In Reply to: HP title has no collateral value posted by SurfAddict on Monday, 27. February 2006 at 19:28 Bali Time:
cannot agree.
This is a lease the name of the owner - did the Real owner of a Hak M title ever have the right to borrow if he was a foreigner - no?
Did he ever get his name on the papers? - no.
Did he have the right to bequeath.?
Naturally no, because he had no title.
Did he get the simple things like phone and rates in his own name?- no.
In the case of Hak P whoever is named in the holder's will carries on. ( I'm deliberately trying to keep this simple) in the same way as he/she would in a western country where there are many cases of land, buildings, farms ,cars, shops,etc being leasehold.
My understanding is that this was brought in by Gus Dur to attract foreign investment by making things " certain" and the whole thing is little understood by the people who should understand it - ie lawyers realters etc..
I was told by an Australian lawyer"practicing" in Bali ( and I use the term in the dictionary definition as he can only "practice" not practice) that this was only available to holders of a KITAS and if the Kitas was surrendered then so was the ability to hold Hak P.
That was somewhat of a surprise as I hold Hak P and I have never had a Kitas!!
But then I'm not an Australian lawyer"practicing" in Bali so what would I (or, more to the point) my Indonesian advisers and the Govt departments who collectively processed the documents know?
I believe the biggest problem is that advisers don't have enough real information because they can't be bothered to do their homework.
Hak P is transferable and can be upgraded to Hak M if sold to an Indonesian national.
So it's actually perpetual as it could be "sold" at the end of the renewal period to a third party, changed to Hak M and then changed back to Hak P in the same or another name and the term starts again.
Actually this is academic as if Indonesia still exists 50 years down the track anyone will be able to own land as is the case with almost all western countries now.
The reality that is accepted by most western countries is that the land stays where it is and it doesn't really matter who owns it right now.
Look at the purchase of Lilly Bank station in the South Island high country of New Zealand by Tommy Suharto.
He paid the money so he got title to the the land, just as anyone else from any other country could have done.
He sold the land so he doesn't own it any more - and the land is in exactly the same place as it was before.
Non native Australians would say that before they came to Australia the land was undeveloped and their ownership and investment changed an "empty" country into one of the world's powerhouses.
So why would they resist foreign investors from improving it further? They don't and public companies don't have a problem with anyone from wherever owning their shares either.
Hak P is the first step down the road to acceptance that small foreign ownership of land brings additional investment and benefit.
Gosh - think this has turned into a sermon. And there is no mount to preach on or even bread or fish to distribute to the hungry.!
Never mind, the water has turned into Hatton wine!