 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Destinations / Asia / July 2005New Visa Policy from Indonesia Government
Hi all, Not sure whether if you guys had heard? Lately, there are lots of talks & speculations on Indonesia government adding in more countries onto their current list of Visa-On-Arrival countries. Lots of travel magazines, trade magazines are all talking about it. very likely if there are no delays, the Indonesia govenment may announce an additional of 14 countries adding onto the current VOA list. It may take place most likely in Sept 2005. Therefore countries like USA, Germany, Taiwan, India, China etc, may now have easy access upon stepping onto the Indonesia land. Also, the length of stay will be increased for from the current 3 days to 7 days. Cheers, emo By the way, they charged me USD 10 and sometimes 20 for the visa, IIRC. Is there any country charging for visa? I've never experienced that. USA, China, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, ... I think that makes visitors unpleasant and, as a result, deprives Indonesians of their income from more tourists. > By the way, they charged me USD 10 and sometimes 20 for the visa, IIRC. > Is there any country charging for visa? I've never experienced that. > USA, China, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, ... > I think that makes visitors unpleasant and, as a result, deprives > Indonesians of their income from more tourists. Others do charge. Off hand I can think of Laos & Cambodia (on arrival, also about $25?), I think Botswana, and Zimbabwe (or it may be Zambia), India. This is based on my UK & Australian passports. I thought I paid for China too, maybe not. I have also paid for Iraq, Afghanistan, Romania and others but that was years ago. I bet there are lots more. Indonesians have to pay for visas to many more places including Australia & the USA and it is a lot more than US$25. For Australia even if the embassy refuses to issue the visa Indonesians still have to pay, about US$50 I think, maybe more. Maybe they charged you $10 (up to 3 days) or $25 (up to 30 days) not $20? $20 is not an official fee, and the correct amounts should be clearly marked in the airport. (unless $20 is the fee in Batam which is often different) But I agree it is a deterrent to tourism. Actually, Visa isn't such a big deterrent, it's natural for an area to ask for a fee to a visitor when a visitor come or leave the area. For example, sometimes if you leave an airport, an airport might ask you a fee in the form of airport tax. Though this kind of tax sometimes is incorporated into the airplane ticket itself, so a passenger sometimes didn't even know that the airport he/she leaved from asked tax from him/her. Another example, would be theme parks. Disneyland / Disneyworld after all charge admission fee to enter. Besides, I think that the exit tax from Indonesia is actually a lot bigger than the cost for Visa entering Indonesia. I think that it's something like Rp. 1.000.000,00 (around 100 U.S.A. Dollars) if you leave Indonesia by air, Rp. 500.000,00 if you leave Indonesia by sea, and Rp. 250.000,00 if you leave Indonesia by land. And I think that this applied to both the citizens of Indonesian and the citizens of other countries. Though I wonder if this exit tax is still in effect. There have been talks about eliminating it in 2005, but I don't know if it has already been eliminated or not. Personally, I don't care if it's eliminated or not. People who are broke shouldn't bother to travel to another country in the first place. If one want to travel to somewhere, one got to prepare to have lots of money in the first place. Personally, what is quite a big deterrent to tourism is 'travel warning/advisory'. And even governments right down banned travelling. I personally just always be amazed when some people claimed that the new Indonesian Visa law will be a deterrent to tourism to Indonesia but will always managed to convienently forget that Indonesians have to pay Visa to enter other countries (as it already mentioned by RAK), the hefty exit tax to leave Indonesia, and the nonsense 'travel warning/advisory', especially the nonsense 'travel warning/advisory'. I do agree that the asking of Visa (to any country) might caused people to travel much less. However, it's not like that tourism is such a good thing either. > Another example, would be theme parks. Disneyland / Disneyworld after > all charge admission fee to enter. If Florida charged a fee to enter the state, it would hurt tourism (though it would probably be illegal). > Besides, I think that the exit tax from Indonesia is actually a lot > bigger than the cost for Visa entering Indonesia. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And I think that this applied to both the citizens of Indonesian and > the citizens of other countries. You think incorrectly. It only applies to people who live in Indonesia. > Personally, I don't care if it's eliminated or not. People who are > broke shouldn't bother to travel to another country in the first place. > If one want to travel to somewhere, one got to prepare to have lots of > money in the first place. If this argument made any sense, there is no limit to how high fees should be. miguel  SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan Exactly. I went to Indonesia via Batam. I have a bad memory but I remember 10 and 20 USD, not 25. You have traveled a lot. Can you point me a country you favored most? > By the way, they charged me USD 10 and sometimes 20 for the visa, IIRC. > Is there any country charging for visa? I've never experienced that. > USA, China, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, ... > I think that makes visitors unpleasant and, as a result, deprives > Indonesians of their income from more tourists. I paid a fee for a Thai tourist visa just recently. Most countries charge something on their visas. Actually, I think that U.S.A., P.R.C., Canada, and Mexico charges Visa for Indonesians to enter their countries. The same goes for Korea, both North and South. That's why citizens from those countries have to pay Visa to enter Indonesia. And some of those countries even charged Indonesians more for Visa than Indonesia charge for Visa for the citizens of those countries. Singapore don't charge Visa to Indonesians, that's why Singaporeans are allowed to enter Indonesia without a Visa. The same goes for Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and so on. The rule is, if a country charged Visa for Indonesians to enter, the citizens from that country are charged with Visa to enter Indonesia. As simple as that. If any country want their citizens to enter Indonesia without a Visa, then that country have to let Indonesians enter that country without any Visa. As simple as that. It should be noted that Indonesia biggest primary income don't come from tourism, so tourism while is a big income, it isn't such a big deal if it's missed. And besides with the attitudes that some countries and tourism industry is doing toward tourism to Indonesia, Indonesia and Indonesians become more and don't care about tourism. THAT is what depriving Indonesians of their income from more tourists. In a kind of way, the new Visa law is a balancing act to bring more income from tourists. More tourists equal less fee and less tourists equal more fee. NOT Less fee equal more tourists and more fee equals less tourists. The people collecting the money from the Visa will then use the money they get to trade goods and services with other Indonesians, in some way or another. Besides, the people responsible for the Indonesia Visa thing probably also responsible for the 'Patriot Act' in the U.S.A. (which causes many people to avoid the U.S.A., even it just a short transit through U.S.A.'s airspace). 'They' just love to upset people from every country in any country, of course, not using 'their' real identity when doing 'their' act. Besides, it's not like that tourists are such good things either. Some tourists might be good, some might be bad. More infomation can be found here: http://www.imigrasi.go.id/ > Actually, I think that U.S.A., P.R.C., Canada, and Mexico charges Visa > for Indonesians to enter their countries. The same goes for Korea, both > North and South. > > That's why citizens from those countries have to pay Visa to enter > Indonesia. That's not a very good answer for "why". It's like saying the reason I named my child "Potato-face" is because you named your child "Potato-face". In both cases, the answer to "why" can be found in issues of pride and spite, but not in the action of anyone else. Canada did not cause Indonesia to charge money for visas; only Indonesia has the power to make that decision. > And some of those countries even charged Indonesians more for Visa than > Indonesia charge for Visa for the citizens of those countries. This is true; for example an Indonesian applying to the US will pay over US$100 and has a high chance of not receiving the visa. > If any country want their citizens to enter Indonesia without a Visa, > then that country have to let Indonesians enter that country without > any Visa. As simple as that. It's a monumentally stupid rule. No country on earth will change their visa policy towards Indonesia because of it. The only effect is to harm the Indonesian tourism industry. > It should be noted that Indonesia biggest primary income don't come > from tourism, so tourism while is a big income, it isn't such a big > deal if it's missed. Very wrong. It may not be the number one earner, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. It provides livelihood for millions of people. Your eyes aren't the most important organs in your body, but it would still be a big deal if they go missing. > In a kind of way, the new Visa law is a balancing act to bring more > income from tourists. More tourists equal less fee and less tourists > equal more fee. NOT Less fee equal more tourists and more fee equals > less tourists. The people collecting the money from the Visa will then > use the money they get to trade goods and services with other > Indonesians, in some way or another. This makes no sense on any level. > Besides, it's not like that tourists are such good things either. Some > tourists might be good, some might be bad. The overwhelming majority of tourists are good. miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan [snip] >It's a monumentally stupid rule. No country on earth will change their visa >policy towards Indonesia because of it. The only effect is to harm the >Indonesian tourism industry. [snip] It doesn't sound like it's a very large fee, such as would be likely to deter many tourists. Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. >> It's a monumentally stupid rule. No country on earth will change their >> visa policy towards Indonesia because of it. The only effect is to harm >> the Indonesian tourism industry. > > It doesn't sound like it's a very large fee, such as would be likely > to deter many tourists. It's deterred me plenty of times. I would nip over to Bali or Sumatra constantly if not for my annoyance at the fee. In the broader sense, though, every cost deters some people. The higher the cost, the more the people deterred. None of those people were going to spend less than $25 in Indonesia. So every single one is a loss for the country. miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan >>> It's a monumentally stupid rule. No country on earth will change their >>> visa policy towards Indonesia because of it. The only effect is to harm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >None of those people were going to spend less than $25 in Indonesia. So >every single one is a loss for the country. Only if the loss of tourists is significant enough to offset $25 x number of visitors (business and personal as well as tourists, presumably). Michael If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the NOTRASH. Please do not email me something which you also posted. >> None of those people were going to spend less than $25 in Indonesia. So >> every single one is a loss for the country. > > Only if the loss of tourists is significant enough to offset $25 x > number of visitors (business and personal as well as tourists, > presumably). Fair enough, but assuming the average $25-paying visitor spends $1000 in the country, you only need to lose 1 in 40 to be behind. As I've said, they've lost me more than once (though admittedly I'm going back next week). miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan Most countries require and charge for visas. If a country waives those charges, it is usually because of a reciprocal agreement between governments to do so. >By the way, they charged me USD 10 and sometimes 20 for the visa, IIRC. >Is there any country charging for visa? I've never experienced that. >USA, China, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, ... >I think that makes visitors unpleasant and, as a result, deprives >Indonesians of their income from more tourists. SignaturePhilip Allum > Most countries require and charge for visas. If a country waives those > charges, it is usually because of a reciprocal agreement between > governments to do so. In most cases it seems to me to be a unilateral thing. With most rich-country passports you can travel freely to such places as Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Guatemala; it certainly doesn't work the other way 'round. miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan >> Most countries require and charge for visas. If a country waives those >> charges, it is usually because of a reciprocal agreement between [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >miguel You have named three countries out of, what, 160 odd. I wrote that "it is usually because of a reciprocal agreement". SignaturePhilip Allum > Miguel Cruz <mnc@admin.u.nu> writes >>> Most countries require and charge for visas. If a country waives those [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You have named three countries out of, what, 160 odd. I wrote that "it > is usually because of a reciprocal agreement". I named three because I figured it would bore readers to go through the list. Here's an example, for US passport-holders. Countries that can be visited without securing a visa first: (note that there is an entry charge with a handful of these countries, such as Indonesia, Nepal, Turkey, Cambodia, and Egypt, so they don't all stand in support of my particular argument here). Albania, Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Botswana, Brunei, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros Islands, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, French Guiana, French Polynesia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Korea (South), Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macau, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Norfolk Island, Norway, Oman (if entering via Dubai), Palau, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, St. Kitts & Nevis, Santa Lucia, St. Pierre & Miquelon, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia & Montenegro, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Virgin Islands (British), Zimbabwe. Now, compare - countries whose nationals can visit the USA without a visa: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mexico, Monaco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom. Notice a difference in the sizes of those lists? miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan In message <0-mdnVC2l4v0l0DfRVn-pA@speakeasy.net>, Miguel Cruz <mnc@admin.u.nu> writes >> Miguel Cruz <mnc@admin.u.nu> writes >>>> Most countries require and charge for visas. If a country waives those [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >miguel The 'entry charge' IS, in effect, a charge for a limited stay visa and in many of the countries you mention it is called exactly that. Whether you have to pre-apply or will most probably be issued with one on the border is a different matter. If they don't like your face or your apparent financial status, etc., there is no guarantee that they will let you in. SignaturePhilip Allum > The 'entry charge' IS, in effect, a charge for a limited stay visa and > in many of the countries you mention it is called exactly that. Not many; just a handful. I pointed out most of them in the paragraph preceeding the list. Anyway, the irrefutable point remains that the majority of visa- and fee-free entry situations are asymmetric. Two-way free entry generally only exists between rich countries, which are in the minority of all the world's nations. Meanwhile, a great number of non-rich countries offer free entry to rich visitors, because it is in their best interests to do so. When non-rich countries offer entry to citizens of other non-rich countries it is generally only those with which they share a border. In this issue Indonesia stands an example of a country that has put its best interests on the back burner in favor of childish nationalism. miguel SignatureHit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu Latest photos: Queens Day in Amsterdam; the Grand Canyon; Amman, Jordan I thought it's simply a way of getting kindof tax easily in the name of nationalism. I heard from my friend it is promoted in the name of nationalism. I said to my friend, hmm you can't know real intention of politicians. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.