Is this fact taboo so that should be avoided or should be planned?

I was impressed with the social planning in New South Wales, Australia that’s trying to include sex premises as one of land uses needed to be considered in the planning regulation. I know this is something unusual in some other countries particularly developing countries. Even though some people in that state still firmly argue that areas in which sex premises operated are contaminated and polluted areas, therefore should be prohibited or even omitted from planning system, government keeps including these premises into planning system. I am not saying that this government stands in one side of party, but as a government, standing in an area that gives win-win solution is not an easy task.

There are some benefits that can be obtained by including these premises in the planning system though, again I am not saying that I am supporting one side, or saying that that’s true or false. But, the only thing I know is that planning system should be trying to be fair to every single person, area, and community. I was thinking, do not sex premises, even in areas claiming that those should be prohibited, still always exist? Don’t they potentially cause certain infected diseases to spread out very quickly? We heard from the news, I am talking about Indonesia, how HIV AIDS’s victims increase very fast through this kind of premises. So, why do we keep trying to ignore these facts?

Occasionally, Indonesian government carries out a sudden raid and arrests lots of people involved in those sex premises. But then, they are released after formal procedures have been conducted, and that’s it, no other solutions are offered for them. Government lets them free and warns them not to repeat what they have done. But what’s next? They return to the same activities and this time they are even more aware, but not quit. That’s the problem.

One of the causes of their returning to the same activities is that there is no other job vacancies left for them. Mostly, they do not have good education and skills as what the formal companies want. Some of them even do not finish primary school because of poverty. I am not saying that this fact is for all of them. But at least there is a strong reason for most of them of why to enter that kind of activity.

I almost lose my point!

What I am trying to say here is that these activities will always be there, with or without our interference. But, how to avoid negative impacts is a difficult task, but indeed very important. By including them in the planning system, for example, where should these activities take place, what devices to be provided in order to prevent the potential disease to spread, etc.

Probably, some will argue that what I am suggesting only makes problem more acute. There will be more and more people involve in that kind of activities. But let me ask you one question, do you think that people entering that activity do that because they want to or because they have to. Of course this suggestion should be backed up by other policies such as improvement of economic growth, opening more job vacancies by any tool such as incentives, etc. This suggestion is not independent, but should be dependent on other supporting regulations. Because I am sure, people will go into the formal job instead of informal job, like what we’ve been discussing, if they have opportunity to choose.

Is this fact taboo so that should be avoided or should be planned?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s