Land Policy Proportion in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia through the case of Subsidized Flat for Low-Medium-Income in Kebon Kacang, Jakarta, Indonesia
- DOI
- 10.2991/assehr.k.201209.175How to use a DOI?
- Keywords
- Communal Land Tenure Security, Revitalization of Subsidized Apartment, Low-Medium Income Housing
- Abstract
Provision of housing for low-medium-income people (LMIP) in Indonesia is still constrained between policies, its implementation and the communal land tenure security for subsidized housing residents. The discussion on this article focuses on the policy of the Indonesian Government in the 1980s to provide housing for LMIP through slum communities’ land acquisition, which was then used in building subsidized flats in Kebon Kacang (RSKK). RSKK was built by the state-run National Housing Agency (NHA). Over time, the physical building of RSKK needs to be revitalized. The revitalization policy will change the designation of the targeted group and the function of the State land. In the 1980s, the State land was intended for LMIP. Nevertheless, the revitalization plan will likely alter the land allotment policy. The land allotment policy will be modified to the discourse of mixed housing between luxury apartments and medium commercial apartments. The changing policy is driven because of the strategic location of the RSKK in the center of the Business District in Central Jakarta. It is located behind Thamrin Street in Central Jakarta. The very high tax value and selling price have tempted the NHA as the holder of the State’s communal land ownership, which is registered under the State Land Management Right [the Indonesian land registration system recorded as HPL], to solicit private enterprise investors in order to revitalize the construction of RSKK. This temptation forced the NHA to evaluate the land allotment policy from its non-profit land function to a high-profit land function or commercializing the State land [HPL] and forgetting its obligation to provide land tenure security to RSKK’s owners, who had bought their housing units hrough installments. It will discuss the difference between the NHA’ policy and Singapore’s housing sector, which is a ‘unique hybrid of public-private elements that have worked for the city-state’ [Phan, 2007] in providing housing for the LMIP. This article will highlight the gap differences between Singapore and Indonesia’s policy in the land tenure security for LMIP. In contrast with Singapore’s practice, furthermore, this article is depicting a similar practice between the Malaysian Government and the Indonesian Government on allocating housing for the LMIP. Which model provides more protection to the LMIP?
- Copyright
- © 2020, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.
- Open Access
- This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Cite this article
TY - CONF AU - Vera W S Soemarwi PY - 2020 DA - 2020/12/12 TI - Land Policy Proportion in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia through the case of Subsidized Flat for Low-Medium-Income in Kebon Kacang, Jakarta, Indonesia BT - Proceedings of the 2nd Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2020) PB - Atlantis Press SP - 1097 EP - 1109 SN - 2352-5398 UR - https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201209.175 DO - 10.2991/assehr.k.201209.175 ID - Soemarwi2020 ER -