 15, 2001

Gofar, F.A. (2005) Perpres No 36 Tahun 2005: Melegalkan Penggusuran Paksa? in Kompas Daily 25 June 2005

Gómez, M. (2002) Measuring the Status of Housing Rights Across the World: Arguments for the Construction of a Global Indicator on Homelessness. Paper presented to the E-Conference on Homelessness in Developing Countries, CARDO, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, July 2002, http://www.campus.ncl.ac.uk/cardo/virtualconf/asp/ (downloaded 10 August 2005)

Jellinek, L. (1995) Seperti Roda Berputar: Perubahan Sosial Sebuah Kampung di Jakarta, Jakarta: LP3ES

Kasim, I. and J. da Masenus Arus (eds.) (2001) Hak Ekonomi, Sosial, Budaya: Esai-Esai Pilihan, Jakarta: ELSAM

Kompas Daily, 10 June 2005

Leach, M. (1998) A roof is not enough: A look at homelessness worldwide http://www.share-international.org/archives/homelessness/hl-mlaroof.htm (downloaded 30 July 2005)

Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam-Indonesia-Malaysia (2000) http://dpb.gov.my/mab2000/Aktiviti/Pakar/s11perkot.pdf (downloaded May 2001)

Pandiangan, A. (2005) Memahami Posisi Kota Semarang Sebagai 4 Besar Kota Terkorup, in Seputar Semarang edition 79 year II, 1-7 March 2005

Rahardjo, T. (2000) The Semarang Environmental Agenda: a stimulus to targeted capacity building among the stakeholders. Habitat International 24(2000) 443-453

Rahardjo, T. (2001) ESCOR Project R7905: The Nature, Extent and Eradication of Homelessness in Developing Countries: Indonesia, Semarang: Centre for Urban Studies, Soegijapranata Catholic University

Republik Indonesia (1992) Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1992, tentang Perumahan dan Permukiman

Republik Indonesia (1994) Keputusan Menteri Negara Perumahan Rakyat Nomor 06/KPTS/1994 tentang Pedoman Umum Pembangunan Perumahan Bertumpu pada Kelompok

Republik Indonesia (1998) Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 129 Tahun 1998 Tentang Rencana Aksi Nasional Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia Indonesia

Republik Indonesia (2005) Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 36 Tahun 2005 tentang Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pelaksanaan Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum

Septiviant, T.D. (2003) Pemiskinan Sebagai Akibat Hukum yang Tidak Berfungsi di Masyarakat untuk Mendapatkan Hak atas Perumahan (Right to Adequate Housing), unpublished paper

Steiner, H.J. and P. Alston (1996) International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Moral, Oxford: Clarendon Press

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (2000) Strategies to combat homelessness, Nairobi: UNCHS (Habitat)

Wignjosoebroto, S. (2002) “Hak Asasi Manusia Seputar Masalah Perumahan Rakyat Miskin Kota” Suar, vol.3 no. 07 February 2002 p.8

Yayasan Humana (2001) Social Hierarchy and the Production of Street Children in Indonesia, http://www.humana.20m.com/Hirarki.html (downloaded 10 August 2005)

Yudohusodo, S. and Salam, S. (eds.) (1991) Rumah Untuk Seluruh Rakyat, Jakarta: Yayasan Padamu Negeri

---

[1] One important difference, however, is perhaps the fact that today Indonesia’s much freer press (arguably one of the freest in the region) openly and regularly report eviction cases, whereas during Suharto’s time the tightly controlled press was forbidden to publish any news unfavourable towards the government.

[2] The mission, consisting of Won Soon Park (Executive Director, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), South Korea), Jesse Robredo (Mayor, Naga City, the Philippines), Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto (Professor, Airlangga University Surabaya, and Member, National Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia), Saparinah Sadli (Chairperson, National Commission on Violence against Women, Indonesia) and Melly G. Tan (Member, National Commission on Violence against Women, Indonesia) took place between 4-8 November 2001.

[3] In the years since 1976 many of the evicted people have moved to other parts of the city (and even to other towns) to make a living because as farmers they do not have any land to cultivate and any place to stay. A few who refused to move had to rent houses in neighbouring villages near their former home.

[4] The exchange rate in October 2005 was about USD 1.- = IDR 10,000.-.

[5] In February 2005 Transparency International Indonesia published its report on corruption in Indonesia as perceived by the business community. The survey involved 1117 local and 118 foreign business people. The business people were asked to give their opinions of the performances of government agencies. Of the 21 cities surveyed the three most corrupt cities are Jakarta Surabaya and Medan. The survey concluded that corruption and bribery is not just a matter of supplementing low government salaries but has become a systematic part of the decision making process within local government agencies. Those who are not able to pay bribes, therefore, often become casualties of biased decisions made by these agencies (Pandiangan, 2005).

[6] It was only in 2000 that the Majlis Bahasa Brunei Darussalam - Indonesia -Malaysia (The Brunei Darussalam - Indonesia -Malaysia Language Council) adopted the term ‘ketunawismaan’ as the official translation of ‘homelessness’ to be used in the three countries. However, the Indonesian language does not make a distinction between ‘home’ and ‘house’, thus ‘ketunawismaan’ can also mean ‘houselessness.’

[7] The 2000 census showed that Indonesia had a population of 203.4 million people, 3.2 million of which did not have a permanent place to stay (tidak mempunyai tempat tinggal tetap).

[8] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No.4 (1991) UN Doc. E/1992/23, Annex III.

[9] Even more serious then the issue of government control and protection of privacy are the role played by group classification on ID cards in the genocidical crimes conducted in such diverse places and times as Germany under the Nazis and Rwanda in 1994 (Fussell, 2001).

[10] Between 1979 and 1998 the category Konghucu (Confucianism) was removed, which is one form of discrimination towards the ethnic Chinese.

[11] Some of the undeserving benefit receivers are relatives and acquaintances of village administrators or, ironically, those who have enough money to bribe them.

[12] Jakarta’s Governor Sutiyoso, for example, justifies this policy by arguing that those without a Jakarta KTP are not residents of the city and are probably registered in other places. Therefore, to avoid duplications they are automatically not listed, even though they might be very poor.

[13] The State Minister of Popular Housing Decision No. 06/KPTS/1994 aptly sums this up in the following statement: “…… without a home or a permanent place to stay it would be difficult for a person’s formal existence to be recognised (to have a KTP) ……” (“......tanpa rumah atau tempat bermukim yang tetap keberadaan seseorang secara formal sulit diakui (memiliki KTP)……”).

[14] These organisations are a legacy of the Japanese occupation (1942-1945) when they were used to organise the people in war efforts (Jellinek, 1995). In 1969 Ali Sadikin, the governor of Jakarta, revived them to promote community participation in the city’s development. A rukun tetangga (RT) consist of around 30 households, while a rukun warga (RW) consist of around 10 RTs (300 households).

[15] The post-independence Kampung Improvement Project (KIP) is often referred by the World Bank as one of the more successful housing initiatives supported by the Bank.

[16] In view of Semarang’s success in implementing CoBILD, a Dutch NGO, the Stichting Garantiefonds Habitat Internationale (SGHI) has granted the CoBILD in Semarang additional funds to continue and extend the programme.