Assessing a Potential Coronavirus Lockdown in Indonesia

With skyrocketing COVID-19 cases, a lockdown might be in Jakarta’s future.

Coronavirus disease, COVID-19, cases in Indonesia have skyrocketed since two tested
positive on March 2. The number of cases has gradually climbed to 50 between March 2 and 13,
doubled to 100 cases by March 17, rose to 300 cases as of March 19, and had reached 790 cases
by March 25. COVID-19 cases remain geographically concentrated in Jakarta (463) and the rest
of Java island (246), but the virus has spread to nearly the entire archipelago. The situation has
become increasingly grim. Facing shortages of personal protection equipment, several medical
doctors have already passed away from the coronavirus, meanwhile photos of exhausted medical
personnel lying on hospital floors in Indonesia have circulated on social media. Unlike lockdowns
implemented in Italy and India, a nation-wide lockdown across Indonesia’s 17,000 islands would
be difficult and ineffective.

The central government has been reluctant to put a lockdown in place because of
implementation challenges and the significant socioeconomic costs. Even if public transportation
is stopped, prohibitions for Jakartans travelling outside the city cannot be enforced as many
residents have personal vehicles — without a national level directive they’d still be able to travel.
Furthermore, the urban infrastructure in the sprawling city, with many small roads and alleyways,
will make a lockdown difficult to enforce. Conceivably, it is possible to maintain a city-wide
lockdown with military or police personnel to close the main entry and exit points. This could
prevent the spread of the coronavirus to outlying regions, but it would still be challenging to ensure
everyone stay at home. A partial lockdown by identifying clusters and quarantining specific
neighborhood units simultaneously across the city is also possible.

Additionally, a lockdown would deeply affect the informal sector. Fifty-five percent of
Indonesians work in the informal sector and subsist on daily wages. These people would have no
income in a lockdown and no emergency medical leave. This includes those working in shops,
street food vendors, and vendors in traditional markets. Foot traffic at Tanah Abang Market (a
major textile market) in Jakarta has fallen by 80 percent, deeply affecting the livelihoods of
thousands of sellers and textile producers already. To support a lockdown, government aid to the
poorest households and those surviving on daily wages would also have to be enhanced. The
central government has already pledged to expand food assistance for 15.2 million needy
households starting in April. More help would be needed as poverty rates will likely widen in an
economic downturn. To do so, the government may have to pass an interim emergency law to
expand government deficit spending above the legal limit of 3 percent of GDP.

While it is true that a lockdown would be a decisive step to control the pandemic, hasty or
poor implementation could exacerbate existing inequalities and social tensions. Indeed,
Indonesia’s finance minister has said that although funds have been prepared, there would be
tremendous manpower challenges in delivering essential supplies to residents in a lockdown.
Additionally, the social impact of a pandemic has tended to fall hardest on certain groups,
especially minorities. In the United States, reported cases of harassment and racial discrimination
against Chinese and Asian Americans have surged after President Donald Trump called COV-19
s the “Chinese virus.” In Indonesia, a perfect storm of panic buying induced by a lockdown,
informal workers with razor-thin financial buffers, and inadequate logistical support, could lead to
scarcity and hardship for many. This could also generate racial discrimination and stigmatization
against Chinese Indonesians or Chinese foreign workers as COVID-19 “carriers,” either in Java
island or beyond.

The bottom line is that while a lockdown could drastically slow the coronavirus outbreak
in Indonesia, there is a real risk that economic, social, and racial tensions that had previously been
papered over by prosperity could burst to the surface if policies are implemented without taking
them into consideration.

Taken from The Diplomat