Do Not Kill Borobudur (and Trader)

Indonesia Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment, Luhut Binsar Panjaitan announced the plan of new regulations for managing tourists in Borobudur temple, on Saturday 4th June 2022. Previously, Indonesia Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs and Investment, Ministry of Education, Culture, Research and Technology, Ministry of BUMN, Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy, Ministry of Public Works and Human Settlements, Borobudur Conservation Center, PT Taman Wisata Candi (TWC), the Middle of Java governor, and the Regent of Magelang conducted a meeting discussing the urgency of Borobudur conservation. The government decided to apply some regulations to look after the Indonesian cultural heritage. The first plan of the new regulation is to limit the number of tourists who want to go up the temple. No more than 1,200 tourists per day are permitted to go up the temple. They will be with the official tour guide. The second plan of the new regulation is to increase the fee for going up to the temple. Domestic tourists have to pay Rp750.000 and foreign tourists have to pay 100 USD. The groups of students have to pay Rp5.000 per person—for educational stuff only.
After announcing this plan of the new regulations—even though it is still a plan, some ‘netizens’ and people muttered and criticized the policy. A ‘netizen’ on Youtube, Suradi radi, came up with his argument said that children will never know Indonesian culture if the policy officially is applied. An Instagram user, bennymurwentianto, commented that the cultural heritage of which Indonesians are proud is only for the rich. Another IG account, rienacraft, came up with her statement that the policy will reduce the income of traders around the temple.
Despite the protests due to the new regulation, Borobudur needs actual preventive steps to conserve and reduce damage. The policy announced by the government is still relevant even though it needs some consideration.
Some arguments came up with the same consideration that the ticket is too expensive to buy. This is understandable. People have to pay Rp750.000 to go up. It is not affordable for some people. But it needs to be clarified that the plan of the new regulation was made only for the fee to go up the temple and the limitation of capacity in the temple per day. By that argument, it causes mistakes. The tourists who do not go up will not pay that much. The recent cost is not changed for tourists who are in the courtyard. In addition, the policy specifically targets students who go up to the temple to study. It rebuts the argument that Indonesian children are not allowed to learn their history. They only pay Rp5.000 per person. In short, that argument has to be clarified.
Recently, before the plan for the new regulation was announced, the ticket to enter Borobudur is not too expensive, it is affordable. Foreigners have to pay 25 USD and the domestic tourists have to pay Rp50.000 (3.4 USD) per person. The tourists are free to go up the temple without any regulation of capacity per day. Once they buy, they get a chance to go up and go down many times. Compared to another historical and cultural heritage, Machu Picchu of Peru, the Borobudur tickets are cheaper. Peruways.com sells the ticket to the public—and there is no difference between Peruvians and foreigners, they have to pay 60 USD per person. Students have to pay 35 USD. In order to conserve the Machu Picchu, only 3.500 tourists are permitted to go per day. That is how Peruvian prevent damage to their heritage. It is the same as what the Indonesian government planned for the new regulation.
An argument mentioned that the policy will reduce drastically the number of tourists coming to Borobudur. Actually, until the new regulation has not been studied and researched, the impact is equivocal. The consideration of the fee has to be studied. What must be emphasized is conservation. It’s important to be considered that the policy is designed to look after Borobudur without harming the traders who sell their handicrafts. Instead of letting Borobudur get damaged, a policy as the government planned must be applied to prevent it. Besides that, the policy targets specifically people who want to go up to the temple. All of the tourists have the same chance to go and see the temple with the recent fee. In short, that argument is equivocal and pessimist to conserving Borobudur.
Another statement came up that the government forbids people to learn history by permitting some people to go up. That is not an accountable reason. The government still allows students to go up by paying Rp5.000. The policy of capacity per day was made to reduce damage to the temple. Besides that, it makes it easy to oversee the tourists and guided them. Some cases of damage—most of them were caused by visitors (Taufik via Sholah: 2020) made the government with TWC and BCC become serious to handle it. Limiting the visitors who go up per day is the way to conserve Borobudur.
The plan of the new regulation of Borobudur was made to conserve Borobudur. What is to be emphasized is not to prohibit its realization. It doesn’t mean that criticism and suggestions are not allowed. Indonesians should support the conservation while not ignoring the traders who sell their handicrafts around the temple. While the government doing the research and study to consider how much to pay to get up the temple, pessimists and negative statements should not be expressed. Some statements have to be responded to wisely. Therefore, because the goal is to conserve the Borobudur temple, the new policy has to be officially enforced after some consideration by research on the fee.