Untuk Lita, my inspiration…
Untuk Henry, yang mengajariku arti mengasihi sesama…
The new bylaw which has just been ratified by Jakarta city’s council bans the existence of beggars, street vendors, and also prohibits people to donate the poor in any way. If the bylaw is agreed by Home Minister, it will be enforced next year around this time. This idea to solve Jakarta’s development problem may not alleviate poverty and benefit all parties involved as the interests of the subject of the law i.e. beggars and street vendors, Jakarta’s citizen in general, and NGOs appear not to be considered carefully.
The deprived who would not have access to earn their living from begging would seek other sources. The need for basic necessities would urge them to do whatever they could. Going back to their villages may be a choice but this would not be a popular choice since the poverty rate in villages is now worse than that in cities. Their easiest way of making money which is joining the informal sector such as collecting plastics and being a street vendor would also be forbidden. Moreover, our formal sector could not absorb about 200,000 street vendors and thousands of beggars. Jakarta’s GDP is only approximately 6%, not much different from the average of other cities’ GDP. As a result, there would be no fine solution even a better wellbeing for them.
As for Jakartans, their system of living cannot be apart from the so-called informal sector. Ojek (motorcycle service to transport people) is very helpful in traffic jam other than very cheap as well. Another example is the inexpensive goods the city dwellers purchase from the micro informal sector. In almost every street in non-luxurious residences, we can see residents do their business in their own houses. Therefore, the new regulation would bother the inhabitant’s way of living.
Surely there is a positive impact of the rule. Willingness to schooling among the unfortunate children would increase as a substitute to being street singers. Their work ethic would improve as they would no longer impinge their lives from people’s compassion. However, this impact requires the economy’s capability to provide them proper job and schooling. Since there has not been found a way-out for the lives of the hundreds of thousands, it is somewhat too quick to talk about the effect of the rule on the cleanliness of the city which then may lead to a surge in investment inflow.
The lives of the disadvantaged people and related issues are the problem of both the urban planning and the economy. Their being has been part of the city for decades. Therefore, the solution should not be a very direct action by moving them to somewhere else. The solution should be able to engage with everyone’s interest. For this matter, the local government may work together with people from various groups in the city such as NGOs and business community.
Untuk Henry, yang mengajariku arti mengasihi sesama…
The new bylaw which has just been ratified by Jakarta city’s council bans the existence of beggars, street vendors, and also prohibits people to donate the poor in any way. If the bylaw is agreed by Home Minister, it will be enforced next year around this time. This idea to solve Jakarta’s development problem may not alleviate poverty and benefit all parties involved as the interests of the subject of the law i.e. beggars and street vendors, Jakarta’s citizen in general, and NGOs appear not to be considered carefully.
The deprived who would not have access to earn their living from begging would seek other sources. The need for basic necessities would urge them to do whatever they could. Going back to their villages may be a choice but this would not be a popular choice since the poverty rate in villages is now worse than that in cities. Their easiest way of making money which is joining the informal sector such as collecting plastics and being a street vendor would also be forbidden. Moreover, our formal sector could not absorb about 200,000 street vendors and thousands of beggars. Jakarta’s GDP is only approximately 6%, not much different from the average of other cities’ GDP. As a result, there would be no fine solution even a better wellbeing for them.
As for Jakartans, their system of living cannot be apart from the so-called informal sector. Ojek (motorcycle service to transport people) is very helpful in traffic jam other than very cheap as well. Another example is the inexpensive goods the city dwellers purchase from the micro informal sector. In almost every street in non-luxurious residences, we can see residents do their business in their own houses. Therefore, the new regulation would bother the inhabitant’s way of living.
Surely there is a positive impact of the rule. Willingness to schooling among the unfortunate children would increase as a substitute to being street singers. Their work ethic would improve as they would no longer impinge their lives from people’s compassion. However, this impact requires the economy’s capability to provide them proper job and schooling. Since there has not been found a way-out for the lives of the hundreds of thousands, it is somewhat too quick to talk about the effect of the rule on the cleanliness of the city which then may lead to a surge in investment inflow.
The lives of the disadvantaged people and related issues are the problem of both the urban planning and the economy. Their being has been part of the city for decades. Therefore, the solution should not be a very direct action by moving them to somewhere else. The solution should be able to engage with everyone’s interest. For this matter, the local government may work together with people from various groups in the city such as NGOs and business community.
Comments
Post a Comment