International Indonesia To Move Capital City to Borneo, as Crowded and Polluted Jakarta Sinks Into The Ground

Well decentralisation didn't prevent East Timor from separating, and it was the Tsunami more than decentralisation that stopped the Aceh independence movement. It's done absolutely nothing for West Papua.
In terms of effects it has had, the marked increase in corruption (and it's not as if it was good in the '80s) exacerbates what I'd say is the leading political and economic issue. Followed by the apparent backsliding on secularism and the increase in deforestation which also resulted from decentralisation.
East Timor was invaded, occupied, then separate, so not sure why that counts as decentralization. Agreed on the importance of the tsunami on sealing negotiations, but that was only the final trigger; and at any rate, Aceh, for all its problems and autonomy is still part of the country. And even though West Papua is much closer to full blow fighting in recent years, again, still part of the country (although admittedly shakier than Aceh.

Obviously, corruption is a massive problem, but setting aside the not-democracy years, Indonesia was always relatively decentralized (there is just no way to centralize power in an island nation of that size, let alone one with as many stakeholders as Indonesia) . And I share your concern about the backsliding, but what country would you use as a benchmark for Indonesia? Because I can't think of too many fair comparisons that it isn't ahead of (with the Philippines and India being obvious comparisons). Bottom line, I agree with you on the problems Indonesia faces, but I think you and a lot of people underestimate how difficult democratic transitions are. They've been several orders more successful than the U.S.'s transition to democracy, even accounting for being able to learn from other countries' experiences.
 
East Timor was invaded, occupied, then separate, so not sure why that counts as decentralization. Agreed on the importance of the tsunami on sealing negotiations, but that was only the final trigger; and at any rate, Aceh, for all its problems and autonomy is still part of the country. And even though West Papua is much closer to full blow fighting in recent years, again, still part of the country (although admittedly shakier than Aceh.

Obviously, corruption is a massive problem, but setting aside the not-democracy years, Indonesia was always relatively decentralized (there is just no way to centralize power in an island nation of that size, let alone one with as many stakeholders as Indonesia) . And I share your concern about the backsliding, but what country would you use as a benchmark for Indonesia? Because I can't think of too many fair comparisons that it isn't ahead of (with the Philippines and India being obvious comparisons). Bottom line, I agree with you on the problems Indonesia faces, but I think you and a lot of people underestimate how difficult democratic transitions are. They've been several orders more successful than the U.S.'s transition to democracy, even accounting for being able to learn from other countries' experiences.

East Timor isn't decentralisation, it's an example of the exact fragmentation that decentralisation was supposed to prevent.
The decentralisation did nothing for the West Papuans. Nothing at all.
I'm not saying Indonesia is a failed nation, I'm saying that whatever goals decentralisation had haven't been realised, and the problems have been exacerbated (as with the resource management graphic I edited into the last post).
 
East Timor isn't decentralisation, it's an example of the exact fragmentation that decentralisation was supposed to prevent.
The decentralisation did nothing for the West Papuans. Nothing at all.
I'm not saying Indonesia is a failed nation, I'm saying that whatever goals decentralisation had haven't been realised, and the problems have been exacerbated (as with the resource management graphic I edited into the last post).
What's your distinction between decenetralization and fragmentation? And again, I'm not sure why you consider East Timor your example since it was not a part of the country before it was annexed. And as far as West Papua, it's very shaky, but it's still part of the country and not a full-blown civil war.

Also what's the graphic from? It looks like an interesting read. I don't deny there were problems with decentralization, but I can easily point to Aceh and Surakarta as examples of where it offered opportunities.

Put it this way, what would be your preferred alternative to decentralization?
 
What's your distinction between decenetralization and fragmentation? And again, I'm not sure why you consider East Timor your example since it was not a part of the country before it was annexed. And as far as West Papua, it's very shaky, but it's still part of the country and not a full-blown civil war.

Also what's the graphic from? It looks like an interesting read. I don't deny there were problems with decentralization, but I can easily point to Aceh and Surakarta as examples of where it offered opportunities.

Put it this way, what would be your preferred alternative to decentralization?

West Papua was also annexed (the referendum was joke). You could say the same about Aceh (going back further obviously).
Decentralisation is the political process that was undertaken (usually viewed from the '90s on, although especially after 2000), to reform political decisions and responsibility to local government instead of national oversight. A major part of that idea was to maintain national unity and curtail the appeal of separatist movements. Fragmentation is the outcome of the separatists gaining full independence.

The graphic is from "Governance, Decentralisation and Deforestation: The Case of Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia", but the sources are listed underneath.
As for Surakarta try, "From Populism to Democratic Polity: Problems and Challenges in Surakarta, Indonesia".
From Aceh you can see the impact on other regional areas looking to implement their interpretation of "sharia". That's not a solution.

The alternative would be effective national oversight. Especially in regards to resource management, where if you leave it to small regional actors you'll inevitably be stuck with the tragedy of the commons.
It's also not a case of decentralisation necessarily being incapable of providing the benefits in efficiency and equity they were supposed to, but simply that in Indonesia's case they haven't. Which doesn't bode well for further attempts to address issues with policies focused on decentralisation.
 
West Papua was also annexed (the referendum was joke). You could say the same about Aceh (going back further obviously).
Decentralisation is the political process that was undertaken (usually viewed from the '90s on, although especially after 2000), to reform political decisions and responsibility to local government instead of national oversight. A major part of that idea was to maintain national unity and curtail the appeal of separatist movements. Fragmentation is the outcome of the separatists gaining full independence.

The graphic is from "Governance, Decentralisation and Deforestation: The Case of Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia", but the sources are listed underneath.
As for Surakarta try, "From Populism to Democratic Polity: Problems and Challenges in Surakarta, Indonesia".
From Aceh you can see the impact on other regional areas looking to implement their interpretation of "sharia". That's not a solution.

The alternative would be effective national oversight. Especially in regards to resource management, where if you leave it to small regional actors you'll inevitably be stuck with the tragedy of the commons.
I just don't see shifting that power back to the central government being very practical politically (history of less than ideal central government and the experience of other countries trying to stamp out separatism doesn't make me optimistic) or solving the issue of corruption. Even then, the trend lines and benchmarks seem to be looking good for regional development post-decentralization.

And as far as Aceh, it was a solution as the war ended, and it's been pretty peaceful. You can argue it may lead to future issues and be unreplicable or even bad precedent, but Aceh is clearly in better shape than it was during the fighting.

P.S. My portal didn't have access to that journal/article. Boo.
 
I just don't see shifting that power back to the central government being very practical politically (history of less than ideal central government and the experience of other countries trying to stamp out separatism doesn't make me optimistic) or solving the issue of corruption. Even then, the trend lines and benchmarks seem to be looking good for regional development post-decentralization.

And as far as Aceh, it was a solution as the war ended, and it's been pretty peaceful. You can argue it may lead to future issues and be unreplicable or even bad precedent, but Aceh is clearly in better shape than it was during the fighting.

P.S. My portal didn't have access to that journal/article. Boo.

It's not necessarily an argument about ideals. Simply that in Indonesia they haven't achieved their stated objectives (just the opposite) with an approach focused on decentralisation, so that doesn't bode well for decentralisation as a solution to Jakarta sinking or other issues the nation faces.
It's been plagued with similar issues (elite capture, increased corruption, insufficient resources, fragmented approaches to larger problems etc) throughout the nation.

Here's a couple of links to the papers I mentioned.
 
Indonesia will build its new capital city in Borneo as Jakarta sinks into the Java Sea
Rob Picheta, CNN • Published 26th August 2019​

http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F170808121517-jakarta.jpg

A jungle-draped area on the east of Borneo island is set to be transformed into Indonesia's new capital city, President Joko Widodo announced Monday, amid concerns over the sustainability of its congested and rapidly sinking political center Jakarta.

The proposed location, near the relatively underdeveloped cities of Balikpapan and Samarinda, is a far cry from the crowded powerhouse which has served as Indonesia's financial heart since 1949 -- and Widodo acknowledged that moving the country's capital to the island will be a mammoth and expensive undertaking.

But Jakarta's rapid expansion in recent years has presented myriad environmental, economic and safety concerns, prompting the government to look elsewhere and ease the strain on the massive metropolis.

"As a large nation that has been independent for 74 years, Indonesia has never chosen its own capital," Widodo said in a televised speech, AFP reported. "The burden Jakarta is holding right now is too heavy as the center of governance, business, finance, trade and services."

http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F190826115527-samarinda-indonesia.jpg

Floating houses on Mahakam river in Samarinda, near the site of the new capital.

The ambitious project to move the capital will likely cost around 486 trillion rupiah ($34 billion), CNN Indonesia reported, and officials have previously said the relocation could take around 10 years.
Jakarta is home to more than 10 million people, according to the United Nations, with an estimated 30 million in the greater metropolitan area -- making it one of the world's most overpopulated urban regions.

It's also one of the fastest-sinking cities on earth, according to the World Economic Forum, dropping into the Java Sea at an alarming rate due to over-extraction of groundwater.

The city sits on swampy ground and hugs the sea to the north, making it especially prone to flooding.

A worsening air pollution crisis, exacerbated by near-constant traffic congestion on its roads, has grown so dire that some residents sued the Indonesian government in July.

No name has been given for the new site, but the government originally announced plans to relocate the capital in April. The move requires parliamentary approval to be given the go-ahead.

Indonesia owns the majority of Borneo, the world's third-largest island, with Malaysia and Brunei each holding parts of its northern region. The island is covered in vast rainforests, but has been hit by rampant deforestation in recent years.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/indonesia-new-capital-borneo-jakarta-scli-intl/index.html
I have a strong hunch a new capital is going to cost much more than $34 billion.
Governments always under-count such large infrastructure costs.
 
They should build it on Komodo island and feed drug dealers to the dragons.
 
It's not necessarily an argument about ideals. Simply that in Indonesia they haven't achieved their stated objectives (just the opposite) with an approach focused on decentralisation, so that doesn't bode well for decentralisation as a solution to Jakarta sinking or other issues the nation faces.
It's been plagued with similar issues (elite capture, increased corruption, insufficient resources, fragmented approaches to larger problems etc) throughout the nation.

Here's a couple of links to the papers I mentioned.
Thanks for the links. I think rolling back decentralization would be throwing out the baby with the bath water, as corruption can be dealt with to some extent with more national oversight and such without stripping too many local powers. But we'll see I guess. And is corruption on the rise compared to the New Order Days? Because I would be very shocked if it is. And yes, obviously certain problems, such as environmental issues, will have to be addressed with centralized solutions. With you on that. Is there a developing country you look toward as an analogue or example of successful centralization?
 
Thanks for the links. I think rolling back decentralization would be throwing out the baby with the bath water, as corruption can be dealt with to some extent with more national oversight and such without stripping too many local powers. But we'll see I guess. And is corruption on the rise compared to the New Order Days? Because I would be very shocked if it is. And yes, obviously certain problems, such as environmental issues, will have to be addressed with centralized solutions. With you on that. Is there a developing country you look toward as an analogue or example of successful centralization?

Most of the corruption indexes only began in the mid-90s, so no they are comparing with the early 2000s.
I was there mostly in the 80s and 90s, and it's hard to make anecdotal comparisons just because of the massive levels of development.
In the region the most emphatic example of successful centralisation and development is Singapore (post independence), but the entrepot nature of the economy and small size makes for a poor comparison with Indonesia. Malaysia would be better for comparison, in terms of successful development and pursuing a sustained centralisation drive (while still plagued with corruption).
Certainly in comparison to the more recent push for decentralisation throughout Asia.
It doesn't all stem from corruption either, with Indonesia also highlighting the problem of undermining the authority of the national judiciary.
 
Most of the corruption indexes only began in the mid-90s, so no they are comparing with the early 2000s.
I was there mostly in the 80s and 90s, and it's hard to make anecdotal comparisons just because of the massive levels of development.
In the region the most emphatic example of successful centralisation and development is Singapore (post independence), but the entrepot nature of the economy and small size makes for a poor comparison with Indonesia. Malaysia would be better for comparison, in terms of successful development and pursuing a sustained centralisation drive (while still plagued with corruption).
Certainly in comparison to the more recent push for decentralisation throughout Asia.
It doesn't all stem from corruption either, with Indonesia also highlighting the problem of undermining the authority of the national judiciary.
Yeah I wasn't born back then I've only heard the stories of how much Suharto embezzled. I was in Jakarta for the first time in maybe 10 years last year. Looping back to the thread, I thought the city was already dense in the 2000s, but it's even more built up now, which is something I couldnt have really pictures before. But they are finally getting to a tail system sorta...eventually..yay? Maybe it will be done by the time the capital moves lol
 
Joko Widodo sounds like the name of the manager of the Mos Eisley cantina.

Joko Wibodo... And he is a leader who is on an Island named after Java the Hut!

What the Fuck!!! Jakarta Sinking!!!!

How am I going to get to Bandung!!!!!

I hope they open an international Airport in Bandung!

The Dutch should help them!!

Oh the Irony!!

But in all seriousness I really do feel for the Javanese/Indonesians. Heart breaking news
 
The rest of the people in Jakarta might want to contemplate about moving, cause the whole place probably gonna sinks below sea level in 10 years.




The catastrophe of having to move such an insane number of people aside ...

...the environmental impact of such a dirty city being consumed by the sea can only be catastrophic.
 
I remember Survivor held a season in Borneo for the picturesque landscape there.

Such a pity it's gonna turn into shit in a few years.
Nah, the tourist spots will remain pristine. It brings in more revenue than razed farmland. While the average Indonesian will never be able to afford a visit as they toil away in sinking factories.
Is that Bali?
First two are on Java, the last is from Bali. A student of Indonesian architecture I see. It's cool how each island was so culturally distinct from its neighbors despite how the developed world views them as one big lump.
 
Nah, the tourist spots will remain pristine. It brings in more revenue than razed farmland. While the average Indonesian will never be able to afford a visit as they toil away in sinking factories.

First two are on Java, the last is from Bali. A student of Indonesian architecture I see. It's cool how each island was so culturally distinct from its neighbors despite how the developed world views them as one big lump.


Yup interesting history too. Specially the Srivijaya era of the middle ages.
 
The catastrophe of having to move such an insane number of people aside ...

...the environmental impact of such a dirty city being consumed by the sea can only be catastrophic.

Imagine the amount of shit that will float!!
 
Back
Top