Governing Girik: Causes and

Consequences of Kampung

persistence in Jakarta

JAMIESON BENJAMIN MCKEE

Capstone Final Report for BA (Honours)

in

Politics, Philosophy and Economics

Supervised by: CHUA BENG HUAT

AY 2018/2019

1

Acknowledgements

What’s up. This Capstone taught me a lot about how many things I do not

know, and a bit about – wow – how much have I come to know. Never could

have imagined 6 years ago I mightn’t be down in Jakarta doing all kinds of

field interviews in this foreign language and that. That’s crazy.

I want to thank Prof Chua Beng Huat specifically cause he wrote a lot about

this subject and it really got me interested, then he offer a great course also

and I took it, enthralled. I also wan thank Prof Gaspard Koenig from Sciences

Po for introducing me to the work of de Soto and his critics, which decidedly

put me on a path to investigating housing in Southeast Asia. Let me thank Ibu

Gover dari AIS for introducing me to the language by which I conducted

research and interviews for this thesis, that really did a change on my life

trajectory for real. Thanks to my parents Judith and Mark, they the real ones!

cause I wanted to continue my studies in this region, about issues relevant to

this region, and I did.

Thanks to Pak Wibamanto for the proofread, thanks to 소연 for continued and

unending encouragement.

2

Governing Girik: Causes and Consequences of Kampung

persistence in Jakarta Abstract This paper analyzes the role of housing provision by government bodies

to address informal housing settlements (Kampungs) in Jakarta. Girik is an indigenous term from Indonesia’s traditional (Adat) law that literally means ‘tax

receipt’. Girik is recognized as a form of land ownership for Kampung residents by the state. However, Indonesia’s dual law system simultaneously recognizes

Kampungs as private and state land. Authorities in Jakarta have demolished long-established Kampungs by force under the claim that they are residing on state

land. By tracing the historical and contemporary approaches to housing provision in the city, this paper shows how housing provision and land-use policy is a largely

avoided issue for development within the city. Narratives of colonial and contemporary histories and interviews with officials in Jakarta are used to

document provision failures and political barriers to dealing with Kampung issues. This paper serves as a small insight into the complex bureaucratic nightmare of

metropolitan Jakarta. Keywords: Colonialism, Jakarta, Housing, Kampung, Batavia, Land Use, Segregation

3

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Definitions and Origins of Kampung ...................................................................................................... 5

Kampung or not Kampung? Deciding on Focus Area ............................................................................ 6

Literature Review: Urban Geography .................................................................................................... 6

Literature Review: Jakarta as a City....................................................................................................... 9

Characterizing Jakarta’s housing situation .......................................................................................... 11

Characterizing Kampung .................................................................................................................. 12

Involvement of Infrastructure and Colonial Mentalities ................................................................ 13

Consequences ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Case Study: Kampung Muara Baru ...................................................................................................... 18

Governing Girik: Land Use in Jakarta ................................................................................................... 20

Land Use Rights .................................................................................................................................... 22

Current Policies .................................................................................................................................... 23

Results – Fieldwork Survey of December 2018 ................................................................................... 27

Interview One – Housing NGO ............................................................................................................. 28

Interview Two – Senior official at Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat (PUPR),

Ministry of Public Works and Housing ................................................................................................ 30

Interview Three – Senior director at Private Foundation for Development Projects ........................ 32

Conclusion: Understanding Governance and Housing Provision in Jakarta....................................... 33

References ............................................................................................................................................ 35

4

Introduction This paper acts as an affirmation of existing sources and knowledge bodies surrounding Kampung

housing in DKI Jakarta. This paper argues that an entanglement of colonial-era segregationist

policies, cultural barriers, political responses and confusing land-use regulations are the reasons for

the persistence of Kampung housing in DKI Jakarta. This paper adds to the literature by also

providing a review of contemporary governance in Jakarta to address the Kampung issue, including

three field interviews that provide affirmations of existing causes Kampung issues.

Kampung is an indigenous term that originally referred to villages, though it came to be used in the

colonial period to refer to non-European settlements in and around the colonial cities of Southeast

Asia (Putri, 2018). Most Javanese cities started as agglomerations of Kampung settlements which

gradually became informal and spatially segregated settlements during the colonial period. The

Kampung housing phenomena also reproduced itself in the post-colonial period, furthering the

spatial segregation of Kampung and non-Kampung dwellers in Jakarta. This spatial segregation has

resulted in difficulty for local and federal bodies to govern Kampung settlements. Following an

extensive literature review and on-site investigation, this paper reveals that the forces behind

Jakarta’s fractionalized Kampung housing have never been successfully addressed or reversed.

After reviewing Pacione’s (2009) differentiation between Conventional and Nonconventional

housing, this paper does not utilize Western hemisphere standards of housing (in terms of tenure or

construction) in favor of a practical framework for this investigation. As such, this paper deals with

Kampung housing as opposed to developer-led and properly tenured non-Kampung housing.

This paper builds on the work of scholars who have investigated governance failure in the city with

regards to land use and water provision. The issue of urban informal settlements has several

heterogenous causes which have been met with several sparse and disconnected government

policies throughout recent history (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015.) This paper will identify the origin of

informal Kampung settlements in Jakarta and the contemporary consequences of their continuation.

The relevant policy responses (or lack thereof) and their consequences will also be identified and

explained.

Kampung housing is in crisis because of the perceived risk of eviction, and the lack of rights of tenure

compounding into a problem of permanent abode. Scholars have established a clear relationship

between impermanent housing in Indonesia and persistence of poverty (Pacione, 2009, Papanek,

1975, Korff, 1996, de Soto, 2000). This paper reviews case studies of Kampung related housing issues

in order to locate the theoretical position of Kampungs with regards to governance in DKI Jakarta.

The results of this literature review are confirmed by interviews with stakeholders in Jakarta’s

informal housing sector. The arguments regarding colonial-era segregationist policies, cultural

barriers and political difficulties are supported by individuals working inside government, housing

development NGOs and a private philanthropic foundation.

5

Definitions and Origins of Kampung This paper deals with loose definitions and transient identities. It is difficult to characterize what

constitutes housing in crisis in the Jakarta context without a comprehensive empirical study (Tunas,

2010). As such, a bifurcation will be made between Kampung and non-Kampung developments to

focus the study on Kampung specific literature. The bodies which deal with Kampung governance in

this context are the numerous federal and local authorities that have jurisdiction over the means of

production involved in housing in Jakarta. Since this definition contains multiplicities of authorities

with governing rights, we will characterize the governing body in relation to the issue that arises.

This is to say that eviction authorities in Jakarta usually deal with evictions of Kampung settlers,

while local and federal administrations deal with construction and relocation efforts. Monkonnen’s

(2013) research confirms the notion that Indonesia’s government response to Kampung housing

issues does not reveal an identifiable pattern. Within Jakarta, little contemporary research has been

done to analyze Kampung-government relationships. This paper however will identify and

characterize the interactions between Kampung dwellers and government authorities in history and

current events.

Pacione (2009) in Urban geography: A global perspective identified a mechanism by which housing

crises are created and slums emerge in the developing world. He notes that the sheer population

explosion occurring in developing world cities during the late 20th century was incredibly difficult to

control. As such, slums emerged as a natural component of the contemporary third-world megacity.

For example, during the 1980s, nine new households were formed for every new permanent

dwelling built in Jakarta. He also notes that housing could be classified as conventional if it is

constructed through the medium of formal recognized institutions (banks, planning authorities) and

in accordance with legal practices and procedures. The volume of migration, birth and overall

population growth in developing megacities at this time prevented the administrative and physical

erection of conventional housing for all involved in the process of Indonesia’s megacity population

boom of the late 20th century.

Although most cities do have guidelines, land-use policies and building regulations in place, these

were rarely followed in the construction of the nonconventional housing settlements that we are to

explore. Nonconventional housing is characterized by its contravention of these existing regulations

and land use policy. The production of nonconventional housing is almost always through the labour

of the individual or household intending to occupy the house, though often there exists a market for

petty construction (Pacione, 2009).

It is apparent that conventional housing is an overwhelmingly 20th century European concept. As

such, putting the Kampung into this kind of framework is difficult. Indeed, the predecessor housing

settlements that dotted Batavia, Singapore and other contemporary Southeast Asian megacities are

hardly conventional, yet they developed steadily in and alongside the colonial cities of their time.

6

Kampung or not Kampung? Deciding on Focus Area This paper attempted to provide a definition for the kind of housing in focus by this study. Housing

definitions supplied by Pacione proved to be not so helpful to characterizing an Indonesian

metropolis. As such, Pacione’s bifurcation of conventional and nonconventional will not be

appropriated to contemporary Jakarta as a way of explaining the difference in treatment housing

settlements might expect to receive from a governing body.

Instead, this paper will focus strictly on Kampung settlements as opposed to non-Kampung

settlements. This kind of urban agglomeration unique to Indonesia encompasses all the housing

issues that will be studied. The Kampung includes varying ranges of poverty and income. This range

extends from destitute people to middle-class residents. Though not all Kampungs are comparable

in terms of living standard, they exist as a convenient political category for this study.

Monkonnen (2013) notes that all Kampungs across Jakarta and Indonesia have a mixed-bag of land

use rights. Zhu and Simarmata (2015) identify different land-use rights within the Kampung

themselves, creating a multiplicity of issues surrounding informal settlements. Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa

and Shina (2016) identify about 392 settlements in Jakarta classified as slum settlements by the

national statistics board of Indonesia. A significant portion of these settlements were also recipients

of government development programs. All examples included in this study fall into the category of

Kampung, and future informal settlements can be expected to take the same shape and eventually

be included in government surveys as Kampung. As such, bifurcating Jakarta’s housing situation into

Kampung and not-Kampung provides an adequate focus area for this paper to review, analyze and

compare the history of housing development and governance in Jakarta. This paper will focus on the

historical development, continuation and government response to Kampungs.

Literature Review: Urban Geography Governments in the developing world have struggled to place housing inside their developmental

frameworks. The current urban geographies of postcolonial cities are usually the result of colonial-

era plans, with few cities managing to reverse or eliminate the imprint of the colonial process

defining the city (Pacione, 2009).

Nathan Nunn (2009) in The Importance of History for Economic Development highlights the various

econometric literature on property rights in colonized countries. Specifically, Nunn recalls literature

that identifies a correlation between extractive colonial states with low European settlement and a

lack of secure property rights. With the exclusion of cases like Singapore post-independence,

colonized Southeast Asia is characterized by weak property institutions which Nunn correlates with

lower economic output compared to colonized states with higher European settlement. The logic

behind this assessment is that secure property rights allow the generation of additional returns to

capital and have contributed to the economic success of European nations and European settler

colonies. This hypothesis is also advanced by de Soto (2000) in The mystery of capital: Why

capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Both Nunn and de Soto use qualitative

and quantitative empirical methods to suggest there are difficulties in providing housing rights to the

poor in developing societies. Nunn’s review suggests that poor institutions have persisted since the

colonial period and provision for the local inhabitants was not made a priority by the ruling elite that

inherited postcolonial governments. In a Fanonian analogy, those who inherited the responsibility of

housing provision from the colonizer did not necessarily change the way that housing provision was

administrated that given nation. Indeed, the ruling elite that inherited Jakarta were colonial-

educated patrons and possessed a level of ideological and political proximity to their colonizer. Zhu

7

and Simarmata (2015) argue that there is little difference in the divide between informal and formal

settlements during the colonial time and Jakarta today. They also note that historical rural

communities in Jakarta have grown into dense urban settlements that still exhibit this segregated

model of a colonial city.

Figure 1: Schematic transformation of kampungs in colonial Batavia ca. 1897-1935. This map reveals the continual pushing-out of kampungs from the North-South axis upon which the colonial city

operated. ‘Pocket’ kampungs first appear during colonial times: informal settlements enveloped by colonial and contemporary developments.

Source: Putri, P.W. (2018).

As Nunn (2009) shows, colonial institutions have an extraordinary ability to persist even after a

violent independence struggle. This is likely because of the physical manifestations of colonial

administration, I.e., roads, waterways, houses and more cannot be reset. Postcolonial governments

tend to govern from the same capital city that colonial governments did, and often struggle to

implement institutions separate from the colonial government. Nunn notes how civil law systems

implanted by European colonizers into Southeast Asian colonies result in comparatively worse

property development standards than their common law counterparts. In turn, there is a strong

correlation between historical high standards of property rights for all inhabitants of a colony and

subsequent economic development. While this example is too broad to be specified to Jakarta, there

is room to understand the possible negative results of poor property rights.

Bakker, K. and Kooy, M. (2008) in Technologies of Government: Constituting Subjectivities, Spaces,

and Infrastructures in Colonial and Contemporary Jakarta empirically identify this reality in Jakarta’s

8

urban geography. The majority of Jakarta’s infrastructure in the immediate independence period

was only of a workable standard in areas that were inhabited, frequented or occupied by European

settlers and their patrons (Monkonnen, 2013). This has led to a highly fractionalized urban

geography across Jakarta. They notice that areas of Jakarta were developed selectively and in a

manner that deliberately avoided Kampung populations even if they were geographically proximate.

In their paper, Governance Failure: Rethinking the Institutional Dimensions of Urban Water Supply to

Poor Households, ) Bakker and Kooy (2008) identify how pre-independence maps of basic

infrastructure (housing, water, electricity) projects map almost directly onto contemporary

boundaries of informal settlement areas. Their highly segregated model of Jakarta’s urban landscape

suggests the way in which Kampung housing has been largely ignored by governing bodies.

Pacione (2009) stresses the importance of security of tenure as the fundamental basis of housing as

a reliable venture. Pacione suggests that without a high confidence in retaining the land, families will

not invest time and money into consolidating their dwelling. Thus, security of tenure simultaneously

encourages low-cost and low-risk housing. Families want to be able to rebuild or relocate quickly in

the event of demolition or eviction. Simultaneously, permanent structures in the Kampung might

create a physical political standpoint in the likelihood of conflict with authorities. Therein, the extent

to which Kampung housing communities concretize their land use depends on the benefits that they

can extract from tenure security. Access to credit is an incredibly important element as it is one of

the factors that helps to formalize informal housing into something that could resemble

conventionality. If tenure security is proven or extracted through some verifiable means, access to

credit through the property as collateral greatly increases the potential incomes of nonconventional

housing dwellers. This idea forms the backbone of de Soto’s (2000) argument that governments

should title the houses of the poor so as to give them access to capital beyond their means, thus

creating investment in the economy. Pacione’s (2009) other important consideration when viewing

the urban geography of a developing society is that of infrastructure provision.

Consistent with Nunn (2009) and de Soto (2000), Pacione shows how informal urban agglomerations

eventually become recognized suburbs of a third world city. The permanent establishment of an

informal settlement makes them simultaneously difficult to improve (because of the general lack of

connected infrastructure) while also difficult to relocate or eradicate (because of the size and

strength of communities). In the next section, this paper will investigate how informal settlements

like the urban phenomena of Kampung arose in Jakarta.

9

Literature Review: Jakarta as a City In 2016, UN Habitat estimated that 54% of the world’s current population live in urban areas. By

2050, this level is set to rise to 70%, where two-thirds of the world’s population will reside in cities.

The concentration of economic, social, and cultural life in urban areas is too attractive to pass up for

the opportunistic hopeful migrants of the 21st century. Jakarta is an archetypal representation of

this onslaught of population and spatial growth. It is the largest city in Java and greater Indonesia. It

is almost twice as large as the next Javanese megacity, Surabaya, and five times as large as Bandung,

the third largest megacity of Indonesia, also located in Java. Though few studies have been

conducted on migrant patterns, it is generally assumed that Jakarta absorbs a considerable amount

of rural-urban migration in Java (Papanek, 1975). Java is one of the most population dense islands in

the world, and benefits from relatively stable inter-city transport infrastructure meaning that rural-

urban migration is relatively low risk with an option of returning to point of origin. Though rates of

rural-urban migration to Jakarta have significantly slowed down, the city continues to grow, and its

poor urban population remains considerable. Human Cities Coalition (2018) estimates that 5 million

people in Jakarta live in slums, which is a little under half of its total population. This figure is

dubious and not entirely reliable given the different national, municipal and local definitions used by

different bodies concerned with housing in Jakarta, Java and Indonesia. Jakarta is massive and

contiguous metropolitan Jakarta is home to 31 million people within the administrative areas of

Jabodetabek (an acronym describing a composition of Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi).

This study will focus specifically on Daerah Khusus Ibu Kota Jakarta (DKI Jakarta) – The special capital

region of Jakarta, in order to limit the study to the colonial origins and spatial patterns of Kampungs

identified in the previous sections.

Figure 2: Greater Jakarta (Jabodetabek) with DKI Jakarta outlined by the dashed ring-road.

Source: (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015)

10

Since the 1960s, Jakarta has been characterized by conversion of its agricultural fringes into urban

centres populated by rural migrants. Zhu and Simarmata (2015) reckon that almost all migration in

the 20th century following the independence period was characterized by self-help Kampung

housing. The literature seems to point to a narrative that suggests Jakarta is a self-made city, with

pockets of the city benefitting or losing from sporadic government involvement, dependent on the

historical circumstance. In this regard, understanding Jakarta as a city is a mammoth task with many

narratives of its 20th century formation left uncovered.

Bakker and Kooy’s (2008) model of Jakarta’s dual-city colonial structure will be continually explored

as a point of understanding the persistence of Kampung housing. In characterizing Jakarta’s urban

life, scholars have pointed to the various ways segregation is manifested through urban identities

(Bakker and Kooy, 2008, Zhu and Simaramata, 2015, Papanek, 1975). This is to say that Jakarta’s

informal dwellers in the urban landscape use institutions that originate from rural life and create

heterogenous urban lifestyles within the city (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015). Bakker and Kooy (2008)

note how this heterogeneity in ways of living among the poor (without sanitation, water access or

permanent housing) is both a cause of the lack of access to housing and utilities for Kampung

dwellers, and a reason why the poor may not aspire to achieve better conditions in the short-term.

However, scholars have noted that Jakarta’s megacity status and the high level of heterogeneity in

urban lifestyle experienced among different types of residents (slum dwellers, ruling elites, middle-

class Jakartans) makes it very hard to be precise when describing the housing-related aspirations of

parties involved in housing issues (Sihombing, 2014).

11

Characterizing Jakarta’s housing situation

Figure 3: 1894 depiction of colonial Batavia (colonial Jakarta) shows the agglomeration of kampungs around the Dutch city center (Stadttele in red). Ricefields (Sawah) are consumed by the growth of

kampungs in the city.

Source: Leipzig, F.A.B. (1892). "Batavia Lithograph"

Jakarta’s urban landscape is notoriously cluttered, every topographical space within the urban city is

privy to some entanglement of public, private or communal infrastructure for a variety of utilities,

with water being the most common example (Kooy et al. 2008). Literature on the formation of

Jakarta’s current housing situation is dispersed between a history of rural-urban migration and a

focus on the success of the Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP). Papanek in his (1975) paper,

The Poor of Jakarta is an early quantitative and empirical study into the formation of Jakarta’s

informal housing settlements. Papanek details how the poor arrived in waves to work in low

specialization occupations but did not make enough income to return home, thus establishing an

outpost on the fringes of Jakarta and contributing to the ever-growing landscape of outer Jakarta.

12

Their inability to return home is one way their Kampung housing settlements were made

permanent. Though migrants do not always intend to stay, it became difficult to return to rural

areas, given the immense economic opportunities of the city (Papanek, 1975). He also details how

rural Javanese migrants took early opportunities to migrate their families into the informal

settlements they had set up in Jakarta. Papanek introduces the idea of a ‘culture of poverty’ which

contributes to Pacione’s (2009) theme in his urban geography work: the culture of informal

settlements starts off as transient, yet the Kampung often became permanent. The 1975 survey

noted how the fear of eviction remained the largest concern for virtually all respondents inside the

informal Kampung settlements. Interestingly, Papanek also notes that the respondents’ ideas

regarding eviction in this survey seem to suggest an inability to protest the government’s

repossession of an informal settlement. This is important to contrast later when looking at current

responses to eviction.

Characterizing Kampung After the peak of rural-urban migration and Kampung set-up during the 1980s, the Kampung

became more and more a permanent structure in Jakarta’s cityscape. However, questions remained

about the Kampung’s ability to resist eviction. Korff’s (1996) study, Global and Local Spheres: The

Diversity of Southeast Asian Urbanism, identifies several actors in the informal settlements of

Jakarta’s urban spaces. He notes Jakarta as different to informal settlements in Manila and Bangkok

because informal settlement dwellers in Jakarta lack official channels through which they can

articulate their housing wants with government officials. This is one of the first characterizations of

the weak political strength of Jakartan Kampung residents. The actors involved in this conflict

according to the study are the federal state, the municipal government, state-owned enterprises,

private national and transnational companies, NGOs, and the residents of informal settlements

themselves. Because many many of Jakarta’s Kampungs have been engulfed into the metropolitan

city center, they are located on government land by constitutional and municipal law.

Korff argues that the Kampung lacks a community cohesive enough to devise a strategy against

government intervention. The strategy therein referring to a sense of community that is organized

enough to advocate for urban survival for the whole community, as he notes that unity within the

Kampung appears limited to smaller divisions like neighborhood clusters. As such, the ways in which

Kampungs have been treated by the government are diverse and hardly uniform. When evictions

first started in the 1990s, the most successful initiatives by authorities to move residents out

peacefully was with one-time pecuniary incentives. For example, wholesale relocations of the

Kampung itself were shunned in favor of individual payments to residents. Community-wide

agreements were not to be found and the evicting authorities were forced to broker individual

financial agreements to ensure a smooth eviction process. These incidents are important later when

considering current DKI Jakarta government approaches to housing provision today, which has of

recent been far more destructive and chaotic. Korff’s study also characterizes Kampung opposition

as unwilling to engage in prolonged and intensive struggles with administration. To preserve their

smaller, neighborhood level communities there was incentive to take resettlement options or

compensation money elsewhere. Papanek (1975) identified a similar phenomenon and attributed

such to the individualistic, rural-cosmological moral economy of Jakarta’s Kampung dwellers. Thus,

both Korff and Papanek characterize the kampung dwellers of Jakarta as sustaining individualistic

rural mindsets while occupying spaces in the metropolitan city. The Kampung is thus characterized

as often being a loose assortment of individual families and economies, all experiencing

heterogenous desires for future housing plans.

13

Involvement of Infrastructure and Colonial Mentalities One of the key features of Kampung is a lack of access to infrastructure. Understandably, this is also

what prompts the connection between Kampungs and poverty. Jakarta’s water struggles are a

model to consider when investigating provision and regulation within the city, and Bakker and Kooy

(2008) have investigated the role of governing bodies in water provision. They found proof of

segregationist patterns inside Jakarta’s infrastructural network which reflect income and class

divisions on the surface. Their argument is that in colonial Batavia, unhygienic and uncivilized

elements of urban space were purposely avoided for development, and that this process continued

in the post-independence era under new rulers. They stress the role that urban identity plays in

assigning priority to projects. Their conception of ‘urban identity’ relies on relations of power that

post-independence Jakarta inherited from the relations of power during the colonial Batavia period.

Prevailing classist attitudes persisted and manifested as a lack of desire to improve poor areas, even

as they became agglomerated and enlarged as informal settlements. This is important for

understanding why projects fall through. Their works exemplify that the focal point of studying

Jakarta’s lack of infrastructural provision and housing provision should be the historical and political

narratives that influenced bodies to act or not act in favor of improving conditions. While Bakker and

Kooy’s work provides a good foundation of comparison, initiatives to improve access to clean water

have also not been developed simultaneously to improving housing conditions to which the water

access would be piped. This is one of the key characterizations of Jakarta’s housing situation:

different bodies working to address poverty through different methods. While PAM Jaya, the city’s

water provision authority, was working to provide access to informal settlements or improve access

in poor neighborhoods, a separate housing authority worked to improve informal settlements

through the Kampung Improvement Scheme (KIP) (Leitner and Sheppard, 2017). The KIP scheme was

one of many introduced in the pre-Reformasi era to upgrade urban areas through various initiatives,

though eviction remained an easy and common route. Since eviction did not always mean

relocation, poverty may persist. This eviction trend in the contemporary era and an inspection of the

role of Kampung will be explored in the subsequent case studies of land use in Kampung Muara Baru

and eviction in Kampung Bukit Duri

14

Consequences In answering our question of addressing Kampung issues through government has been stifled in

Jakarta, it is important to build on Kooy and Bakker’s (2008) segregated model of Jakarta. They argue

that Jakarta is divided between favorable and unfavorable settlements stemming from colonial

times. This is also advanced by Papanek (1975), Zhu and Simarmata (2015), Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa

and Shima (2016), Korff (1996), Kusno (2012), Leitner and Sheppard (2017), Monkonnen (2013),

Rukmana (2018), Supriyatno (2014), Tunas and Peresthu (2010), and Waleed (2017). Additionally,

Putri’s (2018) study ‘Sanitizing Jakarta’ shows that during both the Soekarno and Soeharto era (Orde

Lama and Orde Baru) most spatial development projects furthered the elements of segregation in

colonial Batavia. For example, piped water and sanitation projects were implemented along the

North-South axis that dominates colonial Jakarta as seen in Figures 1,3 and 4. This literature review

demonstrates that contemporary Kampung issues originate from a history of colonial spatial

segregation.

15

Figure 4: 1945 Batavia (colonial Jakarta) reveals the growth of kampungs circumventing the city’s periphery. Areas highlighted in orange and red represent Dutch buildings, structures and districts,

while green shading shows Kampungs. Kampungs spread outwards and along the North-South path of the colonial city.

Source: Survey Dpt. HQ Allied Forces Netherl. East Indies. (1945).

16

The consequences of the policy entanglement caused by confused and misdirected governance are

found in the persistence of Kampung living in Jakarta. The specific focus on inter-generational

poverty reveals that lifestyles of poverty in the Kampung became deeply entrenched, prompting

civic concern (Papanek, 1975). Indonesia has been experiencing a continuous growth in rural-urban

migration, which has not been discouraged even though the government purposely underdeveloped

certain areas to dissuade inflow. Flow into these areas has made self-built housing the dominant

form of housing production in Indonesia which accounted for more than 70% of houses produced in

2013 (Rukmana, 2018). New housing units provided by developers or private builders account for

less than 9% of total urban housing (Rukmana, 2018). This is a consequence of the inability to curb

Jakarta’s dynamic informal housing sector (Kooy, 2008). Land-use in Jakarta is also seen as entirely

under the purview of the state which exercises informal and formal dualism to their conception of

state lands (Kusno, 2012). This is to say that while the government sees itself as responsible for all

the land, there are systems which regulate both the formal and informal aspects of this land. There

are restrictions imposed on informal settlements that are formally adhered to – thus making it

increasingly clear the consequence of differing policies regarding different aspects of housing in

Jakarta is utter confusion.

As the capital of Indonesia and the country’s largest city, Jakarta has endured the oversight of many

leaders. Papanek (1975), Washburton (2018) and Putri (2018) characterize the Soekarno and

Soeharto periods as being focused on authoritarian nation-wide attempts to raise Indonesia’s

development. Though both regimes were plagued by corruption and conflict, the highly centralized

approach is credited with some success of improving conditions of poverty inside Kampungs in

Jakarta (Sriyana, Prabowo and Syamsudin, 2017). The Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP) is

one such national-level initiative which achieved considerable success and international acclaim for

significantly improving the physical standards of living for the poor in Jakarta (Harari and Wong,

2018). Contemporary studies attribute Jakarta’s declining rate of overall poverty with historic

successes of the KIP, including education, medical and sanitation access. Harari and Wong (2018)

show that approximately 75% of Jakarta’s total population lived in slums by 1975. The KIP, in

conjunction with Jakarta’s closed city mandate in 1970, reduced the ability of slums to expand

through various methods. Education and medical centers provided by the KIP reduced population

growth within Kampung themselves and prompted generational exits from the Kampungs upon

maturation of children born into Kampungs. However, findings from Harari and Wong’s (2018) study

show a concerning problem of Kampung life: areas where KIP activities took place, even if the

Kampung has been successfully converted into conventional housing, had lower land values. As

expected from our model of Jakarta as a colonially fragmented city, KIP areas display less

commercial activity and greater land-use fragmentation. This contributes to a large body of

literature that suggests lower-income areas were ignored for development projects historically

(Bakker and Kooy, 2008, Zhu and Simarmata, 2015, Supriyatno, 2014, Papanek, 1975, Korff, 1996,

Pacione, 1996). Simultaneously, programs that provide modest levels of physical upgrading and

develop urban pathways are incredibly helpful for promoting future economic development (World

Bank, 1995) but without secure tenure and socioecononic development within the Kampung,

dramatic improvements, such as reducing slum status entirely, are unlikely (Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa

and Shina, 2016). Tunas and Peresthu (2010) paint a damning picture of this inability to integrate

Kampungs into connected urban life even after the success of the KIP:

Kampong density is increasing every year. These burgeoning informal urban settlements are

scattered throughout the city of Jakarta and have created an urban patchwork of poverty.

Pockets of poverty with poor infrastructure and no services literally lie side by side with the

most fashionable business districts and residential areas in Greater Jakarta.

17

There are two ideas to propose when summarizing the connection between housing in the colonial

and postcolonial periods, in terms of government response. First, public sector involvement in

Kampung informal settlements in Jakarta has been fractionalized. However, there has been a focus

by public bodies towards improving the general conditions of poverty within the Kampung. Second,

there has been little involvement by the government in the 20th century to physically construct

housing for the poor in any manner – with Zhu and Simarmata (2015) estimating that in 1985-1995,

during the height of the KIP, less than 7000 low-cost apartments were built. As such, it is important

to look at a contemporary case study to investigate the role of governance in Kampungs today.

18

Case Study: Kampung Muara Baru Zhu and Simarmata’s (2015) study of Kampung Muara Baru (KMB) is an example characterizing the

current situation of Kampungs in Jakarta and their future. Because the study deals with governing

bodies in DKI Jakarta, this work elucidates the ways in which governance is communicated and acted

on within the Jakarta area in a contemporary setting. It is also helpful in our attempt to differentiate

the colonial and postcolonial segregated history of Jakarta from the Reformasi era if we are studying

the role of governance in housing provision in Jakarta today.

Figure 5: The location of DKI Jakarta with Kampung Muara Baru (KMB) highlighted. KMB is a Kampung settlement that has existed since the early 20th century.

Source: (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015)

Zhu and Simarmata’s (2015) study notes that a mixture of land-use rights were granted to residents

of KMB at different times throughout the Kampung’s long history. Their study initially sought to

figure out land-use and property right differentiations among residents (totaling almost 21,000

19

people inside 112 ha) of KMB. DKI Jakarta considered the entire informal settlement to build on

state-land, but allowed those living on vacant state-land, unoccupied by private companies within

KMB to claim Girik titles. Land with the Girik (literally meaning tax receipts) title signifies that the

holder should posses land tax receipts. This suggests the land holder pays land tax regularly and

would serve as the proof of customary ownership. Girik land has full property rights similar to

freehold ownership, but Girik titles stem from Indonesia’s Adat laws, which are part of Indonesia’s

dual law system, simultaneously recognizing indigenous land-use policies and private developments.

They note that there appeared to be a connection between formal employment in registered private

companies within the Kampung and the kind of land they used, while the Girik title appeared to be a

superfluous registration as an artefact of the Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP). 15% of KMB

residents had formal work while 85% worked in informal sectors within the Kampung itself, cleaning,

vending and driving becak. The KMB study highlights how there appears to be little use for titling in

the face of poverty conditions.

Zhu and Simarmata (2015) observed that at the time of their study, there was no piped water,

sewage or private toilets inside KMB. While technically some of the land use inside KMB would be

considered legal and privately defensible with a Girik title, this appears to have no effect on the

condition of KMB overall. This is consistent with Bakker and Kooy et al.’s (2008) summary that

Jakarta’s fractionalization is created in the colonial period and driven further in two different

directions during the 20th century post-independence period. The first direction being that of the

ruling elite and rise of the middle-class, where Zhu and Simarmata (2015) confirm that mortgageable

housing estates with government approval exploded in the 1980s onwards in Jakarta, concentrated

in urban areas that were built, canalled and developed by European settlements (including former

rural areas) in the colonial period. Thus, they argue that Jakarta’s composition of middle-class

neighborhood development has been inside areas that are spatially located in areas with

infrastructural foundations already laid during the colonial period. This furthers the idea that

Jakarta’s fractionalization and lack of housing provision for the poor is not only a factor of a lack of

construction, but they are also distant from adequate infrastructure needed to build housing

developments. Indeed, Bakker and Kooy (2008) comment that construction of adequate

infrastructure is a prerequisite to improving Kampung conditions.

20

Governing Girik: Land Use in Jakarta In order to investigate housing provision in Jakarta it is critical that this paper addresses the

complexity of land use policy within DKI Jakarta. As we build our thesis, it is important to highlight

the role that land use policy has in our narrative of Jakarta as a fractionalized, segregated and

colonial city. The World Bank (1995), Silver (2008) and Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa and Shina (2016) all

attribute the limitations of improvements of the Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP) being

directly related to land use policy.

Though the KIP steered clear of attempting land reform as did most Soeharto-era policies

(Washburton, 2018), Government Regulation 24 (GR24) in 1997 attempted to expedite land

registration programs in Indonesia as a method of combating poverty following the trend in

development studies of the time (World Bank, 1995).

Across Indonesia, land occupiers could register their lands if they meet several conditions:

1. Land has been occupied for 20 years or more

2. The occupation is strengthened by assertions from trustworthy persons, such as a Kampung

leader or elected official

3. The occupation does not infringe on adat law within local community.

(Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa and Shina, 2016)

It is important here to note that GR24, while introduced in Indonesia’s civil law code, incorporates

elements from Adat law, signifying the crossover between Indonesia’s two legal systems. The

interpretation of GR24 is understandably enforceable only a case-by-case basis due to the difficulty

of meeting these three parameters across different contexts within the nation. In Jakarta however,

the situation proved most difficult because of the additional requirements to validate this

registration.

The procedure requires the applicant to submit:

1. Letter of undisputed land status;

2. Letter of land parcel history;

3. Letter of land occupation;

4. Identity and Family Card;

5. Letter of land and building tax;

6. Letter of income tax.

(Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa and Shina, 2016)

After submitting the documents, the applicant must purchase and fill the registration form from

Municipality Land Agency If the documents are valid, then a verification team from the Municipality

Land Agency comes to measure the land for incorporation into a land titling database. Following this,

the Municipality Land Agency will submit the whole application a federal body, the National Land

Agency for issuing the certificate. Each step of this process requires a cost on the applicant's side

based on the land price and can take significant time from application to officiation. While it is

understandable that developing world bureaucracy is still an improving endeavor, it is clear to see

that Indonesia’s progress in formalizing land use is embarrassing. In 2016, registered land comprised

about 30 percent of Indonesia’s non-forested land, compared to 90 percent in Thailand and 80

percent in The Philippines (Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa and Shina, 2016).

21

Figure 6: Land Use in Jakarta. Lack of land registration remains a product of colonial hangover. Even in older areas of central and north Jakarta, land remains unregistered. Meanwhile, wealthier recent

development areas of Menteng and Pondok Indah in South Jakarta contain registered land.

Source: Badan Pusat Statistik. (2015).

22

Land Use Rights The aforementioned Girik titles available and recognized in Kampung Muara Baru is one such form

of item 5.; Letter of land and building tax. However, Girik only tends to apply in the case of income

generation from the property, which has rendered many applicants unable to obtain an officially

recognized tenure status in the form of GR24. It should be noted that Girik titles are a hangover from

a colonial institution and are self-generated forms of subjective tenure security.

Monkonnen’s (2013) study of housing affordability in Indonesia identified several titles referring to

contemporary land use and ownership in Indonesia. These titles are governed by Law No. 5 on Basic

Agrarian Affairs, enacted in 1960. Among them, Monkonnen notes the difference in recognized

tenure claims such as:

- Hak Milik: right of ownership

- Hak Guna Usaha: right of cultivation

- Hak Pakai: use rights

- Hak Sewa: rental rights

- Hak Membuka Tenah: land clearing right

- Hak Memungut Hasil Hutan: forestry extraction rights

Compare these to extra-legal tenure rights such as the Hak Girik and we are still not getting

anywhere. Monkonnen’s study idenfitied the confusing reality that the clear majority of constructed

housing will not receive one of the recognized tenure claims. The government appears to respect

Girik rights (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015 and Monkonnen, 2013) but still maintains that Hak Milik is

necessary for procuring urban development permits as well as for receiving finance from

government or private sector institutions. This Girik/Milik dichotomy is crucial in identifying how

housing development programs operate outside of government initiatives. As such, the question of

establishing Girik rights and achieving Milik status will be a key insight into characterizing

governance towards hosuing in Jakarta.

Adianto, Okabe, Ellisa and Shina’s (2016) study of Kampung Cikini demonstrated that DKI Jakarta (a

Municipality Land Agency) does recognize Girik titles among others. Their study showed that almost

every tenant in the informal slum settlement had some form of eligibility for Girik tenure security

but declined to pursue officiation of their tenure security. This seems to be because of a reluctance

to disclose details of their home situation, in fear of eviction or resettlement. This appears to

demonstrate a knowledge system in Kampung Cikini that believes even officiated tenure of a

property cannot prevent forced eviction.

23

Current Policies The Government of Indonesia, through three ministries—the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry

of Public Housing, and the Ministry of Public Works—issued a joint decree on November 16, 1992 for

a socially integrated housing policy Lingkungan Hunian Berimbang (Kusno, 2012). The most recent

policies of relevance regarding housing in Jakarta come from the former governor Basuki Tjahaja

Purnama also known as Ahok. Ahok implemented wide-ranging slum redevelopment projects which

ultimately evicted large number of inhabitants from river and water areas, in promise of eventual

relocation to unspecified areas (Yap, 2017). Precisely because the Lingkungan Hunian Berimbang

never became anything more than a management body for the disparate and heterogenous housing

schemes in Jakarta, relocations for evicted residents were never made uniform. This is to say that an

intelligible outlook on housing policy in Jakarta becomes difficult without demarcating the different

groups in need of housing. The actions of the government have always been reactive in response to

those in need, or those who inhibit public development because their historical homes are located in

way of a government project: commercial or residential redevelopment or conflicting with river

cleanup operations. The Jakarta Legal Aid Institute (LBH Jakarta) has reported that in 2015 alone

there were 113 cases of forced evictions in Jakarta, directly affecting more than 8000 households

(Putri, 2018). Because of this, Kampung and informal settlement dwellers are now more likely to

resist cooperation with government into promised new housing environments because of the risk of

total destitution through eviction (Topsfield, 2017). In August of 2018, the government announced

that several developments of Rusunawas – government sanctioned redevelopments of informal

houses – had run out of funding and hopeful residents could not be resettled. These instances will

be explored as a way of characterizing governance on a local level in DKI Jakarta.

This damning picture of the current eviction trend in Jakarta is exacerbated by a focus on Kampung

Bukit Duri (KBD) along the Ciliwung river in central Jakarta. Using the narrative of the KBD, we form

an understanding of how governance is enacted with regards to eviction and provision in Jakarta.

Sriyana, Prabowo and Syamsudin, (2017) emphasize the difference between governance in the pre

and post-Reformasi period – characterized by massive amounts of decentralization. This

decentralization period during and after Reformasi is attributed to the strengthening of

gubernatorial and local-level responsibilities.

The election of Joko Widodo (Jokowi) to Jakarta Governor in 2012 signified the rise of populist

regimes in contemporary Indonesia and proposals for development programs soon became common

(Washburton, 2018). However, Jokowi steered clear of large-scale housing reformation. As Harari

and Wong (2018) note, housing has not entered as a significant political item in Jakarta’s political

climate since the KIP. Jokowi and his predecessors have focused on tackling poverty in the form of

improving education and medical care across Jakarta (Washburton, 2018). As has been shown in this

literature review, housing provision has been circumvented by targeting other, easier aspects of

poverty alleviation. This trend started with the establishment of medical center and education

establishments inside Kampungs during the KIP and continued into the governing promises of

Jokowi. Jokowi’s campaign for election to the Presidential office rested largely on his ability to

promote a narrative that he would model educational and medical care successes in Jakarta into a

nationwide program (Washburton, 2018). Jokowi’s unwillingness to deal with housing issues, a

sleeping giant among Jakarta’s urban landscape, contrasts with his successor’s extreme attempts to

combat housing issues in Jakarta.

Ahok has left a physical imprint on Jakarta’s Kampung landscape that attempts to change the model

of a variegated and segregated Jakarta. Ahok’s gubernatorial reign is characterized by populist

24

promises for change and his ability to decimate permanent Kampung communities. Ahok’s rampage

is one indicator of the increased power given to local authorities in the post-Reformasi decentralized

era (Washburton, 2018, Sriyana, Prabowo and Syamsudin, 2017). Though there were many evictions

and attempted resettlements during Ahok’s tenure, the narrative of Ahok and the KBD provides an

understanding of one of the many recent attempts of the local and national governments to enact

housing provision. According to the Jakarta Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) there were 113 evictions in

Jakarta in 2015 alone, affecting more than 8000 families (Topsfield, 2016). Ahok’s gubernatorial

campaign promised to clean up the Ciliwung river and resettle tenants of the many Kampungs that

dotted its course. In delivering on this promise, Ahok radically shifted the paradigm of Kampung-

government relations in Jakarta. KBD was home to an unknown number of residents before forced

eviction but occupied a 1.6 ha area along the Ciliwung river. As part of a Ciliwung restoration project

with an environmental focus, the residents were forced to evict within a few months of notice in

order to begin the restoration project (Topsfield, 2016). Due to the authoritarian way the project

was initiated, and the prolonged legal battle that became of the project, it is difficult to say whether

this was an attempt at politically signaling Ahok’s unwelcoming attitude towards Kampungs, or a

genuine attempt to promote environmental restoration – with the answer likely being both

(Topsfield, 2017). What characterizes the governance aspect of Ahok’s forced eviction for KBD

however, is the communication between governing authorities and Kampung residents as

Koesoemawiria (2017) reports firsthand:

Residents were told they would get 3 months free lodging and had to fulfill general

requirements. Residents had to show proof of a monthly salary and letter from one’s

employer, open account in the city’s Bank DKI and deposit a first three month rent. Being

mostly self-employed, many residents could not fulfill the requirements. Getting an

apartment also meant signing an agreement to waive compensation. Many residents readily

signed up and relocated, accepting the deal and have no wish to return to Bukit Duri. Others

have regretted the choice, besides the inability to cover monthly payments, Bukit Duri was

home. Some of Ciliwung’s riverside neighborhoods are slums. The river is Jakarta’s dirtiest,

contaminated by industrial sewage, clogged with garbage dumped by city dwellers. Each time

the river overflowed poor communities in the area were the first to bear the brunt. Yet Bukit

Duri has existed since the 1920s and these communities have lived there for generations in

tight and close-knit communities. The communities are resilient and proud. They know how

to live with the river. As soon as the river rumbles and rises, they move documents and goods

to an upper level, for safety. Then resume work immediately as each flood recedes.

The attempted physical eviction is one of only few attempts in history to physically alter Jakarta’s

fractionalized urban landscape. The variation in provisions provided by the government show the

eagerness of the authorities to remove Kampung residents through expedited means. As the

situation developed however, patience wore out from the governor’s side, suggesting a fluid and

undefined bargaining process in dealing with the residents:

Those facing eviction have been offered low-rent apartments known as Rusunawa about 16

kilometres away in East Jakarta. But some have no desire to leave Bukit Duri, where they have

lived for decades. It is the hub around which their social life and livelihoods revolve. The people of

Bukit Duri are widely portrayed as illegal squatters, who are ungrateful for rejecting relatively

luxurious apartments. The apartment complex in East Jakarta where they will be relocated is two

hours away by bus. The city has said the evictees will not receive compensation because they

have been living illegally on state land. (Topsfield, 2016)

25

The governor’s eagerness to follow through with campaign promises and unwillingness to

accommodate the Bukit Duri livelihoods is indicative of the attempted rush-job that characterizes

Ahok’s governorship. While housing provision has been theoretically provided, it remains unsuitable

for economic livelihoods that have been concretized in Bukit Duri since the colonial period. Ahok’s

housing provision plans in terms of resettlement for Kampung residents were successful

construction projects, which is to say that real Rusunawas were constructed for the purpose of

rehousing the victims of his eviction campaign – but the governance problem of being unable to

follow through the mechanism of rehousing Kampung residents is indicative of Jakarta’s current

housing issues. KBD residents were far luckier than those who inhabited Kampung Akuarium in

North Jakarta. The people of Kampung Akuarium were given an eviction notice 11 days before their

homes were bulldozed in April 2017. (Topsfield, 2017). The irreversible physical and administrative

impact of eviction by Ahok to the Kampung Akuarium residents is exemplified in a report by the

Jakarta Post (2017) regarding the current governor of Jakarta, Anies Baswedan:

Anies refused to provide further details about the plan or explain whether he would rebuild

the residential or continue the previous administration’s plan to turn the land into a marine

tourism center. “We will talk about the plan in the next two weeks. I don’t want to talk about

the plan now,” he said.

Governor Anies was unable to form the plan in the following weeks. The post-Ahok era approach to

Jakarta’s urban landscape is signaled by the reinstitution of bureaucracy by the books. Anies ran on a

campaign promise of providing shelter to the KBD residents, after families who resisted eviction won

a one-year long class-action lawsuit in 2017 against the Jakarta administration, following their

attempted eviction in early 2016. The decision from the Central Jakarta District Court was backed by

the Jakarta High Court. However, the governor’s administration office has yet to fulfill Anies'

campaign promise of building the Kampung Susun (literally: elevated village. An incomplete proposal

for integrated Kampung-style living in the DKI Jakarta metropolis) for the claimants of the class-

action lawsuit because of land acquisition problems. Anies said It has also not developed temporary

shelters for similar reasons (Jakarta Post, 2018).

The Kampung Susun (elevated village) in question is one of the most interesting developments in our

study, as it represents the attempt by local level communities to not only resist entrenchment by

government eviction forces, but to find a workable public-private solution.

Residents and outside advocates formed an NGO-charity in response to Ahok’s aggressive eviction

mandate called Ciliwung Merdeka which advocated for solutions to the eviction problem in light of

the attention that destruction of settlements along the Ciliwung river was receiving. With the

assistance of architects and academics, Ciliwung Merdeka presented Ahok and Jokowi (who by this

time is President of Indonesia and became involved as the issue became national news) with an

alternative solution to the governor’s unfavourable resettlement plan. The proposal involved

building an elevated village, known as Kampung Susun, which would mean the people would not be

displaced from their economic activities. The residents would fund 30 percent of the cost of

construction, the city 50 percent and private investors 20 percent. Jokowi and Ahok appeared to

support the concept (Topsfield, 2016). But later Jokowi and Ahok told them the Public Works

Ministry had rejected the social housing plan because it was on the banks of the Ciliwung River.

Ahok’s ability to violently evict thousands of Kampung dwellers while simultaneously unable to

direct funding towards public-private plans is one characterization of Kampung governance in

Jakarta. While Ahok may have the discretion to evict the residents of Kampungs dotted across

Jakarta, he cannot actually enact the kind of radical change that necessary to undo Jakarta’s

26

fractionalization. The Ministry of Public Works’ (Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan

Rakyat- PUPR) decision has likely been influenced by a desire to see the completion Rusunawa

projects that initially proposed as a solution to the resettlement question. The deferment of the

issue to a national body demonstrates that the wave of decentralization in Indonesia and DKI

Jakarta’s authority does not extend so far as to provide the funds and organizations necessary to

deal with Ciliwung Merdeka’s Kampung Susun solution. In order to understand the governance

perspective on the ground in Indonesia, where current literature is lacking, this study undertook a

three-week investigation inside Jakarta to understand how governance is characterized by

individuals working in housing provision across Jakarta. The results of that survey appeared to affirm

the idea that a reluctance to address Kampung issues persists in Jakarta’s governance profile.

27

Results – Fieldwork Survey of December 2018 A total of five (individual and group) interviews were conducted in December 2018 within DKI

Jakarta across various sectors, stretching from high- and low-ranking government officials (both local

and national), charity workers with direct or indirect involvement in housing provision, directors of

charity funds and Kampung dwellers, including (apparently) local leaders. All interviews were kept

strictly anonymous to maintain a conducive environment for sharing. A considerable amount of the

information revealed (especially from those with occupations or relationships in government)

contained compromising details, and information not directly related to this study of understanding

governance and housing provision in Jakarta has been omitted.

However, many of the interviewees identified a similar pattern of barriers preventing housing

provision from both the private and public sector. These issues can be summed up from the public

side as lack of cooperation and clear mandate of responsibility, along with difficulty in interpreting

land use rights. Similarly, land use rights and difficulty of working with governments were cited as

areas of concern for private sectors concerned with housing provision.

For this written study, three interviews were of significance in characterizing attitudes towards

housing provision. The important point that was emphasized in all three of these lengthy interviews

was that housing had not, and was not likely going to be, a considerable focus of either NGO’s,

charity funds or the national and local governments due to the immense complexity involved in

enacting successful programs.

28

Interview One – Housing NGO The NGO in question is a privately funded global charity focused on constructing, maintaining and

securing habitats for long-term abode. While the global operations of this NGO differ, the Jakarta

office of the NGO was previously focused on construction and improvement of communities. The

NGO had been involved in construction of both houses and infrastructure in regions in Jakarta. The

NGO incorporated a start to finish procedure which ensured adequate water, sanitation and utility

access to last. The NGO started off by securing land rights (where they could) and then developing

permanent abode and infrastructure. Every project was different, as some projects the NGO

acquired land themselves and then encouraged relocation of a community to the NGO land, whereas

others relied on developing land that belonged (usually informally) to the Kampung community.

Currently, the NGO only works in the greater Jabodetabek area excluding DKI Jakarta. This was

known to me beforehand and was a key reason why they were targeted for interview. Historically,

the NGO had experienced many problems working in developments in DKI Jakarta specifically

because of land use and government issues that they moved all their projects to outer areas.

This interview conducted in early December 2018 involved a one-day long discussion centered on

three central questions:

• Does the NGO recognize a fractionalized housing system across DKI Jakarta?

• How does the NGO characterize interaction with the government?

• What work did the previously NGO carry out to address problems of housing provision

across DKI Jakarta?

The interview was attended by a group of senior officials with the highest-ranking official having

over forty years of experience in development projects in Jakarta and Indonesia. The observations

made during this interview were striking. Although the literature review established a minimal

understanding of land-use policy demonstrated by the case of KMB and Monkonnen’s (2013)

research, the NGO itself had faced past repercussions for developing housing projects due to

settlements being deemed ‘illegal’ by The Ministry of Public Works and Housing (PUPR). Though the

NGO was aware that most slum dwellers do not own the land, even Girik rights established in some

informal settlements during the 20th were not viable projects to build permanent abode. The NGO

noted the (local) government’s apprehension in letting developers substantially improve informal

Kampung settlements. Foremost, the NGO would not be granted the right to work on publicly

owned land (similar to the Ahok story) and second, the scope of their work was limited to

humanitarian relief within DKI Jakarta rather a holistic process to upgrade Kampung living inside DKI

Jakarta.

The NGO’s focus outside DKI was enlightening – to develop Kampungs is a somewhat risky and

unsustainable process, should the Kampung be viable for eviction. It was not within the NGO’s

capabilities to efficiently and effectively develop infrastructural necessities like water and electricity

also. As such, the NGO’s focus was on building sustainable and long-term communities on land they

could acquire - whether through direct acquisition or shared used with local communities with the

intention of passing it on after development projects had been completed. Their focus was to

eliminate the slum-like conditions of the Kampung through creating permanent defensible spaces.

As such, their single most important prerogative before starting a project was finding suitable land

for community construction. The NGO was reluctant to work with Girik communities because of the

uncertainty of the long-term state of Kampungs with only Girik titles. As such, most of the projects

the NGO worked on were located far away from DKI Jakarta and worked on tenure-secure land with

29

a variety of titles. The residents of these communities were diverse and were either recent rural

migrants or came from other Kampung communities within Jabodetabek.

In terms of characterizing governance, the NGO made striking observations. First, their interactions

with government bodies in DKI Jakarta had led them to pursue independent projects due to

governing bodies having never granted or contributed funding. In cases over the last twenty years,

authorities had ‘awarded’ land to the NGO to build a development on, but this land was always

outside DKI Jakarta. The government was unwilling to engage in public-private partnerships under

the reasoning that the government had no money to undertake and offered to oversee projects if

materials and program costs were covered by the NGO. Understandably, this offer was not taken up.

Second, the NGO claimed to dislike working with government bodies due to the low standard of

communication and planning associated with government projects. In one such example, a

Rusunawa development was cancelled in 2017 for 14,000 Kampung relocation applicants, stranding

them without hope of permanent abode – this is likely the same incident featured in The Jakarta

Post (2017) in which a Rp. 712 billion budget for public housing construction vanished after a

gubernatorial declaration cancelled the development of ad-hoc housing programs like Rusunawas if

they were not part of a larger development schemes.

Though the NGO was not involved in the Rusunawa project, the NGO said they were largely

disconnected from an understanding of what the government plans for housing provision aside from

what is announced whimsically during elections season. Coordination with the government has been

few and far between. The NGO responded to eviction crises during the Ahok era by reaching out

directly to the evictees of the Ciliwung River. Because the government tends to prioritize Rusunawa

settlements over the NGO’s approach, the NGO finds itself unable to effectively coordinate with

government bodies. This is primarily because of the holistic and long-term approach the NGO takes

towards projects, which often run over five or more years.

Because DKI Jakarta’s current housing provision programs are largely based on gubernatorial

mandates, they do not exhibit features of long-term plans.

30

Interview Two – Senior official at Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat (PUPR), Ministry of Public Works and Housing This Senior Official was targeted because of their role in land-use policy which quickly became a key

concern for this investigation. It was known to me beforehand that the official in question had a role

in the allocation and instruction of land rights. However, the interview was characterized by the

official’s own explanation of barriers they face in housing provision at the national and local level.

This interview conducted in early December 2018 involved a day long discussion centered on three

central questions:

• Does PUPR recognize a legacy of fractionalized housing and utility provision across DKI

Jakarta?

• What are the barriers to enacting effective housing provision?

• How does PUPR imagine a solution to problems of housing provision in Jakarta?

The senior official was the head of an unnamed (omitted for this study) department inside PUPR that

worked directly with infrastructure and housing provision and construction inside DKI Jakarta. The

interview seemed to confirm all the hypotheses advanced by scholars prior and this paper.

In characterizing the housing provision process nationwide, the official noted that PUPR is a national

body tasked with public infrastructure and housing. As such, their mandate is admittedly huge. The

official also stated attention within the ministry gravitated towards projects that were easier…

compared to those that were harder. The official mentioned that developing infrastructure in

remote communities was significantly easier, with a higher success rate, than dealing with housing

problems in urban megacities.

The culture between local and national bodies that the official characterized is of extreme

importance. The official noted that PUPR will almost always push tasks onto a local government

body if they have an opportunity to do so. The senior official confirmed this was because of the

decentralization mandate advanced in the post-Reformasi era, concluding with the hypothesis of

Sriyana, Prabowo and Syamsudin (2017) that there has been a considerable decrease in top-down

initiatives since Reformasi. This was surprisingly consistent with this paper’s assessment of a

decentralization culture existing within governing bodies in Indonesia.

The official noted that PUPR seeks to push tasks onto local governments because they are

attempting to create a culture where PUPR can identify projects but push the responsibility for them

own to local governments. That is to say that PUPR does not have the authority to tell local bodies

what projects to work on but can direct funds their way. This is to ensure that housing and

infrastructure provisions are best suited to the specific region, while also minimizing the stretch of

manpower that is already limited inside PUPR. By enriching local communities, PUPR hopes to

encourage local administration-level community development. While the official made it clear this is

PUPR’s mandate, they also made it abundantly clear this does not apply to cities. While PUPR’s

decentralization mandate allows them to channel funding to local-administrations for projects, this

almost never happens for city projects. One of the key benefits PUPR offers when constructing

development projects is freehold land use titles, which are highly coveted in rural and burgeoning

urban communities. PUPR cannot offer this kind of benefit to large urban centers due to conflict

with powerful local authorities, especially in DKI Jakarta. Given this political barrier, PUPR tends to

31

avoid city developments until is consulted to carry out a project. This political conflict and

unwillingness to engage with urban centers is also characterized in Tunas and Peresthu (2010),

where the authors blame political unwillingness the primary cause of urban underdevelopment in

Kampungs in DKI Jakarta. Similarly, Topsfield (2017) identifies that PUPR was the government body

that declared the residents of Kampung Bukit Duri to be living on state land – this shows how PUPR’s

discretion over land use policy is used in dispute management. When I asked the senior official

under what mandate PUPR administers land rights, they claimed there is a body of legal mandates

that gave them this right, but also a culture within national government that allocates land use

policy to PUPR’s discretion.

The senior official continually characterized PUPR’s reluctance to work in cities as a land use problem

and repeated that even though they could work with the National Land Agency, communication is

few and far between. In verifying this, very little literature if any at all has researched relationships

between coordinating ministries on topics like land use. The senior official believed that most of the

problems of inadequate housing provision stemmed from poor communication patterns between

ministries. Though the senior official was aware of several instances of public housing projects

running out of funding (Jakarta Post, 2018), the official believed this was because of

mismanagement between bodies responsible, rather than funding allocation mishaps. For example,

PUPR was unable to secure an estimate of tenants intending to move into a PUPR resettlement

project. The local coordinating body failed to conduct surveys of tenants and resettlement education

in time, while construction had already commenced on a public housing program. The program was

eventually scrapped and deemed unsuitable midway through, leaving the construction project

abandoned. The senior official noted PUPR’s tendency to cut their losses when it came to housing

construction projects, because they enjoyed much more success with building medical and

education centers inside poverty areas. This appears to be a continuation of the methods, practices

and culture of the Kampung Improvement Programme (KIP).

When faced with questions regarding cooperation with local NGOS, the senior official reiterated that

land use remained a major problem, and one that they did not personally understand how to fix. The

official seemed open to liberalizing the land use policies as an expedient way of encouraging projects

without risk of eviction from encroaching on state land. The official said that PUPR was more

preoccupied with promising projects in rural and remote parts of Indonesia, where they had far

more control and less political barriers. Additionally, the official noted that it is notoriously difficult

to channel funding from government bodies into NGOs, even if they are going to carry out PUPR’s

mandate for them. PUPR’s responsibility is to enrich and enfranchise local authorities to take care of

development projects themselves, and even if an NGO or private foundation were better suited to

conduct housing provision, it would be difficult to approve. This seems consistent with the outcome

of a public-private-partnership for Kampung Bukit Duri residents along the Ciliwung river in 2018.

32

Interview Three – Senior director at Private Foundation for Development Projects The charity profiled in this interview was originally a philanthropic foundation dealing with many

projects, with housing being one of the foremost in the foundation’s early days during the 1990s.

The foundation channeled philanthropists’ funds into projects aimed at reducing poverty. However,

due to repeated difficulty and a demoralizing low success rate, the NGO has since moved onto more

palatable projects with better chances of marketable success. As such, the foundation now focuses

on investing into education, rural development and bioengineering research on preventing diseases

such as malaria.

This interview conducted in early December 2018 involved a day long discussion centered around

the role that third parties can play in assisting with housing provision. The interviewee was a former

government official who had moved into the private sector, helping channel funds for development

projects from philanthropists. This interview served as a characterization of what governance in DKI

Jakarta is like for third parties wanting to assist in solving the housing provision problem.

The senior official was involved in several attempts to work with government officials on supplying

housing to Jakarta’s poor, but they fell through because of timeline and land use difficulties. The

senior director noted that working with the government is subject to extreme patience, and many

philanthropists would rather invest in projects with visible success. The development foundation has

since moved away from dealing with urban development projects due to timeline difficulties.

Housing projects can take generations for substantial payoff and lack tenure security or adequate

infrastructure for substantial improvement in a Kampung environment. The senior director opined

that Kampung issues are well known in Jakarta, but not well understood. The interviewee believed

this was because of lack of communication between stakeholders on all sides, allowing the issue to

be ignored for generations. They noted the Ahok era was a particularly violent example of how

Kampung issues reentered the public paradigm briefly.

The director noted that Jakarta’s reluctance to advance the Kampung issue differs from the situation

in other Southeast Asian megacities. For example, they noted that slum resistance activism against

eviction in Bangkok (Khlong Toey) resulted in the opening of communication channels between city

officials and slum residents, thus creating a formalization process for the settlement, greatly

reducing the actual poverty conditions of the slum today. No similar narratives have come out of

Jakarta in recent years. The senior director characterized Ahok’s governance as extremely disruptive

to the construction of a status quo for governance communications in Jakarta.

33

Conclusion: Understanding Governance and Housing Provision in Jakarta The preceding interviews combined with the literature review seek to affirm the body of knowledge

regarding Jakarta. Colonialism, segregation, undeveloped infrastructure and uncontrollable

Kampung expansion are paired with a historical skirting of the issue, followed by a contemporary era

of decentralization and lacking accountability.

For over 100 years, Jakarta has attempted to improve the status of Kampungs, without going near

them. For as long as Kampungs have existed, they have existed as part of a segregated and

fractionalized city. Within this study, it is not a stretch to say that the definition of a Kampung in

urban Jakarta is characterized by the urban spatial separation from infrastructural, social, sanitary

and political access compared to non-Kampung areas. This is to say that Jakarta is simply divided into

geographically proximate regions of developed and undeveloped, with the undeveloped portion

almost ignored as a constitution of the city. Their continual existence and growth as separate zones

in the center of a metropolitan city suggests a characterization of the government responsible for

them. It is no doubt that the Jakarta government has found it difficult to provide alternatives to

Kampung living within an already congested and confusing urban sprawl. However, Bakker and

Kooy’s (2008) work highlights the continual focus of housing provision in Jakarta as being related to

the development and security of middle-class housing establishments. Though this phenomenon is

not covered in this paper, great strides have been taken by the DKI Jakarta authorities to ensure a

beneficial and smooth route for private development. As Leitner and Sheppard (2018) argue in their

work Kampungs to Condos, private development of lower-income housing has not existed outside

the form of petty construction and self-help initiatives. This is backed up by Kusno (2012) who

attempted to research alternative entry points for Kampung residents into secure tenured housing

to little success.

The characterization of governance in regard to housing provision in DKI Jakarta is thus evident. A

history of Jakarta’s housing for the poor is a history of a colonial city that never outgrew its European

foundations. Jakarta’s situation is not unique among the formation of megacities of Southeast Asia.

Many other cities developed by colonial authorities also continue to face congestion, housing

shortages and high-density slums (Korff, 1996). Jakarta’s continuing slum situation and difficulty of

housing provision is a problem of governance. As has been displayed in this project, the highly

fractionalized origins of Jakarta’s housing problem have never been successfully changed. The influx

of migration to DKI Jakarta in the 20th century was never below a level that could have been

adequately addressed by a comprehensive infrastructural plan, and the overwhelming population

boom among Kampung informal settlements is now only beginning to be addressed systematically

(Tunas, 2010, Harari and Wong, 2018). The historical success of the Kampung Improvement

Programme lives on to create additional barriers for the possible physical reconstruction of

Kampungs, as many are rooted in cut-off pockets. This paper has not attempted to characterize a

housing problem as stemming from the Kampungs themselves. Instead this paper concurs with

Tunas (2010) that Kampungs are not historically responsible for issues of poverty in contemporary

Jakarta, but the historical exclusion of Kampungs from land-use policy, housing development,

sanitation and water infrastructure has made the Kampung a strong adversary in the government’s

fight against poverty. The creation and continuation of Kampung has also conjured a bureaucratic

nightmare for their residents. Thus, the characterization of governance that this paper wishes to

present regarding housing provision in Jakarta is that of exclusion. There are many unending

possibilities for reforming housing provision using a variety of development methods outlined by

34

several scholars. However, this paper hopes to forward the notion that government reform is

perhaps the most important barrier to enacting housing provision. Numerous studies have focused

prior on the failure of housing provision programmes in Jakarta (Kusno, 2012, Tunas, 2010, Harari

and Wong, 2018, Koesoemawiria, 2017, (Zhu and Simarmata, 2015) but few have elucidated the

extreme negligence on part of government authorities. This study hopes to bring to light the real

difficulties faced by government bodies, national and local, in providing solutions to Jakarta’s

housing provision.

Before recommendations for solutions can take place, it appears that the legacies of colonialism,

segregation and communication within Jakarta must be revisited. Kampung dwellers are increasing

at 2.5% every year in the greater Jakarta area, with an unknown amount concentrated in DKI Jakarta

(Harari and Wong, 2018). With the city lines clearly demarcated between developed and

underdeveloped (Bakker ad Kooy, 2008), DKI Jakarta must take the necessary steps to reverse this

ongoing process.

Utilizing literature on corruption and service delivery in Indonesia, Bakker and Kooy (2008), (Sriyana,

Prabowo and Syamsudin, 2017) note that the lack of accountability for government failures inside

Indonesia is a cultural trend not yet explored in sociology literature. Korff (1996) identifies the

individualistic moral economy of the Javanese which appears to explain many of the communication

barriers and lack of cooperation between bodies revealed in my interviews. This paper has

attempted to portray the governance trends of housing provision of national and local bodies in

Jakarta and identifies an overarching theme of negligence paired with violent expediency in the

Ahok era. Further studies should consider the anthropological and sociological factors that

proliferate this governance failure and recommend solutions to address this crippling approach to

housing provision in Jakarta.

There is a saying that “Jakarta is not a city, but a conglomeration of villages” (Zhu and Simarmata,

2015). This mantra suggests that the findings of this paper are common knowledge to Jakartans.

Jakarta’s urban Kampungs are characterized as overcrowded, nonconventional settlements. This

study and the interviews within act as an affirmation from all sides of the situation described in the

literature review. The revelations of PUPR’s inability to coordinate effectively within governing

authorities reveals another layer of issues in housing provision and governance. The literature

review has described a situation beginning with colonialism, continuing with the Kampung, and

ending in our current era with eviction as a quick-fire resort to bring Jakarta up to a presentable but

unspecified standard. This paper adds to the body of knowledge by suggesting that local level

authorities in DKI Jakarta (such as the office of the Governor) have experienced significant increases

in power and ability to enact will in the post-Reformasi era, but have failed to deliver on housing

provision.

35

References Adianto, J. Okabe, A. Ellisa, E. Shima, N. (2016). The Tenure Security and Its Implication to Self-

Help Housing Improvements in the Urban Kampong: The Case of Kampong Cikini, Jakarta. Urban

and Regional Planning Review, 2016, Volume 3, pp. 50-65. Retrieved from

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/urpr/3/0/3_50/_article/-char/en

Badan Pasat Statistik. (2015). Unregistered Land in DKI Jakarta Province. Retrieved from:

https://www.bps.go.id/publication/2018/07/03/5a963c1ea9b0fed6497d0845/statistik-indonesia-

2018.html

Bakker, K., Kooy, M., Shofiani, N., & Martijn, E. (2008). Governance Failure: Rethinking the

Institutional Dimensions of Urban Water Supply to Poor Households. World Development, 36(10),

1891– 1915. Retrieved from

http://www.ielrc.org/activities/conference_0901/content/Bakker%20Jakarta.pdf

Bakker, K. and Kooy, M. (2008). Technologies of Government: Constituting Subjectivities, Spaces,

and Infrastructures in Colonial and Contemporary Jakarta. International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, 32: 375-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00791.x

de Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere

else. New York: Basic Books

Leipzig, F.A.B. (1892). "Batavia Lithograph" 24x16 cm. Retrieved from:

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/maps-and-plans-batavia-military-guide-map-c-2186-c-

bd24d4c889

Harari, M. & Wong, M. (2018). Slum Upgrading and Long-run Urban Development: Evidence from

Indonesia. 2018 Meeting Papers 367, Society for Economic Dynamics. Retrieved from:

https://ideas.repec.org/p/red/sed018/367.html

Human Cities Coalition. (2018). Cases – Jakarta. Retrieved from

https://www.humancities.co/cases/jakarta/

Jakarta Post. (2018, August 9). City's poor could be left without suitable housing after rusunawa

budget scrapped. The Jakarta Post). Retrieved from

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/08/09/citys-poor-could-be-left-without-suitable-housing-

after-rusunawa-budget-scrapped.html

Jakarta Post. (2018, September 6). Evicted Bukit Duri residents not involved in community action

plan. The Jakarta Post). Retrieved from https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/09/06/evicted-

bukit-duri-residents-not-involved-in-community-action-plan.html

Koesoemawiria, E. (2017, March). Indonesia: Evicted Community in Jakarta Moves Forward.

Blickwechsel März 2017. Retrieved from http://crossasia-repository.ub.uni-

heidelberg.de/4042/1/2017-03_Blickwechsel_Indonesia_Evicted_Community_A.pdf

Korff, R. (1996). Global and Local Spheres: The Diversity of Southeast Asian Urbanism. Sojourn:

Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, Vol. 11, No. 2: 288- 313.

Kusno, A. (2012). Housing the Margin: Perumahan Rakyat and the Future Urban Form of Jakarta.

Indonesia, (94), 23-56. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/488360/pdf

Leitner, H. and Sheppard, E. (2017) From Kampungs to Condos? Contested accumulations through

displacement in Jakarta. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space: Vol 50, Issue 2, pp. 437

– 456. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/35052931

36

Monkkonen, P. (2013). Urban land-use regulations and housing markets in developing countries:

Evidence from Indonesia on the importance of enforcement. Land Use Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 255-264.

Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837713000616

Nunn, N. (2009). The Importance of History for Economic Development. Annual Review of

Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 1(1), pages 65-92, 05. Retrieved from

https://ideas.repec.org/a/anr/reveco/v1y2009p65-92.html

Pacione, M. (2009). Urban geography: A global perspective. Chapter 25: Housing the Third World

Urban Poor. London: Routledge, https://doi-org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/10.4324/9780203881927

Papanek, G. (1975). The Poor of Jakarta. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 24(1), 1-27.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1152779

Prabowo, H.Y., and Cooper K. (2016). Re-understanding corruption in the Indonesian public sector

through three behavioral lenses. Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 23 Issue 4 pp. 1028 – 1062.

Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/JFC-08-2015-0039

Prabowo, H.Y. (2014). To be corrupt or not to be corrupt: Understanding the behavioral side of

corruption in Indonesia. Journal of Money Laundering Control, Vol. 17 Issue 3 pp. 306-226.

Retrieved from https://acch.kpk.go.id/images/ragam/jurnal-integritas/pdf/seminar-19-09-17/03-To-be-

Corrupt-or-Not-to-be-corrupt-Hendi-Yogi-Prabowo.pdf

Putri, P.W. (2018): Sanitizing Jakarta: decolonizing planning and Kampung imaginary, Planning

Perspectives, Retrieved from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02665433.2018.1453861

Rukmana, D. (2018) Upgrading Housing Settlement for the Urban Poor in Indonesia: An Analysis of

the Kampung Deret Program. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325315008_Upgrading_Housing_Settlement_for_the_Urba

n_Poor_in_Indonesia_An_Analysis_of_the_Kampung_Deret_Program

Senior Official of PUPR. (December 2018). Anonymous Personal Interview in Jakarta.

Senior Official of Housing NGO. (December 2018). Anonymous Personal Interview in Jakarta.

Senior Director of Poverty-focused charity fund. (December 2018). Anonymous Personal Interview in

Jakarta.

Sihombing, A. (2014). Drawing Kampung through Cognitive Maps Case Study: Jakarta. APCBEE

Procedia, Volume 9, pp. 347-353, Retrieved from:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212670814000621

Silver, C., 2008. Planning the megacity: Jakarta in the twentieth century. London: Routledge.

Sriyana, J. & Prabowo, H.Y. & Syamsudin, M. (2017). Preventing Corruption in the Indonesian

Public Sector*. European Research Studies Journal Vol. 20 pp. 538-553. Retrieved from:

https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bitstream/handle/123456789/30052/Preventing_Corruption_in_the

_Indonesian_Public_Sector_2017.pdf

Supriyatno, B. (2014). Role of Government in Jakarta Organize Slum Area. Scientific Research

Journal (SCIRJ), Volume II, Issue V, pp. 49-57. Retrieved from:

https://www.academia.edu/7764782/Role_of_Government_in_Jakarta_Organize_Slum_Area

Survey Dpt. HQ Allied Forces Netherl. East Indies. (1945). "Batavia Military Guide Map" Col. plan,

77x59 cm., n.pl. Retrieved from: https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/maps-and-plans-batavia-

military-guide-map-c-2186-c-bd24d4c889

37

Tunas, D., & Peresthu, A. (2010). The self-help housing in Indonesia: The only option for the poor?.

Habitat International, 34(3), pp. 315-322. Retrieved from: https://www-sciencedirect-

com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/science/article/pii/S0197397509000952

Topsfield, J. (2017, February 3). The real reason many poor Jakartans are opposing Ahok in the

gubernatorial election. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved October 9, 2018, from

https://www.smh.com.au/world/the-real-reason-many-poor-jakartans-are-opposing-Ahok-in-the-

gubernatorial-election-20170203-gu52aj.html

Topsfield, J. (2016, September 16). Proud slum residents fight eviction from flood-prone Ciliwung

river bank. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 2018, from

https://www.smh.com.au/world/proud-slum-residents-fight-eviction-from-floodprone-ciliwung-river-

bank-20160916-grhocr.html

UN-Habitat. (2016). Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures. World Cities Report.

Nairobi, Africa. Retrieved from: https://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/WCR-%20Full-

Report-2016.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).

Warburton, E. (2018). INEQUALITY, NATIONALISM AND ELECTORAL POLITICS IN

INDONESIA. Southeast Asian Affairs,135-152. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-

org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/stable/26492774

Waleed A. (2017). The urban features of informal settlements in Jakarta, Indonesia. Data in Brief,

Volume 15, pp. 993-999. Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235234091730570X

World Bank. (2015). Indonesia Slum Alleviation Policy and Action Plan (SAPOLA). World Bank

Projects and Operations. Retrieved from: http://projects.worldbank.org/P121467/indonesia-slum-

alleviation-policy-action-plan-sapola?lang=en

Yap, S. (2017, February 19). Evicted from riverside homes, Jakarta’s poor grapple with new life in

flats. Channel News Asia. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/evicted-from-

riverside-homes-jakarta-s-poor-grapple-with-new-lif-7604850

Zhu, J. and Simarmata, H.A. (2015). Formal land rights versus informal land rights: Governance for

sustainable urbanization in the Jakarta metropolitan region, Indonesia. Land Use Policy 43: 63-73.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.016

World Bank. (1995). Indonesia Impact Evaluation Report Enhancing the Quality of Life in Urban

Indonesia: The Legacy of Kampung Improvement Program. Retrieved from

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/927561468752367336/Indonesia-Enhancing-the-quality-

of-life-in-urban-Indonesia-the-legacy-of-Kampung-Improvement-Program

38