Posts Tagged ‘law’


Draconian Anti-Smoking Law Hits Bali

November 30, 2011

There is nothing more pleasant than sitting in one of Bali’s thousands of open-air restaurants or cafes. Delectable food, a cool drink, or even a book – in case the passing parade of absurdities begins to pall – and a cigarette or two to enhance the experience. The outdoor ambience, and the fact that ventilating breezes minimise the impact of any occasional wisps of smoke on others makes Bali a relaxing getaway for those who choose to indulge their habit without nanny-state interference.

Not any more.

The inexorable tide of do-gooder interference has finally reached the previously easy-going shores of Bali. A law implemented only this week now bans smoking in many parts of Bali. Any place designated as a “tourism destination”, or “tourism support facility” is henceforth to be smoke-free. The list of proscribed premises includes some intelligent bans, such as places of worship, health facilities, schools and children’s playgrounds. But this draconian legislation goes much further, enmeshing hotels, open-air markets, airports, restaurants, cafes, bars and night clubs in its web. Smoking is to be banned in all of these places. They will also be prohibited from selling or advertising tobacco products as well.

A straw poll taken this evening at a local cafe revealed that more than two-thirds of the patrons were smoking. The effect on air quality was negligible. Later in the evening, the staff at a local bar were stunned when I told them about the new legislation. Looking around at his customers, most of whom were smoking, a senior barman summed up Bali’s new by-law with a pithy “That’s bullshit! They can’t do that! We will lose all our customers.” Still later, at an open-plan restaurant nearby, I observed most of the customers lighting up after their meals. I asked a few of them for their thoughts, and most of their responses were tinged with anger. “That’s crazy!” was a typical answer. “We come to Bali to get away from all the stupid laws at home, and now this! Oh well, if they bring it in, we’ll just go somewhere else.”  Thailand featured as an alternative destination for quite a few, while Malaysia was mentioned by others. Even the restaurant staff were jolted by the news, saying, “But no-one will come here any more …”

Without a doubt, smoking is unhealthy. But it is a lifestyle choice – as well as an addiction – for most of us smokers. It is not up to self-appointed elites in government to presume that they know best, and on that basis to mandate what is “good for us”. For us smokers, it is our choice to smoke. In Bali, where open, ventilated structures are the norm and effect on non-smokers is minimal, this legislation is both oppressive and unnecessary. Its implementation will be problematic, if only for the reason that laws in Indonesia are meaningless until wrapped in their subsequent rat’s nest of regulations. Given the inept drafting of most laws here, getting a workable regulatory framework up and running could take years.

So let’s scratch a little beneath the surface of this nonsense to find out what the real motivation is. Supposedly, it is for health reasons. But will it discourage the Balinese population from smoking? Probably not. The overwhelming majority of locals do not sit in bars, frequent cafes and restaurants or play in expensive tourism enclaves. Foreigners do. The purported “health benefits” look a little shaky when you look at the prescribed penalties. Miscreants who flout the new non-smoking regulations will be banished to languish in the over-crowded Kerobokan prison for up to six months, or pay a fine of 50 million rupiah ($5,475 AUD). This is not a penalty aimed at locals who could never afford it, instead it is targeted squarely at foreigners.

Bali’s Governor Made Mangku Pastika has already foreshadowed the true intention of this law, saying,  “I think tourists will understand … it is Bali’s people who often do not understand.” In its implementation phase, it is clear that smoking locals will be ignored by the police, while ‘rich’ bules will be expected to pay substantial bribes to avoid the threat of a costly court case and exorbitant fines for … smoking. You know, a bit like only bules being stopped for not wearing a helmet. No, Governor, I don’t think tourists will “understand” at all. They will see it for what it is – another unashamed grab at the wallets of the very people who are part of the underpinnings of Bali’s economy.

The Chairman of the Bali Tourism Board, Ida Bagus Ngurah Wijaya, clearly understands that officials might have trouble enforcing the regulation for locals. In the DPRD building where the law was passed on the 28th November, smoking is rife amongst the lawmakers. “Every time I am invited for a hearing at the DPRD”, he said, “members smoke in the meeting room.” I very much doubt that will change after the law is brought in. And yet he naïvely goes on to say, “but I don’t think we will have a problem from tourists.” Oh, really?

Well, let’s wait and see. This issue is not about smoking. It is about personal freedom. I suspect that any implementation of the type of despicable social engineering that Australia’s do-gooders have fallen in love with, and that has made Singapore such an over-regulated nanny state, will backfire in Bali. The people who come here do so because they are, at least temporarily, free from the fanatical zeal of self-appointed arbiters of personal choice. They are willing to overlook the rubbish, the crumbling infrastructure, the corruption and the incessant demands for money because of that sense of freedom, and the magic that derives from that.

What if  loss of freedom to smoke here turns out to be the tipping point that causes a shift in the delicate balance of factors that drive travel decisions? Bali is freedom. But if visitors stop feeling free in Bali, they will simply stop coming.

UPDATE: OK, time for me to ‘fess up. This was a mild troll  designed to see what people really think – and the comment responses make that fairly clear. In the interests of fairness, I left them all in, including the abusive ones.  

As expected, only a few people noticed a tag attached to this post, i.e. “a troll to gauge reaction”. My personal view  is that neither smokers nor non-smokers should be advantaged or  disadvantaged. Where the practice of smoking affects the health or comfort of non-smokers, I fully agree that steps should be taken to prevent this harm. Restaurants are a perfect example – my habit should not impinge on your right to breathe smoke-free air. The challenge is to provide workable solutions for all stakeholders.

But I draw the line at people who condemn and marginalise all smokers as an article of faith, or because they are just “wrong” to smoke.  I acknowledge that opponents of smoking may be right. But I do object when this crosses the line into becoming righteous.

Thank you for your comments. They are enlightening.


Why you shouldn’t buy a villa in Bali

September 12, 2009

So there I am, sitting at a bar, talking to a frequent Australian visitor to Bali – a stranger – and he is upset. Really upset. In fact, he can hardly keep track of his own stream of unhappy observations about the awful situation back in his home state, interrupting himself frequently in mid-vent to launch the next load of rhetoric before even finishing the previous one.

Being in somewhat of a lethargic frame of mind (well, it was late, and it had been a long day), I finally understood that he was referring to “those bloody ***s” (nationality deleted because it doesn’t really matter – but let’s call them bool-AY?, with an upward inflection, because he was from Queensland).

Him: What really bugs me is that we don’t own anything there anymore … they’ve bought it all!
Me: Like what?
Him: Our land! Houses! Hotels! Factories! It’s all theirs! We’re losing everything!
Me: But we sold it to …
Him: … and that is so wrong! It’s our birthright they’re buying! There should be a Law (mutter, mutter, mumble)

So this goes on for a while, as pub conversations tend to do, and some of the heat dissipates according to the inevitable laws of entropy and we move on to other topics. I am pleased, because I tend to get distressed when exposed to too much alcohol-assisted jingoistic fervour.

Me: So, you here on holiday?
Him: No, no – I’m here to buy a villa. Moving here in two months.
Me: You getting  a 20-year lease?
Him: Oh no, I’m going to buy one freehold …
Me: Mmmm. Well, as a foreigner, you can’t actually own land in Bali …
Him: Yeah, yeah, I know all that – but that’s easy to get around. (He nudges me; thankfully, he doesn’t actually wink.) I just use the name of a local and stitch him up with a watertight contract which gives me use of the property. For ever. (Smugly) It’s called a name-giver deal – the agent explained it all to me.

Despite myself, I feel obliged to clarify that, while ‘circumventing’ Indonesian property ownership laws appears possible using a name-giver contract scheme, it’s actually a lot more complex. For a start, the ‘contract’ itself is considered to be void ab initio (i.e. unlawful from the start and therefore unenforceable) by some legal practitioners in Indonesia, partly because it refers to a non-existent transfer of money between the parties during the  so-called ‘purchase’ transaction. Then, of course, there is the ever-present possibility that the local name-giver decides that since the freehold title (the Hak Milik) belongs to him, there is nothing to stop him from just taking over the property at some stage in the future. I point out that this has happened a number of times in the past.

I foolishly go on to explain that you may manage to perform tricky manoeuvres to sidestep the actual wording of the law – which says that a foreigner can’t own land. But what you can’t do is avoid the provisions of the Indonesian Constitution, which says that a foreigner can’t control land. I tell him that the whole freehold-buying scheme could potentially fall in a heap, because that gives the foreigner control over the property. And that leasing is much, much safer. And that it would be prudent to abide by Indonesian law while a guest in this country. This somewhat agitates my new best friend.

Him: (suspiciously) You some kind of socialist intellectual or something?

I hastily deny this, because such deviants are not generally permitted in Bali pubs, and if they did inadvertently sneak in, they would be mercilessly mocked, especially by my countrymen. It takes a considerable amount of time talking about beer and football before he is convinced that I have the necessary cultural pre-requisites to continue the conversation.

Him: I don’t like this leasing stuff. Doesn’t happen back home. I pay the money, I get the freehold.
Me: Unless you live in Canberra … most properties are on a 99-year renewable lease there …
Him: Huh? … Whatever. Anyway, that’s not the point. I don’t want to lease, I want to buy a villa here – and I can’t see why the locals should have these restrictive laws that are stopping me.

We briefly discuss the significance of land ownership for the Balinese, their culture and family structure, but I can tell he’s not really interested, even though we use approved pub language, much bagging of all and sundry and various male bonding rituals. He knows what he wants and anything that obstructs that desire needs to be made to vanish.

Right about then, I assist this process (of making me vanish) by committing a tactical blunder. I remind him that he started out being furious at those reprehensible Bool-AYs who are buying up property in his home state, thus dispossessing him of his birthright. And yet, when I point out that that is exactly what he, as a bule here, now wants to do in Bali, he is genuinely mystified. “How can you say that?” he says, “… it’s completely different!” For once, I am speechless. How is it different?

It could have come to raised voices, if not actual blows, but we ended up parting on reasonably amicable terms, although his demeanour and body language clearly showed that he thought that I had the reasoning capacity of a dog biscuit. Maybe I have. Maybe my belief that the right to legislate property ownership laws in this place belongs to those who historically and culturally have a claim to it has clouded my logic. Maybe logic has nothing to do with it.

But I can only hope that, on reflection, my temporary friend will come to believe, as I do, that there is no difference between his ire at foreigners owning land in perpetuity in Australia and that of Indonesians when faced with the loss of their birthright here. Under current laws and constitutional guidelines, ‘freehold’ ownership of propery by non-nationals remains problematic.

But gee … wouldn’t it be nice to actually own a villa in Bali?