Electric Vehicles Without Tax Incentives: Are They Still Relevant?

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The government’s decision to end full tax exemptions for electric vehicles starting in 2026 marks a new phase in Indonesia’s EV journey. While incentives once played a central role in attracting consumers, the public is now faced with a more fundamental question: can electric vehicles remain relevant without such support?

In recent years, EVs have been positioned as the future of transportation. They offer environmental benefits and lower operating costs, making them an appealing alternative to conventional vehicles. Tax incentives, however, have been a key driver in accelerating their adoption. With these incentives being reduced, that appeal is now being tested.

From a consumer perspective, the impact is immediate. The relatively higher upfront price of electric vehicles compared to gasoline cars becomes more noticeable. Additional costs—such as registration fees and annual taxes—further complicate the decision-making process. As a result, switching to EVs is no longer as straightforward as it once seemed.

That said, evaluating EVs solely based on initial cost provides an incomplete picture. Their main advantage lies in long-term efficiency. Electricity is generally more affordable than fossil fuels, and EVs require less maintenance due to fewer moving parts. The absence of routine oil changes and reduced wear on components contribute to lower ownership costs over time.

In the long run, these savings can offset the higher purchase price. In this sense, electric vehicles still hold strong economic value, particularly for consumers who plan to use their cars over an extended period.

However, financial considerations are only part of the equation. Infrastructure readiness and user convenience are equally important. At present, the availability of public charging stations in Indonesia remains uneven. For individuals with high mobility needs or those living in areas with limited electricity access, this presents a significant challenge.

In contrast, gasoline-powered vehicles continue to offer unmatched practicality. Refueling infrastructure is widespread, and the process itself is quick and familiar. For many consumers, this reliability remains a decisive factor.

Nevertheless, EVs retain certain non-financial advantages. In some cities, they are exempt from traffic restrictions such as odd-even license plate policies. Additionally, they offer a quieter and smoother driving experience, which enhances overall comfort.

The reduction of tax incentives may signal the government’s intention to encourage a more self-sustaining EV market. However, questions arise regarding the timing of this policy. With infrastructure still developing and vehicle prices relatively high, scaling back incentives could risk slowing adoption.

Therefore, a balanced approach is needed. Strengthening market independence should go hand in hand with continued policy support, particularly in infrastructure development and regulatory adaptation.

Ultimately, the relevance of electric vehicles is not determined by tax incentives alone. It depends on the readiness of the broader ecosystem—ranging from infrastructure and pricing to public acceptance.

Without comprehensive support, the transition to electric mobility may progress more slowly than anticipated. However, with the right policies in place, EVs still have the potential to play a significant role in Indonesia’s transportation future.

By : K&Co - April 27, 2026

When Innovation Finds a Home Elsewhere: The Bobibos Story

By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The news that Bobibos has reached around 70 percent readiness for mass production in Timor Leste is both exciting and a little bittersweet. It’s exciting because it shows real progress in renewable energy innovation. But it’s also hard to ignore the irony: this is an innovation tied closely to Indonesia’s resources and context, yet it’s being scaled up in another country.

For context, Bobibos is an alternative fuel made from rice straw—an agricultural byproduct that is abundant in countries like Indonesia. Instead of being burned or wasted, this material can be processed into a cleaner, more affordable energy source. On paper, it sounds like a perfect fit. Indonesia has vast rice fields, tons of unused straw, and an increasing need for sustainable energy solutions. It checks all the boxes.

So why isn’t it being developed at scale in Indonesia?

One of the main reasons lies in regulation. Despite its potential, rice straw hasn’t been formally recognized as a bioenergy resource within Indonesia’s regulatory framework. That creates a kind of limbo situation: the technology exists, the raw materials are available, but there’s no clear legal pathway to fully develop and commercialize it. It’s like having a product ready to sell but no permit to open the store.

Meanwhile, Timor Leste has taken a much more proactive approach. Instead of waiting for perfect conditions, they’ve embraced the opportunity. The government has reportedly provided land and support for production facilities, signaling a willingness to experiment and invest in new energy solutions. For a smaller nation, this is a bold move—and it’s already paying off.

This contrast highlights a broader difference in mindset. Indonesia tends to be more cautious, especially in sectors like energy where safety, reliability, and economic stability are critical. That caution is understandable. Poorly regulated energy solutions can lead to serious consequences. But there’s also a downside: moving too slowly can mean missing out on valuable opportunities.

Timor Leste, on the other hand, appears more willing to take calculated risks. They see Bobibos not just as an experiment, but as a chance to reduce dependence on imported fuels and strengthen their domestic energy sector. In a rapidly changing global energy landscape, that kind of decisiveness can make a big difference.

What makes this situation even more interesting is that it’s not an isolated case. There have been multiple instances where innovations connected to Indonesia gain traction abroad first. This suggests that the challenge isn’t just about technology—it’s about the ecosystem surrounding it. Innovation needs more than good ideas; it needs supportive policies, funding, and the courage to act.

That said, Indonesia’s cautious approach isn’t entirely misplaced. Energy is a high-stakes sector. Any new technology must go through rigorous testing, certification, and evaluation before being widely adopted. The real challenge is finding the right balance between caution and agility.

In that sense, Bobibos being developed in Timor Leste could actually work as a strategic stepping stone. If the project succeeds there, it can serve as proof of concept. Success abroad often builds credibility at home. It may even encourage Indonesian policymakers to revisit existing regulations and consider integrating this innovation into the national energy mix.

Ultimately, this story is about more than just one type of fuel. It’s about how countries respond to innovation. Indonesia has all the necessary ingredients—natural resources, talent, and market demand. What’s needed now is a more adaptive and responsive policy environment.

Otherwise, the same pattern will continue: great ideas will be born locally, but they’ll grow and thrive somewhere else. And that’s a missed opportunity Indonesia can’t afford to repeat.

By : K&Co - April 27, 2026

When Criticism Meets the Law: A Test of Democracy in Indonesia

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The recent reports of academics being reported to the police for criticizing the government have sparked renewed debate about freedom of expression in Indonesia. In response, Yusril Ihza Mahendra stated that academics are free to express criticism. At first glance, this sounds reassuring. However, the reality is more complicated than it seems.

In principle, criticism from academics is not only normal but necessary. Academics rely on data, research, and critical thinking to evaluate public policies. Their role is to question, analyze, and, when needed, challenge the government’s decisions. Without this kind of input, policies risk becoming one-sided and less effective. In this sense, criticism is not an attack—it is a contribution.

The problem arises when such criticism leads to police reports. While Yusril emphasized that criticism is allowed, he also acknowledged that anyone has the right to file a report. Law enforcement authorities, in turn, are obligated to follow up on these reports, at least at an initial stage. This creates a gray area: criticism is legally protected, yet it can still trigger legal processes.

This situation can discourage people from speaking out. Even if someone is ultimately proven innocent, being involved in a legal process can be stressful, time-consuming, and intimidating. As a result, many may choose to stay silent rather than take the risk. This phenomenon is often referred to as a “chilling effect,” where fear limits open expression.

In a democratic society, criticism should be seen as a healthy and essential element. Governments benefit from feedback, especially when it is constructive and evidence-based. Without criticism, there is a risk that those in power may become less responsive or even dismissive of public concerns.

That said, freedom of expression does not mean absolute freedom without limits. Criticism should be grounded in facts, delivered responsibly, and should not incite hatred or violence. Clear boundaries are necessary, but they must also be applied fairly and consistently, without being used to silence legitimate voices.

In my view, ethical mechanisms should come before legal ones. If an academic is accused of wrongdoing, the issue should first be examined through institutional or professional channels, such as universities or academic bodies. Legal action, especially criminal prosecution, should be the last resort—not the default response.

Yusril’s statement reflects an attempt to balance two important principles: protecting freedom of expression while respecting the rule of law. However, the real challenge lies in how these principles are implemented. If reports against critics are too easily processed without careful consideration, the promise of freedom may feel hollow.

Ultimately, this issue highlights an important question for Indonesia’s democracy: Is criticism truly accepted as part of a healthy political system, or is it still viewed as a threat? The answer will shape not only the future of academic freedom but also the broader landscape of civil liberties in the country.

A strong democracy is not one that avoids criticism, but one that can handle it with openness and maturity.

By : K&Co - April 23, 2026

Rupiah Weakens to Rp17,300: What Does It Mean for Us?

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The rupiah weakening to Rp17,300 per US dollar is not just a number in economic news. It is a sign that the economy is under pressure. In the report, Airlangga Hartarto stated that the government is continuing to monitor the situation and emphasized that this weakening is also happening in many other countries. While this is true, it still needs to be understood more carefully.

Globally, the economic situation is indeed unstable. Conflicts in several regions, rising global oil prices, and a stronger US dollar have put pressure on many currencies, including the rupiah. When oil prices increase, Indonesia has to spend more on energy imports. This puts additional pressure on the rupiah.

However, it is not enough to simply say that all countries are experiencing the same thing. In reality, some countries’ currencies have not weakened as much as Indonesia’s. This means that, besides global factors, there are also domestic issues that need attention.

One of the main problems is Indonesia’s heavy reliance on energy imports, especially oil. When global oil prices rise, the impact is immediately felt in the economy. Government spending increases, which in turn adds pressure on the currency. This is not a new issue, but it has yet to be properly resolved.

The weakening rupiah also directly affects everyday people. Imported goods become more expensive, which can lead to higher prices overall. When prices rise, people’s purchasing power declines. Over time, this can slow down economic growth and make daily life more difficult.

On the other hand, the government maintains that Indonesia’s economic fundamentals remain strong. Inflation is relatively under control, and economic growth continues. This is important to maintain public and investor confidence. However, statements alone are not enough without clear and concrete actions.

In our view, a response that focuses only on “monitoring” the situation feels insufficient. People need clarity about what steps will be taken. For example, how the government plans to reduce dependence on energy imports or how it will keep prices stable.

Transparency is also important. The government should communicate openly about the real situation, including potential risks ahead. This would help the public and businesses prepare better and avoid the impression that the issue is being underestimated.

The weakening of the rupiah should serve as a reminder that Indonesia needs to strengthen its economic independence. The country cannot continue to rely heavily on global conditions. Concrete efforts are needed to strengthen domestic production, especially in the energy sector.

In conclusion, what Airlangga Hartarto said may sound reassuring, but it should not make us complacent. This is a real issue with real impacts on people’s lives. If not handled seriously, the weakening rupiah could become a bigger problem in the future, rather than just a temporary fluctuation.

By : K&C - April 23, 2026

Rising Oil Prices and What It Means for Us

 By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The recent 3 percent increase in global oil prices, driven by tensions between Iran and the Amerika Serikat, highlights how unstable the global situation currently is. While a 3 percent rise may seem small at first glance, its impact can be significant—especially for countries that still rely on imported oil, such as Indonesia.

This increase is not only caused by actual disruptions in oil supply, but also by market concerns. Whenever tensions rise in the Middle East, global markets tend to react quickly. There is a strong fear that key oil distribution routes could be disrupted, particularly the Selat Hormuz, one of the most important oil shipping lanes in the world. If this route were to be blocked or disturbed, global oil supply could drop sharply, pushing prices even higher.

This situation shows that oil prices are heavily influenced by political conditions, not just economic factors. As long as the world remains dependent on oil, conflicts in certain regions will continue to have wide-reaching effects. Even relatively small tensions can trigger immediate price increases.

For Indonesia, this is a situation that requires serious attention. As a country that still imports a portion of its oil needs, rising global prices will be felt directly. The government may face increased pressure to keep fuel prices stable. Otherwise, higher fuel prices could lead to broader increases in the cost of goods and services.

The impact does not stop there. Rising oil prices usually lead to higher transportation costs. When transportation becomes more expensive, the prices of basic goods often follow. In the end, it is the public—especially lower- and middle-income groups—who bear the greatest burden.

This pattern is not new. Almost every time there is conflict in the Middle East, oil prices rise. This reflects a deeper issue: the global energy system still depends heavily on regions that are politically unstable. This dependency makes the global economy vulnerable.

Therefore, this situation should serve as an important reminder for Indonesia. The country cannot continue to rely heavily on imported oil. Concrete steps are needed to reduce this dependence, such as developing alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal power.

In addition, improving energy efficiency is just as important. People can start with simple actions, such as reducing the use of private vehicles or using energy more wisely. Lower consumption can help reduce the impact of global price increases.

From the government’s side, energy policies need to be more forward-looking and decisive. It is not enough to respond only when prices rise; there must be long-term strategies to minimize future risks.

In conclusion, the rise in oil prices is not just a routine economic issue. It is a signal of global uncertainty that directly affects countries like Indonesia. Without proper anticipation and action, the impact could become more severe. That is why both the government and society need to adapt and work toward reducing dependence on unpredictable global conditions.

By : K&Co - April 22, 2026

Refusing Debt Is Bold, but Caution Still Matters

By Kusnandar & Co.,  Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

 

The decision by Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa to reject loan offers from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has drawn attention. The government argues that Indonesia’s fiscal condition is still strong, so there is no urgent need to take on additional debt.

At a basic level, this decision sounds positive. It suggests that Indonesia is still capable of funding its needs without relying on foreign loans. This can be seen as a sign that the country’s financial situation is stable, even as global conditions remain uncertain.

Refusing debt can also be a wise move. Loans are never truly free—they must be repaid, often with interest. If the funds are not urgently needed, taking on new debt could simply create a heavier burden in the future. By declining these offers, the government is trying to keep the country’s finances under control.

This decision may also boost national confidence. Indonesia appears to be signaling that it does not always need support from international institutions like the IMF or World Bank. This is important, especially considering that in the past, many countries faced serious problems due to excessive reliance on foreign debt.

However, this decision should also be viewed with caution. The global economic situation is still unstable. Many factors can change quickly, such as geopolitical conflicts, rising energy prices, or a slowdown in the global economy.

Even if Indonesia’s fiscal condition is currently strong, it may not remain that way forever. In the event of a major crisis, government spending needs could rise suddenly. In such situations, external financing—including loans—can become an important tool to maintain economic stability.

This is where balance becomes crucial. Refusing debt is reasonable, but it should not mean closing all options. The government still needs to prepare backup plans in case conditions worsen. Being confident is good, but overconfidence can be risky if it leads to delayed responses during a crisis.

More importantly, the issue is not just about accepting or rejecting debt, but about how well the country manages its finances. If government spending is efficient and well-targeted, the need for borrowing can be minimized. On the other hand, poor financial management can turn even small amounts of debt into serious problems.

Looking ahead, the government should also focus on strengthening state revenue, such as through taxation and economic growth. This would help reduce dependence on borrowing in the long term. In conclusion, rejecting loan offers from the IMF and World Bank is a bold and generally positive step. However, given the uncertainty of the global situation, caution remains essential. Confidence is important, but it must be supported by careful planning and responsible financial management. 

By : K&Co - April 22, 2026

Indonesia Needs More Than Just Alternative Oil Imports

 By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia

The Indonesian government’s move to prepare alternative sources of oil imports amid the Middle East conflict is understandable and important. The Strait of Hormuz, a strategic global oil route, has always been a potential flashpoint. Any tension in this region can disrupt global oil supply and trigger domestic energy price surges. Redirecting some imports to countries like the United States or Brazil may reduce short-term risk, but this approach remains reactive rather than a long-term strategic solution.

Approximately 20–25% of Indonesia’s oil imports come from the Middle East. Even a brief disruption in supply from this region can significantly impact the national economy. Indonesia’s energy dependence is further compounded by limited domestic reserves, sufficient for only about three weeks of consumption. In other words, the country is teetering on a thin line between energy stability and a potential sudden crisis.

While diversifying import sources is crucial, it merely mitigates risk temporarily. Shifting reliance from one region to another does not address the underlying problem: Indonesia is still heavily dependent on imported fossil fuels. This strategy may also create new challenges, such as higher logistics costs and longer delivery times, which are ultimately passed on to consumers.

This situation should serve as a stark warning: energy resilience is not merely a matter of trade—it is a question of economic sovereignty. Countries that rely heavily on energy imports are always vulnerable to global market shocks. Therefore, the government must move its focus from short-term risk mitigation to more fundamental and sustainable strategies.

Urgent measures include boosting domestic oil production, expanding strategic energy reserves, and most importantly, accelerating the transition to renewable energy. Renewable energy is not only an environmental solution; in a global geopolitical context, it is also a form of national independence. Strengthening energy resilience allows Indonesia to withstand international disruptions without constantly depending on decisions made by other countries or facing oil price spikes that harm its population.

Furthermore, the global crisis should be treated as a catalyst for national energy reform. Policies that promote energy independence mean that Indonesia is not just “protected from global shocks” but also in control of its economic future. Energy security must be a cornerstone of economic and political stability, not merely a technical issue in crude oil trade.

In conclusion, preparing alternative oil import sources is both necessary and logical in the short term. However, this approach cannot stop there. Indonesia must take bolder steps, building energy independence through domestic diversification, strategic reserves, and a transition to clean energy. Only then will global geopolitical crises cease to be a direct threat to the people and the country’s economic stability.

Indonesia has the opportunity to turn a global challenge into a strategic advantage: not just surviving fluctuations in the world oil market, but leading a national energy transformation that is independent, resilient, and sustainable.

By : K&Co - March 16, 2026