The recent deadly flooding that submerged Greater Jakarta for one week left behind prolonged misery and remarkable damages. Not only because the floods killed 79 people and left more than 200,000 homeless, but also because the they caused a total loss of Rp 8.8 trillion (US$970 million).

What was apparent from the disaster was that there was a fatal blunder underpinning it.

According to Paskah Suzetta, the State Minister for National Development Planning, of the material losses counted, Rp 5.2 trillion was due directly to the damage and disruption of, among other things, infrastructure and economic activities in the city.

Of the direct losses, Rp 2.9 trillion was accrued by business players, including 75 large-scale industries operating in the automotive and electronics sectors.

The floods destroyed more than 200 schools, over 30 medical centers and religious facilities worth Rp 48.8 billion, as well as other public facilities worth Rp 69.9 billion.

Another Rp 3.6 trillion in indirect losses was also said to have resulted from the paying out of insurance claims.

The collective losses would have surprised many, not only because of the fact that Rp 8.8. trillion is quite a huge amount of money, but also because the city and central government had failed to allocate funds for the construction of the Eastern Flood Canal project, which has been on the back burner for years. The project is believed to be an integral part of Jakarta's flood control system. It was hugely ironic that such a preventable disaster struck because of a lack of sensitivity on the part of the central and provincial governments.

If all decision makers had had the broader vision to prioritize the flood control project, Rp 2.9 trillion would have been allocated for it and the impact of the floods could have been minimized.

Bappenas, however, calculated that the total losses of Rp 8.8 trillion accounted for only around 0.46 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which was less than losses suffered in 2002. The 2002 flood, says Bappenas, inflicted a total of Rp 9.9 trillion in losses, comprising Rp 5.4 trillion in direct losses and Rp 4.5 trillion in indirect losses.

However "small" the Rp 8.8 trillion seems when calculated against the GDP, the fact remains that many people have been finding it hard spending between Rp 4,000 and Rp 7,000 when buying a kilogram of rice, and that Bappenas' statement trivialized the huge amount lost. Comparing the total losses with GDP is a bit irrelevant in such a situation.

Most flood victims, especially those whose houses were destroyed, have been finding it hard to get enough money to rebuild their homes.

Another blunder made by the government was also apparent when the 2007 floods had been expected after the 2002 floods. People and government officials had strong presuppositions that the 2007 flood was believed to repeat itself every five years. Still the signals were apparently ignored and no mitigating steps were properly taken.

Now, total losses from the 2007 floods were said to be less than those incurred five years ago. So what? Is this part of an effort to belittle the amount of the losses? Or perhaps an excuse to cover the insensitivity?

Frankly, Rp 8.8 trillion could have been used to fund the completion of the delayed flood control project, the reforestation project on the upper stream of Cianjur, West Jakarta, or the cleaning up of drains clogged with garbage. The amount may be inadequate for all these projects, but at least some could have been begun.

To be honest, the 2002 floods should have provided a meaningful lesson for the government from which to learn how to be aware and alert in the event of future floods. The fact that floods have visited Jakarta annually after 2002 is apparent proof that steps to mitigate and anticipate such events have not been properly taken.

Now, global warming wrought climate change is feared to affect the "normal" climate in Indonesia, and other disasters, including floods, will possibly occur with greater frequency.

The question is, will government officials remain slow in their response to signs of potential disasters and continue to spin their political rhetoric here and there?

Will the government make the same mistakes, and when another flood occurs calmly state that previous floods inflicted greater losses?