Rupiah Under Pressure : A Test of Indonesia’s Economic Resilience

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

 

The Middle East conflict has flared up again after attacks on Iran, sending shockwaves through global financial markets. Investors are flocking to safe-haven assets like the US dollar and gold, leaving emerging markets, including Indonesia, vulnerable. The rupiah has felt the impact, weakening against the dollar in recent trading sessions.

In this situation, the role of Bank Indonesia is crucial. BI has pledged to maintain rupiah stability through interventions in the foreign exchange market, including spot transactions and derivative instruments. This is not just a technical routine—it signals that the state is ready to uphold economic stability amid global uncertainty.

Many might wonder: why does a conflict in the Middle East affect the rupiah? The answer lies in global financial interconnectedness. When geopolitical risks rise, investors tend to reduce exposure to emerging-market assets and move capital into what they perceive as safer assets, like the US dollar. This increases demand for the dollar while putting downward pressure on currencies like the rupiah.

However, it is important to note that the rupiah’s weakening in this context does not necessarily reflect weak domestic fundamentals. Rather, it is a sentiment-driven reaction. As long as inflation is controlled, foreign reserves are sufficient, and economic growth remains stable, external pressures are usually temporary.

This is where the credibility of the central bank is tested. BI is not just managing exchange rates; it is maintaining market confidence. When markets trust that the central bank has the tools and willingness to act, volatility can be mitigated. Confidence, in modern financial systems, is the most valuable currency.

Of course, interventions are not a long-term solution to all external pressures. Rupiah stability also depends on the strength of Indonesia’s domestic economy. Diversifying exports, reducing energy import dependency, and strengthening industrial and downstream sectors are crucial to lowering vulnerability to external shocks.

Global conflicts are beyond Indonesia’s control. The country cannot stop wars or dictate international politics. But what it can control is policy response and the resilience of its economic system. With careful, measured, and consistent policies, external shocks can be absorbed without triggering a crisis.

This moment should also serve as a reminder: economic stability is not automatic. It is built on fiscal discipline, credible monetary policy, and public trust. When these are balanced, even global turbulence cannot easily shake domestic foundations.

Pressure on the rupiah from international conflicts is real and should not be ignored—but panic is not the answer. What is needed is vigilance, coordinated policy, and clear communication to the public.

Ultimately, this is about more than just exchange rates. It is a test of Indonesia’s economic resilience in an increasingly uncertain world. With strong fundamentals, global storms can be weathered. With weak foundations, even minor shocks can escalate into major crises.

Right now, that test is underway.

By : K&Co - March 2, 2026

Internet Quota : A Right or Just an Active Period?

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

The recent decision by Indonesia’s Constitutional Court to reject the judicial review against the unilateral internet quota expiration scheme marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over digital rights, consumer protection, and regulatory fairness in the digital economy. While the ruling might reflect judicial restraint and deference to legislative discretion, it also highlights a broader challenge: ensuring that laws keep pace with how modern society uses digital resources and how these resources have become essential to daily life and livelihood.

At the core of the case were consumers — including a ride-hailing driver and a food vendor — who argued that unused internet data, once paid for, should not simply vanish without clear justification or compensation. For many digital service users today, internet data is not a luxury; it is a tool of trade, essential to earning income and staying connected. In this context, losing unused data because of arbitrary time limits imposed by service providers feels, understandably, like a loss of both value and justice.

Critics of the current system have drawn comparisons to prepaid electricity tokens, where unused kilowatt-hours can be consumed at any later time without expiry. The logic is compelling: if customers pay in advance for a quantifiable good, they should retain access to that good until it is exhausted, regardless of arbitrary time constraints. While telecommunications and energy operate on different technical frameworks, the public perception of fairness can’t be ignored.

The Constitutional Court’s decision to reject the review does not mean the issue is unimportant — it simply delays a possible substantive debate on how consumers are protected under evolving digital service models. The ruling might signal that the Court believes legislative judgment should stand unless it clearly violates constitutional guarantees. However, unanswered questions about consumer rights, economic fairness, and how digital services are regulated remain pressing.

One of the central concerns is the power imbalance between telecommunications companies and everyday users. Operators, under the current framework, retain significant discretionary authority to design products and expiration schemes. Meanwhile, users shoulder the consequences, often with limited options or awareness of how these schemes are structured. This imbalance is symptomatic of a broader issue in digital consumer markets: regulations often lag behind market innovation, leaving consumers exposed.

Economists and consumer advocates also warn that while mandatory data rollover or refund schemes might impose costs on operators, these should be examined within a broader social lens. Digital access has become intertwined with access to economic opportunity, education, and civic participation. If data expiration policies disproportionately affect low-income users who cannot afford frequent renewals, then regulatory frameworks should evolve to protect equitable access.

Ultimately, the Constitutional Court’s refusal to revise the law should not be the end of this conversation — but rather a call to deepen it. Lawmakers, regulators, industry stakeholders, and civil society must work together to craft policies that reflect the realities of digital life in the 21st century. Transparency, fairness, and consumer protection should be at the forefront, ensuring that the benefits of digital connectivity are shared broadly and justly, not limited by outdated norms or unchecked corporate discretion.

The debate is far from over — and for the sake of fairness and digital dignity, it should not be.

By : K&Co - March 2, 2026