Inhabiting Resistance: Stories from Thamrin – Portraits of Circumstances and Their Human Beings

By Benedictus Bagustantyo

“Even if ‘I shed my blood’ (tumpah darah), even until my death, I will remain here!
This is ‘my birthplace’ (tanah tumpah darahku)[1],
passed down through generations – my rightful property.
As long as I live, there is no way I will ‘leave’ this house,
not even a single step.”  (Elis, 2019a)

Elis’ declaration above is a poetic lament – part cry, part promise, entirely powerful – that has resonated in my mind since I heard her story (singular), which went viral across mainstream and social media in 2019. Elis suddenly drew media attention because her 40-square-metre humble house is tucked away within a 45-story upper-middle-class apartment complex in the Thamrin area, Central Jakarta (see Figure 1). It is located in one of Indonesia’s most expensive areas, just less than one kilometre from the Bundaran HI, with its “Welcome Monument”. Moreover, her house is one of the last remains of Kampung[2] Kebon Melati, a neighbourhood slowly disappearing due to urban development. Even though the apartment developer has offered compensation at a “reasonable” price, Elis refuses to relocate from the land and house that her ancestors inherited. In other words, she has chosen to assert the main essence of what Harman (1984) calls the “right to stay put”. However, while asserting such a right, Elis attracted numerous adverse remarks on the media coverage, with many deeming her irrational, doubting her resilience, and advising her to sell her inheritance and leave immediately.

Therefore, this essay seeks to retell her housing stories (plural) – in contrast to the singular narrative the media have covered, to uncover what circumstances shaped Elis’s form of inhabited resistance. It will focus on Elis’ tenacity intertwined with the history fragments of her house and her kampung as a form of unlearning and “storytelling otherwise” (see Lorimer, 2003, p. 283; see Ortiz, 2023). Her narratives act as a starting thread that unravels further stories reflecting on urban development trajectories in Jakarta, especially in seeking and formulating housing policies toward housing justice (see Cociña & Frediani, 2024). Situating her specific housing stories within broader circumstances will show how personal and political dynamics intersect to produce distinct housing decisions, processes, and consequences (see Lees & Robinson, 2021, p. 594). Nevertheless, this essay is a gesture toward justice for Elis – recognising her, understanding her, and not letting her stories fade.

Thus, the stories will unfold in three distinct acts to pursue the mentioned aims, each corresponding to a critical juncture in Indonesia’s historical timeline while also implying its semantic meaning: the “Old Order”, the “New Order”, and the “Reformation”. Ultimately, this essay will reflect on how the stories extend beyond Elis and her family, home, or neighbourhood (kampung and the apartment). It calls attention to broader questions of belonging, memory, housing and urban justice that implicate us all.

Figure 1. Elis’ house within an apartment complex in Thamrin, Jakarta.
Source: (Lova, 2019 in Kompas.com)

The “Old Order”

“You could say this house holds memories – ones we cannot forget. It also carries the legacy of my wife’s parents, who were freedom fighters.” (Chairul B., 2019).

Elis was born in 1955 – in the mid-period of the Old Order era (1945-1966), a period born from the struggle for Indonesia’s long-awaited independence. Chairul, her husband – whose quote opens this section – was born in 1947. They entered a world shaped by the nation’s attempt to translate freedom into governance and ideals into action. Perhaps Elis’ soul of resistance was no coincidence; it was a legacy inherited from her parents, who once fought for the republic. During that time, in the spirit of hope, waves of people from various regions across Indonesia left their hometowns, searching for opportunities and a better future in Jakarta. Due to this migration, the capital city experienced explosive population growth – from around 800 thousand in 1949[3] to around 3.5 million in 1965 (Cybriwsky & Ford, 2001). Unlike the migrants, Elis (2019c) asserts her identity as a native Jakartan (also known as Betawi), “I am from the eighth generation [living in this place] – truly rooted here, not someone who came from elsewhere.”

Like Elis, her home had long taken root and grown in the Tanah Abang district, precisely in Kampung “Kebon Melati” (Jasmine[4] Garden). Her kampung name indicates the origins of its settlement, part of a broader pattern in Jakarta where place names echo the natural produce that once flourished there. Zaenuddin (2012) notes that the official naming of the neighbourhood as “Kebon Melati” did not occur until the 1960s. However, the “blooming” from jasmine fields to a settlement had begun long before –around 1897-1935 – as a southern extension of the earlier Kampung “Kebon Kacang” (Peanut Plantation). Accordingly, Kebon Kacang Street was the primary pathway to Kebon Melati until the second millennium. Its strategic location – close to the historic Tanah Abang market and the city center (Weltevreden), sparked this housing process. These claims are supported by the historical maps of Batavia[5] below, depicting the spatial transformation.

Figure 2. Maps of Batavia during the pre-independence period.
Source: (Based on KITLV, 2025).

However, the historical maps and legends above also imply that kampungs were viewed as “indigenous neighbourhoods” segregated from Batavia based on race. It was an exclusionary and oppressive practice commonly seen during the colonial era (Putri, 2019). Furthermore, it substantiates Irawaty’s (2018) note that kampungs were often associated with disorder, disease, and ignorance due to their physical aspects in contrast to European and Chinese areas. Jellinek (1991, p. 2) describes the typical native Jakartans’ houses around Kampung Kebon Kacang in the 1940s as often built with woven bamboo walls and thatched coconut palm roofs and rested on land – which typically held legal title. Kampung Kebon Melati, too, reflects a similar pattern; Elis (2019c) recalled, “Back then, all [the floors inside the house and the road outside] were made of nothing but bare earth.” – a stark contrast to the beauty and fragrance of the jasmine flower that once filled the area.

Nevertheless, the true beauty of the kampung does not lie in its physical form but in the spirit and soul that breathes life into it. Just like Elis, who showed a form of resistance, Putri (2019) argues that historically, kampung embodied a collective form of defiance against colonialism. This assertion is because the settlement process was a community response to the exclusion and oppression experienced by the people during the Dutch colonial era. They formed and maintained traditional and informal socio-economic networks as opposed to colonial modernity. Moreover, Jellinek (1991, pp. 1–17) draws attention to the unique beauty of Jakarta’s kampung, especially during the Old Order period. She describes it as a lived social space bound by interpersonal connection where support and sociability were part of the everyday rhythm – driven by kinship and rooted in collective care rather than financial gain. Altogether, the mentioned elements rendered the kampung as both a source of insurgency and solidarity – anchoring the hopes of its inhabitants.

Ironically, President Sukarno – the founding father who was known to be anti-colonial – “threatened” the kampungs by embracing a vision of progress rooted in colonial modernity (Putri, 2019). With an architectural background, he spearheaded the modernisation of Jakarta, envisioning it as a great city with skyscrapers, monuments, and grand boulevards (Cybriwsky & Ford, 2001). This wave of development began in the 1950s when Elis was born and reached its peak during the preparation for the 1962 Asian Games. The key projects included the National Monument, the Senayan sports complex, and Kebayoran Baru (a new suburban residential district). Linking them together was Thamrin Boulevard, a broad avenue with the mentioned monumental roundabout – “Welcome Monument” (Ngantung, 1977; Sostroatmodjo, 1977). Moreover, Sukarno planned to replace kampungs with “modern” social housing (rusunawa). Although this plan to displace kampungs failed to proceed due to budgetary limitations and shifting political dynamics, numerous kampungs were uprooted for those earlier modernist projects (Irawaty, 2018). Fortunately, Elis’s home and her kampung remained standing despite being located precariously close to these development initiatives.

Figure 3. Maps of Jakarta illustrating the city’s transformation from 1960-1970.
Source: (Based on Merrillees, 2015).

 

The “New Order”

After an ambitious wave of modernisation, Indonesia’s economic and political stability declined, leading to Suharto’s rise to power in 1966. In this authoritarian New Order era, the nation’s course and economic priorities were set through Repelita – a series of Five-Year Development Plans. The new Governor of Jakarta (1966-1977), Ali Sadikin, had to deal with a population surge, rising housing demand, and kampungs’ inadequate physical conditions, but with fiscal constraints. He initiated the Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) in 1969, which became part of the Repelita I-III. The program emphasised upgrading infrastructure and improving living conditions in kampungs. It was conceived as a low-cost alternative to full-scale urban redevelopment and presented a more feasible solution than constructing new housing projects. Echoing the naming of Thamrin Boulevard, the KIP was also referred to as the Muhammad Husni Thamrin (MHT) Project in honour of a Betawi city legislator who had advocated for kampungs improvement during the colonial era (Irawaty, 2018; Silver, 2008). Remarkably, while not one of the official pilot projects, Kampung Kebon Melati became one of the first kampungs to experience the KIP during Repelita I (1969-1974).

Afterwards, Elis and her home in Kampung Kebon Melati become woven into the historical fabric of the KIP’s implementation – an unstated but lasting presence in the ongoing story (see Figure 4). A footpath was constructed on the east side of Elis’ house, transforming what was once bare earth into a concrete walkway around two metres wide. It extended southward, connecting her home to a nearby field and northward to the new vehicle road that had also undergone improvements. Although the road was only constructed along specific segments, it visibly improved accessibility to Kampung Kebon Melati. Furthermore, within 100 metres of her home, new communal water and sanitation facilities had been introduced. In addition, a new drainage system was constructed for flood prevention, and integrated waste disposal points were established. Lastly, parts of Kebon Melati that remained untouched by this initial phase were later addressed under KIP Repelita II (see Harari & Wong, 2024, p. 60).

Figure 4. The KIP implementation of Kampung Kebon Melati.
Source: (Based on Harari & Wong, 2024, p. 60)

 

Starting in Repelita II (1974-1979), coinciding with neoliberalism’s emergence in Indonesia, the KIP gained financial support from the World Bank after the initial government-funded KIP Repelita I was deemed a success (see World Bank, 1995). The program later scaled up nationwide and earned international acclaim – the Aga Khan Award in 1980.  However, Jellinek (1991) found that the KIP was often implemented without prior consultation with the affected communities – overlooking their most urgent needs. It failed to address underlying structural problems regarding access to land and housing, which drove up land prices in the improved kampungs (Putri, 2019). Then, many landowners became increasingly interested in selling or raising rents, forcing tenants to relocate to other kampungs on the urban periphery. Parallelly, in the 1990s, the KIP ended and evolved into urban renewal projects, often involving evictions and social housing construction (Irawaty, 2018). Eventually, the total area of kampungs demolished for public or private development was larger than that of kampungs improved under KIP (Putri, 2019). Kampung Kebon Melati was one of those nearly “demolished” by the urban development.

 

The “Reformation”

Figure 5. The gentrification of Kebon Melati from 2002–2023.
Source: (Based on Google Earth, 2025)

In 2005 – more than 30 years after the KIP in Kampung Kebon Melati, Elis received an offer from a developer to sell her land for 2.5 billion Rupiah. The developer – a consortium of a private firm and a regional-owned enterprise – planned to construct high-rise apartments to meet the upper-middle class’s housing and investment demands. However, as the land title holder, she firmly rejected the proposal, “No matter how much I am offered, I refuse to sell.” She also refused when the offer was changed to an apartment unit. For Elis (2019d), her stance was not about financial matters but about upholding principles intertwined with immeasurable sentimental value, “…[the house is a] proof of my family’s blood and sweat for years…” Her resistance was at once profoundly personal and structurally resonant, as it mirrored the broader trends reshaping Jakarta’s urban landscape during this new era.

At that time, Jakarta experienced a real estate boom, and private developers actively pursued opportunities to build modern dwellings (e.g., apartments) in inner-city and peripheral areas (Kusno, 2012). This phenomenon was driven by policies enacted at the end of Suharto’s regime, which increasingly turned land and property into valuable commodities (Leaf, 1992). Fuelled by the post-1998 crisis recovery, it stimulated the speculation practice that influenced the direction and pace of urban growth, favouring the upper-middle class (see Kusno, 2013). As indicated earlier, these shifts triggered kampung and their low-income settlers’ displacement and gentrification (Silver, 2008). Due to its strategic location, Kampung Kebon Melati became a prime target for property developers to acquire and invest in. As Elis and one of the neighbourhood unit leaders recounted, depending on tenure security, many gave up their land – lured by offers, afraid of eviction, or frightened by intimidating figures whose origins remained unknown (Azhari, 2019b; Elis, 2019a). Nevertheless, Elis chose to stay put – neither intimidated nor tempted.

Moreover, Elis also persists in the conditions of what Lees and Robinson (2021) describe as the “slow violence of gentrification”, which started in 2009 when the apartment’s construction began. Elis (2019c) portrayed what her life was like during this phase, “…[D]uring the apartment construction, I could not even sleep; I was constantly drowsy. Night felt like day, and day like night… we were showered in dust every single day.”

Subsequently, roughly eight years after the apartment complex was built, the world around her has changed. Their two oldest children have grown up and settled in the urban periphery – but Elis remains with her husband and their youngest son at her parents’ inherited house. Yet, the house is now concealed by the retaining wall – visible only from above – and can only be accessed via a steep concrete ramp. Regarding this issue, she likened her experience to grey hairs hidden beneath dye – an honest presence yet made invisible. She lamented the lack of access, sunlight, and clean water – things that were once taken for granted.

“…I am walled in on all sides; how can I get out?… [Moreover,] all [the water] gets sucked by the apartments. I never get a share of clean water. [For daily needs,] I must buy refilled water in gallons… We carry the water gallons ourselves. That is why when it rains, and the ramp gets slippery, it is easy to fall. I have even hurt my back because of it.” (Elis cited in Azhari, 2019a).

Lastly, Elis (2019b) recalled how her surroundings used to be filled with houses – some inhabited by migrants drawn to the capital with hopes for a better future. However, now, she lives encircled by skyscrapers – separated from the remaining parts of Kampung Kebon Melati across the western edge. The shared facilities that had stood for years no longer existed. Even the field to the south, where children used it as a playground, has also been transformed into another apartment complex. For those who stayed, the narrow alleys have become the only shared and binding spaces (Oktarina, 2018). “Thamrin”, which once provided Kampung dwellers with their main access to the city’s wealth, seemed no longer open to them.

Figure 6. The access ramp to Elis’s house.
Source: (Lova, 2019 in Kompas.com)

In 2024, five years after her story went viral, it was reported that Elis still lived with Chairul and her youngest child in the same house. Under similar circumstances, they survived living “side-by-side” with the apartment. However, when she was about to be interviewed by the media, Elis refused, possibly concerned that media coverage could lead to further misunderstandings with various parties, including the apartment management, with whom they are now coexisting peacefully (see Murti, 2024; see also Aragon, 2019). She said, “…[M]au ngapain [lagi] nih?…” – “What [else] is there to do [or to say]?” Hereafter, her question became ours.

 

Afterwords

The just-mentioned question distances us as though urging us to reflect on what a just settlement for Elis and those like her could mean. From the revealed stories, it is highly possible that just settlement does not view housing as a commodity but instead challenges the hegemony of the top-down and market-driven approach. It involves people like Elis, who are (usually) excluded, as the subjects in every urban planning and development process. In this context, housing justice means recognising people, especially the low-income communities, their dwelling processes, and their relationship to land. This understanding aligns with Turner’s (1972) perspective, which views housing as a verb, emphasising the process and the relationship between dwellers and their homes. This transformative viewpoint also addresses the very question of what can be done for those clinging to the vestiges of previous regenerations, especially in (the remains of) Kampung Kebon Melati. They are the ones that are torn apart and must be reintegrated into the urban fabric through genuine participation and recognition, considering that Kampung is indeed an inseparable part of the city (see Kusno, 2020; see also Fraser, 1995, 2009). Mirroring Elis’ resistance, collective housing such as kampung susun is now emerging in Jakarta, emphasising housing as a verb and challenging the dominant trend of urban practices that are exclusionary towards housing justice (see ACHR, 2023; see Sari et al., 2022). However, this struggle is something that must continue to be fought for.

Therefore, Elis’ stories are a powerful reminder of the enduring significance of the right to stay put in the face of overwhelming development pressures and the slow violence of gentrification. Her resistance unravels kampungs as sources of insurgency, solidarity, and hope, which have always tried to be eliminated by distinct power dynamics shaping the urban trajectories. This occurrence highlights the need for the continued decolonisation of urban planning and development policies towards housing justice in Jakarta. Thus, even if individual, agency is crucial in questioning dominant logics that prioritise the exchange value of land and housing over their use or emotional value. Nevertheless, what seemed like stillness was, in fact, full of movements for the right to the city. Elis, her house, and Kampung Kebon Melati, which have persisted across eras, adapt without losing their spirit, ultimately become part of Jakarta’s journey and help contest the city’s future.

 

Acknowledgements

Although the author has never met Elis in person, she is sincerely appreciated for her stories, which have inspired and ensouled this essay. All information about Elis has been drawn from publicly accessible and credible sources, with care taken to ensure respectful and accurate representation.

 

References

ACHR. (2023). Kampung Akuarium (Case Studies of Collective Housing in Asian Cities Series). Asian Coalition for Housing Rights. http://achr.net/upload/downloads/file_230824171816.pdf

Anderson, B. R. O. (1999). Introduction. In P. A. Toer, Tales from Djakarta—Caricatures of Circumstances and their Human Beings (pp. 11–16). Cornell University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv1nhnxj.4

Aragon, H. H. (2019, September 23). Kisah Pemilik Rumah Tua, Bertahan Hidup di Halaman Thamrin Residence [’The Story of an Old House Owner Surviving in the Yard of Thamrin Residence’]. brilio.net. https://www.brilio.net/duh/kisah-pemilik-rumah-tua-bertahan-hidup-di-halaman-thamrin-residence-190923t.html

Azhari, J. R. (2019a, September 22). [Review of 7 Fakta Rumah Reyot di Tengah Apartemen Mewah [’7 Facts About a Ramshackle House Amid Luxury Apartments’], by S. Asril]. Kompas.com. https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2019/09/22/09164551/7-fakta-rumah-reyot-di-tengah-apartemen-mewah-kesulitan-pemilik-hingga

Azhari, J. R. (2019b, September 23). [Review of 5 Fakta Kampung Kebon Melati Terkepung Pencakar Langit di Thamrin [’5 Facts About Kampung Kebon Melati Surrounded by Skyscrapers in Thamrin’], by E. Patnistik]. Kompas.com. https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2019/09/23/09284281/5-fakta-kampung-kebon-melati-terkepung-pencakar-langit-di-thamrin

Chairul B. (2019, September 28). Seputar Rumah Kecil yang Berhimpitan Dengan Apartment Mewah di Tengah Ibukota [’About a Small House Tucked Between Luxury Apartments in the Heart of the Capital’] (The Newsroom NET. & N. Soekarno, Interviewers) [Interview]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzGbK2Pz67w

Cociña, C., & Frediani, A. A. (2024, April). Towards Housing Justice: Four propositions to transform policy and practice. IIED, London. https://www.iied.org/22321IIED

Cybriwsky, R., & Ford, L. R. (2001). City Profile: Jakarta. Cities, 18(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(01)00004-X

Elis. (2019a, September 20). Cerita Pemilik Rumah Bertahan Hidup di Halaman Thamrin Executive Residence [’The Story of a Homeowner Surviving in the Yard of Thamrin Executive Residence’] [Merdeka.com]. https://www.merdeka.com/peristiwa/cerita-pemilik-rumah-bertahan-hidup-di-halaman-thamrin-executive-residence.html?

Elis. (2019b, September 20). Rumah Reyot “Nyempil” di Tengah Apartemen Mewah Jakpus, Ini Kisah Sang Pemilik [’A Dilapidated House ‘Wedged’ Among Luxury Apartments in Central Jakarta: The Owner’s Story’] (K. C. Media, Interviewer) [Kompas.com]. https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2019/09/20/16180581/rumah-reyot-nyempil-di-tengah-apartemen-mewah-jakpus-ini-kisah-sang

Elis. (2019c, September 21). Kisah Rumah Tua di Tengah Kompleks Apartemen Mewah [’The Story of an Old House in the Middle of a Luxury Apartment Complex’] (A. Santoso, Interviewer) [Detiknews]. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4716088/kisah-rumah-tua-di-tengah-kompleks-apartemen-mewah?page=1

Elis. (2019d, September 22). House That Can’t be Moved (S. Atika, Interviewer) [The Jakarta Post]. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/09/22/house-that-cant-be-moved-owner-stands-ground-despite-being-boxed-dwarfed-by-skyscraper.html

Fraser, N. (1995). From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a Post Socialist Age. New Left Review, I(212). https://newleftreview-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/issues/i212/articles/nancy-fraser-from-redistribution-to-recognition-dilemmas-of-justice-in-a-post-socialist-age

Fraser, N. (2009). Reframing Justice in A Globalizing World. In Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in A Globalizing World.

Harari, M., & Wong, M. (2024). Slum Upgrading and Long-run Urban Development: Evidence from Indonesia. University of Pennsylvania. https://real-faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/harari/wp-content/uploads/~harari/HarariWong_SlumUpgrading_Sept2024.pdf

Hartman, C. (1984). The Right to Stay Put. In C. C. Geisler & F. J. Popper (Eds.), Land Reform, American Style (pp. 302–318). Rowman & Allanheld.

Irawaty, D. T. (2018). Jakarta’s Kampungs: Their History and Contested Future [UCLA]. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/55w9b9gg

Jellinek, L. (1991). The Wheel of Fortune: The History of a Poor Community in Jakarta. University of Hawaii Press.

Kusno, A. (2012). Housing the Margin: Perumahan Rakyat and the Future Urban Form of Jakarta. Southeast Asia Program Publications at Cornell University, 94, 23–56.

Kusno, A. (2013). After the New Order: Space, Politics, and Jakarta. University of Hawai’i Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt6wqhg1

Kusno, A. (2020). Middling urbanism: The megacity and the kampung. Urban Geography, 41(7), 954–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2019.1688535

Leaf, M. L. (1992). Land regulation and housing development in Jakarta, Indonesia: From the “big village” to the “modern city” [Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley]. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (304054188). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/land-regulation-housing-development-jakarta/docview/304054188/se-2?accountid=14511

Lees, L., & Robinson, B. (2021). Beverley’s Story. City, 25(5–6), 590–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2021.1987702

Lorimer, H. (2003). The Geographical Field Course as Active Archive. Cultural Geographies, 10(3), 278–308. https://doi.org/10.1191/1474474003eu276oa

Lova, C. (2019, September 20). Berita Foto: Rumah Reyot di Tengah Apartemen Mewah Thamrin Executive Residence [’Photo Report: A Dilapidated House Amid the Luxury Apartments of Thamrin Executive Residence’]. Kompas.com. https://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2019/09/20/21041481/berita-foto-rumah-reyot-di-tengah-apartemen-mewah-thamrin-executive

Merrillees, S. (Ed.). (2015). Jakarta: Portraits of A Capital 1950-1980 (First edition). Equinox Publ.

Murti, A. S. (2024, April 24). Sempat Viral 5 Tahun Lalu, Rumah Tua Ini Masih Berdiri di Tengah Apartemen Mewah [’Once Viral Five Years Ago, This Old House Still Stands Amidst Jakarta’s Luxury Apartments’]. SINDOnews Daerah. https://daerah.sindonews.com/read/1365151/171/sempat-viral-5-tahun-lalu-rumah-tua-ini-masih-berdiri-di-tengah-apartemen-mewah-1713963876

Ngantung, H. (1977). Di Antara Tekanan dan Kecurigaan [’Between Pressure and Suspicion’]. In Karya Jaya: Kenang-Kenangan Lima Kepala Daerah Jakarta 1945-1966 [’Karya Jaya: Memories of Five Regional Heads of Jakarta 1945-1966’] (pp. 151–196). DKI Jakarta Provincial Government.

Oktarina, F. (2018). Shared Space and Culture of Tolerance in Kampung Settlements in Jakarta. Jurnal Sosioteknologi, 17(3), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.5614/sostek.itbj.2018.17.3.9

Ortiz, C. (2023). Storytelling otherwise: Decolonising storytelling in planning. Planning Theory, 22(2), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221115875

Putri, P. W. (2019). Sanitizing Jakarta: Decolonizing planning and kampung imaginary. Planning Perspectives, 34(5), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1453861

Sari, A. N. I., Hermintomo, A., Irawaty, D. T., & Tanny, V. (2022). Participation within the Insurgent Planning Practices—A Case of Kampung Susun Akuarium, Jakarta. In S. Roitman & D. Rukmana, Routledge Handbook of Urban Indonesia (1st ed., pp. 58–72). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003318170-7

Silver, C. (2008). Planning the Megacity: Jakarta in the Twentieth Century. Routledge.

Sostroatmodjo, S. (1977). Mengabdi dalam Keadaan yang Sukar [’Serving in Difficult Circumstances’]. In Karya Jaya: Kenang-Kenangan Lima Kepala Daerah Jakarta 1945-1966 [’Karya Jaya: Memories of Five Regional Heads of Jakarta 1945-1966’] (pp. 201–265). DKI Jakarta Provincial Government.

Toer, P. A. (1999). Tales from Djakarta—Caricatures of Circumstances and their Human Beings. Cornell University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv1nhnxj

Turner, J. F. C. (1972). Housing as a Verb. In Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process (pp. 148–175). Macmillan.

Universiteit Leiden. (2025). Maps (KITLV) – Digital Collections. https://digitalcollections.universiteitleiden.nl/maps-kitlv

World Bank. (1995). The Legacy of Kampung Improvement Program (Nos. 14747-IND). Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/927561468752367336/pdf/multi-page.pdf

Zaenuddin H. M. (2012). 212 Asal-Usul Djakarta Tempo Doeloe [’212 Origins of Old Jakarta’] (Cet. 1). Ufuk Press.

[1] The Indonesian phrase “tanah tumpah darahku” literally means “the land where I shed my blood,” while semantically, it can be translated as “birthplace, country of origin, or motherland.” It is a poetic phrase – roughly capturing the emotions brought on by recollecting the motherland, popularised during the Indonesian revolution.

[2] In Indonesia, the term “kampung” is commonly used to refer to rural traditional villages or urban informal settlements.

[3] 1949 marked the year when the Netherlands formally recognised Indonesia’s sovereignty, following a series of military aggressions in Jakarta and various other regions.

[4] The jasmine flower (Jasminum sambac) is recognised in Indonesia as the national flower (puspa bangsa), symbolising purity and sacredness. Apart from being used for tea, these fragrant white flowers are often used for various ceremonies and rituals across different ethnic groups in Indonesia (e.g., Javanese, Sundanese, and Betawi weddings).

[5] Batavia is the official name of Jakarta until 1942 – when the Dutch East Indies fell into Japanese hands.