Jakarta’s rivers: A trash picker looks for plastic materials among the garbage in a river in Pluit, North Jakarta. Most of city’s rivers are still a dumping ground for many people in this overcrowded city. JP/Nurhayati
Dec. 19, p. 6
The idea to move the capital, raised recently by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is actually not a new one, because from time to time the relocation issue has been brought up by our leaders. One of the more ridiculous plans, to move the capital to Jonggol in Bogor, was almost implemented by the son of then president Soeharto in the 1990s.
Yudhoyono’s idea, however, remains intriguing, and his ministers need to follow up on it. The government needs to decide on the timeline and the new location to ensure that the long-delayed idea will no longer stay stalled, because there are many valid reasons for this country to have a new capital.
Your comments:
It was not without reason that in the old days, many Dutch people preferred to live in Buitenzorg (Bogor). Jakarta has always been overburdened. Sadly, in the last 20 years, the problem has become even more acute, and has affected neighboring cities (i.e. Bogor).
If you are familiar with Bogor in the 80s and early 90s, you surely know at that time, Bogor was still a well-organized and safe city. However now, due to its location (which is relatively close to Jakarta), it has started to have problems like Jakarta (overpopulation, traffic problems, poor sanitation, crime, etc). I believe that moving the capital city is a must. However, the government should start to move some government bodies to other parts of Indonesia.
For example, instead of keeping the maritime affairs and fisheries ministry in Jakarta, you could move it to the eastern part of Indonesia. Other departments like forestry and education can also be moved to other parts of Indonesia. A capital city is the face of Indonesia. It is also the center of administration.
Apart from having the problems you mention above, Jakarta is also prone to natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc). In Indonesia, regions which are relatively safe from those types of disasters are only the eastern part of Sumatera, Kalimantan and the southern part of Sulawesi.
Therefore, ideally, the new capital city should be located in one of these regions. I honestly disagree with some who recommend Palangkaraya, as it is still far less developed. I think Makassar is ideal.
Helena van der Winden
Jakarta
At least don’t emulate the Malaysian model of having two capital cities: Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.
It was a real waste of money for the Mahathir regime to relocate all their main ministries to Putrajaya when the money could have been better used to improve schools, hospitals and health care. At least 20 billion ringgit (US$5.8 billion) was used to build that city — 5.9 billion of it was taken from taxpayers. Until today, the extensive landscaping and lighting is a big burden on taxpayers.
The only reason why they moved to Putrajaya was because they couldn’t be bothered improving Kuala Lumpur’s problems.
Aside from the government departments, few private businesses or foreign embassies have relocated to Putrajaya. So relocations don’t always work.
The only reason why New Zealand switched capitals from Auckland to Wellington in 1865 was because of the latter’s central location in the country which would ease communication and trade.
Andrew Lim
Dunedin, New Zealand
Move the capital and you also move the problems. The new capital will not be some kind of new utopia free of problems — Brasilia is an example. I think moving the government has the appearance of abandoning the people and once the government moves, the people lose their access to the government. The problems of Jakarta can be fixed if there is the will to do so.
Thomas R. Belfield
Washington
