Relocation, not eviction?

Golkar’s proposed solutions for the Giant Sea Wall leave more questions than answers.

Amber Cheng Yan Yu | Jakarta Post

---

After the unprecedented intrusion at the Parliamentary Complex, one would assume that lawmakers would have eliminated the option of eviction. In part, that is true. The term ‘eviction’ has been largely condemned by the council, but the idea of ‘relocation’ has been incorporated into the solutions of various parties. 

Does this show that our representatives have not learned from their lesson? In short, no. 

By definition, eviction is the forcible transfer of people from their original location to another. On the other hand, relocation may or may not be forcible, and lawmakers are only referring to the latter. 

However, while the openly unethical option has been taken off the table, the logistics behind proposals leave much to be desired. In particular, while Golkar has claimed that coastal communities will only be moved if they choose, its emphasis on relocation as an “absolute necessity” remains questionable at best. 

Amidst the Giant Sea Wall’s construction, fishermen and their families can opt to relocate to Pulau Rambut, Pulau Bokor, Pulau Tunda, Pulau Damar Besar, or Pulau Panjang Besar. According to Mukhamad Misbakhun, these islands are “close to existing populations,” which would enable fishermen to earn income. Additionally, Golkar plans on providing incentives and subsidies and creating support groups led by party representatives to mitigate any reductions in their physical and mental well-being. 

While this sounds fine on paper, cracks begin to appear when put into practice. 

When asked by the Jakarta Post if the relocation to other islands would affect fishermen’s usual customer bases, Misbakhun declined to answer. This silence might incline us to believe that Golkar’s plan is much like its predecessors; detached from the concerns of the people on the ground. 

Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that incentives are simply not enough. As established yesterday, our fishermen are sick and tired of subsidies, and on a practical level, they still do not work. They fail to account for the emotional burdens of relocation on local communities, while their funding remains the biggest elephant in the room. 

In a similarly disappointing fashion, the creation of support groups will likely be insufficient for relocated communities. Presented by Dave Laksono to mitigate the psychological burdens of relocation, the measure falls flat with its choice to utilise party representatives instead of trained professionals. Although Golkar’s intentions are unclear, this decision may hint toward an ulterior motive to increase influence rather than provide the best possible support for disadvantaged communities.

Golkar’s stance that takes relocation as a given is concerning, especially when approaches that mitigate the need to relocate already exist. Like what our representatives themselves have acknowledged, “fishermen are the backbone of our nation”. The undue pressure of relocation would not only be unfair to those who feed us but also risk fomenting dissatisfaction in a vital demographic. 

The “absolute necessity” in this case should not be the concept of relocation, but preventing this traumatic process as much as possible under the NCICD project. In a similar vein to the proposals from PDI-P and other parties, legislation should prioritise nipping the problem of relocation in the bud. By reducing the Giant Sea Wall’s impact on the fishing areas in the implementation of the NCICD project, it minimises the unfavourable conditions that affect fishermen’s choice to move in the first place. 

The failure to mitigate the Giant Sea Wall’s effect on fishing areas, whilst dodging the term ‘relocation’, is just an illusion of choice. It is merely an eviction in disguise. 

Golkar must reconsider its proposal. If not, they risk creating more problems than they solve.