The news is like this. In a shocking turn of events, the Indonesian government has officially passed the Asset Confiscation Law for citizens, allowing authorities to seize motor vehicles from those who fail to pay taxes for two years. Meanwhile, the long-awaited Asset Forfeiture Law targeting corrupt officials remains in legislative limbo.
Lawmakers proudly announced their innovative approach to boosting state revenue: confiscating vehicles from citizens struggling to pay taxes. “Why bother chasing corruptors hiding behind piles of stolen money? It’s much easier to take cars from people who didn’t pay their taxes!” exclaimed one enthusiastic member of parliament. Under this new law, old cars and dusty motorcycles are now prime targets for tax officers. “We’re not just confiscating vehicles; we’re also taking away their hopes of going to the market or work,” added another legislator with a wide grin. “This is a progressive step toward raising tax awareness among the public!”
Meanwhile, corrupt officials who have drained billions from the nation’s coffers continue to roam freely, enjoying the fruits of others’ labor. “We’ll deal with them later,” said a high-ranking official. “Right now, we need to focus on unregistered cars and motorcycles that haven’t paid taxes. They’re much easier to catch!”
On the ground, citizens are already feeling the impact. Many families now have no choice but to walk to work or rely on inadequate public transportation. “We may have lost our car, but at least we’re getting fit!” joked one optimistic housewife, although her face betrayed her frustration.
This regulation has a clear legal foundation in Law No. 22 of 2009 concerning Traffic and Road Transportation and Police Regulation No. 7 of 2021. It aims to ensure the legality of motor vehicles and enhance tax compliance. Before a seizure occurs, three warnings are issued to vehicle owners to renew their STNK, providing ample time for individuals to fulfill their obligations.
While this regulation has a legal basis and clear procedures, its implementation needs to consider social justice aspects, especially for economically disadvantaged groups. Additionally, the prioritization of legislation concerning the seizure of citizens' assets over that targeting corruptors also influences public perception of government policies. The regulation may be seen as unfair to low-income individuals who struggle to pay annual vehicle taxes. They risk losing an important asset without consideration of their economic circumstances.
The deletion of vehicle registration data after seizure makes it impossible for the owner to re-register the vehicle, potentially adding administrative burdens for those wishing to reclaim their vehicles.
Criticism arises due to the focus on seizing citizens' assets being contrasted with the slow progress in passing the Asset Forfeiture Law for corrupt officials. This raises perceptions that the government is stricter on minor violations than on major crimes like corruption.
While the regulation aims to improve tax compliance and manage vehicle data effectively, its negative impacts can be significant for individuals and society.
Confiscation means the owner loses access to a valuable asset, which can disrupt daily mobility and activities. Owners must bear extra costs to reclaim their confiscated vehicles, including fines and administrative fees to retrieve their vehicle registration documents (STNK and BPKB).
If the vehicle registration is expired, insurance claims become difficult or even impossible, leaving owners to cover repair costs themselves in case of damage. Vehicles with expired registration are considered illegal, potentially leading to further legal issues for the owner.
The confiscation of many vehicles may lead to a rise in unregistered or illegal vehicles on the road, which can pose safety and security risks.
The process of confiscating and deleting vehicle data requires resources from government agencies and law enforcement, potentially straining public administration systems.
This policy may create a negative perception among the public regarding tax obligations, especially if it is seen as overly harsh or unfair.
The negative impacts on police institutions due to the confiscation of vehicles for unpaid taxes can be significant, particularly concerning the potential for misconduct among officers.
There is a risk that some officers may exploit the vehicle confiscation process for personal gain. This could manifest as bribery or the unauthorized sale of confiscated vehicles, undermining public trust in law enforcement. If instances of corruption or abuse of power become known, it can lead to a general distrust of the police. Citizens may feel that law enforcement is more focused on revenue generation than on maintaining public safety and order.
The implementation of vehicle confiscation policies requires significant administrative and operational resources. If not managed properly, this could lead to inefficiencies and a diversion of police focus from core duties such as crime prevention and community engagement.
Confiscations that are perceived as unjust or mishandled can result in legal challenges against the police. This not only consumes resources but also damages the reputation of the institution. If officers are pressured to meet quotas for vehicle confiscations or fines, it may lead to job dissatisfaction and ethical dilemmas among law enforcement personnel.
While the intent behind vehicle confiscation policies may be to enforce tax compliance, the potential for corruption and other negative consequences can significantly affect police institutions and their relationship with the community.
Several developed countries, i.e. the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Germany, have implemented similar regulations regarding the seizure of vehicles for unpaid taxes or registration issues. However, the specific regulations and procedures can vary significantly between jurisdictions, reflecting local legal standards and enforcement practices.
The credibility of police institutions in developed countries that implement vehicle seizure laws for unpaid taxes is generally perceived as higher than in many developing nations. In contrast, Indonesia faces challenges regarding police credibility, with a significant portion of the population expressing distrust towards law enforcement. Approximately 43% of Indonesians do not trust the police, which can hinder effective law enforcement and compliance with regulations. Factors contributing to this distrust include allegations of corruption, human rights violations, and a lack of accountability within the police force.
Indonesia's decision to implement vehicle seizure for unpaid taxes amid economic hardship raises significant concerns about timing and fairness. While similar regulations exist in developed countries, the socio-economic context in Indonesia makes this policy potentially problematic.
The increase in VAT to 12% in 2025 has already burdened households, particularly low- and middle-income groups, as prices for basic goods like rice and cooking oil continue to rise. Small businesses and individuals are struggling with reduced purchasing power and higher production costs, making it difficult to meet financial obligations.
Vehicle seizure disproportionately affects lower-income citizens who rely on their vehicles for work and daily activities. Without mechanisms for tax relief or installment payments, this policy risks deepening social inequality.
Many families rely on their vehicles for daily commuting to work or running small businesses. The confiscation of a vehicle can lead to a direct loss of income, making it difficult for families to meet their financial obligations.
Families may face additional costs related to reclaiming confiscated vehicles, including fines and administrative fees. This financial strain can exacerbate existing economic challenges, particularly for lower-income households.
Without access to their vehicles, families may struggle with transportation for essential activities such as grocery shopping, medical appointments, and school runs. This can lead to increased time and costs associated with finding alternative transportation.
The inability to travel freely can result in social isolation, as families may find it challenging to participate in community activities or maintain social connections without reliable transportation.
The threat of vehicle confiscation can create significant stress and anxiety among families, particularly those already facing financial difficulties. Concerns about losing a primary means of transportation can impact mental health and overall well-being.
For many lower-income families, the loss of a vehicle can push them deeper into poverty, as they may struggle to find alternative means of earning a living without reliable transportation.
The policy may disproportionately affect lower-income families who may already be struggling with tax payments. In contrast, wealthier individuals or businesses might have more resources to navigate tax obligations without facing similar penalties.
The confiscation of vehicles due to unpaid taxes poses serious risks to family economies, potentially leading to increased financial strain, reduced mobility, and heightened stress levels. Policymakers should consider these impacts and implement measures that protect vulnerable populations from excessive burdens.
Given the current economic instability, implementing such a policy may exacerbate financial struggles for many families. Experts suggest that alternative measures, such as tax forgiveness programs or flexible payment plans, could be more equitable during times of economic difficulty. While ensuring tax compliance is undeniably important, the timing and implementation of this regulation must take into account Indonesia's current economic hardships to prevent exacerbating inequality and fueling public discontent. Although this law is inherited from the previous administration, it carries significant risks for President Prabowo; rather than generating the intended benefits of increased tax revenue, it could spark widespread dissatisfaction among the populace.
Now, let's continue with our topic!
In recent years, Indonesia has witnessed a concerning trend where media and surveyors play a significant role in shaping the perception of political popularity, often manufacturing an image of popularity for certain figures who may not genuinely enjoy widespread public support. This phenomenon is closely tied to the rise of digital manipulation and the strategic use of media to control narratives. Political elites and their campaign teams have increasingly relied on "buzzers"—paid social media influencers or digital operatives—to amplify specific narratives, promote favored candidates, and suppress dissenting voices. These actors create an illusion of popularity by flooding online spaces with coordinated content that portrays certain individuals as highly favored by the public, even when this sentiment is not reflective of reality.
This manufactured popularity is further reinforced by surveys that are sometimes perceived as biased or manipulated. Polling organizations, whether intentionally or under pressure, may present results that favor particular candidates, thereby influencing public perception. In Indonesia’s political landscape, where social media plays a dominant role in shaping opinions, such tactics can have a profound impact. By presenting a candidate as popular or leading in polls, these narratives create a "bandwagon effect," encouraging undecided voters to support the perceived frontrunner.
In Indonesia, buzzerp—paid social media operatives—have become a powerful force in shaping public opinion, particularly during elections. These individuals or groups are hired to amplify political messages, manipulate narratives, and influence perceptions through coordinated online campaigns. Using fake accounts and posing as ordinary users, buzzers flood social media platforms with posts, hashtags, likes, and comments that appear organic but are strategically crafted to sway public sentiment. Buzzers often disseminate disinformation or misleading content to confuse the public, tarnish reputations, and silence criticism. Their tactics include smear campaigns against opponents, boosting favorable narratives for their clients, and drowning out dissenting voices. For example, in the 2024 presidential election, buzzers were instrumental in creating a perception of widespread support for certain candidates by amplifying their campaigns online.
This practice has deeply entrenched itself in Indonesia’s political culture, posing significant threats to democracy. By distorting the information landscape and suppressing organic discourse, buzzers undermine public trust in institutions and create an unfair playing field for political competition. Despite growing public awareness of their influence, effective institutional responses remain limited. Buzzers continue to operate openly as part of a lucrative industry, further normalizing their role in manipulating electoral outcomes.
Popularity in politics carries both advantages and disadvantages, shaping the dynamics of governance, public trust, and democratic processes. On the positive side, popularity reflects public approval and serves as a measure of legitimacy for leaders and policies. In democracies, popular leaders are often seen as representatives of the people’s will, which reinforces the principle of governance by consent. Popularity also enables leaders to rally support for policies, making it easier to implement initiatives that address societal needs. Additionally, it can inspire civic engagement as citizens feel more connected to leaders they admire or trust.
However, popularity has significant downsides. It can be superficial and manipulated, particularly through media or polling tactics that create the illusion of widespread support. For instance, as seen in Indonesia and elsewhere, media campaigns or biased surveys can manufacture popularity for certain figures, distorting public perception and undermining genuine democratic choice. This can lead to a "bandwagon effect," where people support candidates simply because they are perceived as popular rather than critically evaluating their qualifications or policies.
Moreover, excessive focus on popularity can shift attention away from substantive governance to image management. Leaders may prioritize short-term approval over long-term solutions, avoiding difficult but necessary decisions that could harm their public standing. Popularity-driven politics also risks polarizing societies, as leaders may cater exclusively to their base while ignoring minority voices.
While popularity is essential for democratic legitimacy and mobilizing support, its manipulation and overemphasis can erode trust in institutions and weaken the quality of governance. A balance between public approval and principled leadership is crucial for a healthy democracy.
While popularity is an important factor in democratic elections, it is not the sole criterion for choosing leaders like presidents or senators. Democracies require a more comprehensive evaluation of candidates to ensure effective governance and uphold democratic principles. Beyond popularity, several key qualities and considerations play a critical role in selecting leaders.
First, competence and expertise are essential. Leaders must possess the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to address complex national and global challenges. Their ability to craft sound policies, manage crises, and lead effectively should weigh heavily in voters' decisions. A leader’s track record, including past achievements and demonstrated problem-solving abilities, provides valuable insight into their potential effectiveness.
Second, integrity and ethical behavior are vital. In a democracy, leaders are entrusted with significant power and responsibility. Their honesty, transparency, and commitment to the public good help build trust between the government and the people. Corruption or unethical behavior can erode democratic institutions and undermine public confidence.
Third, vision and leadership style matter significantly. A strong leader should articulate a clear vision for the future that resonates with citizens' aspirations while fostering inclusivity and collaboration. Democratic leadership emphasizes participation, encouraging diverse perspectives in decision-making processes. Leaders who adopt this approach can inspire collective action and innovation while ensuring that all voices are heard.
Finally, commitment to democratic values is non-negotiable. Leaders must respect the rule of law, uphold human rights, and work to strengthen democratic institutions. They should prioritize accountability and fairness while resisting authoritarian tendencies or divisive rhetoric that could polarize society.
In summary, while popularity often determines electoral success in democracies, it must be complemented by competence, integrity, vision, and a commitment to democratic principles. These qualities ensure that leaders not only win elections but also govern effectively in the best interests of their people.
If one or more of the critical criteria for selecting leaders in a democracy—such as competence, integrity, vision, or commitment to democratic values—are neglected, the consequences can be severe and far-reaching. When leaders are chosen based solely on popularity or superficial traits, the quality of governance often suffers, leading to inefficiencies, erosion of trust, and even democratic backsliding.
Neglecting competence results in leaders who may lack the knowledge or skills to address complex challenges effectively. This can lead to poor decision-making, mismanagement of resources, and an inability to respond to crises. For example, in emergencies where decisive and informed action is required, an unqualified leader may exacerbate problems rather than resolve them
If integrity is overlooked, corruption and unethical behavior can flourish. Leaders without moral accountability may prioritize personal gain or political survival over the public good. This undermines trust in government institutions and fosters cynicism among citizens, weakening the foundation of democracy.
A democratic leader refers to someone who adopts a participative leadership style that emphasizes collaboration, mutual respect, and shared decision-making. Democratic leadership is rooted in the principles of democracy—government by the people—and is characterized by inclusivity and collective problem-solving. A democratic leader can be a military man, provided they operates within democratic principles and structures. For example, military personnel have successfully transitioned to leadership roles in democratic systems, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former U.S. general who became President through democratic elections. However, challenges arise when military leaders retain authoritarian tendencies or prioritize military interests over civilian governance.
A civilian leader is an individual who holds leadership roles within government or public service but is not part of the military. Civilian leaders include elected officials, political appointees, and senior civil servants responsible for policymaking, governance, and national security oversight. Their authority derives from constitutional and legal frameworks, often emphasizing accountability to the electorate or broader democratic principles. A civilian leader can be a retired military man if they have left active service and transitioned into civilian life. In many democracies, retired military leaders often take on civilian roles, including political positions or public service. For example, in the U.S., retired generals can hold civilian leadership roles like Secretary of Defense, but legal frameworks often require them to be retired for a certain period (e.g., seven years under the National Security Act of 1947) to ensure civilian control of the military.
In both cases, adherence to democratic norms and separation from active military duties are crucial to maintaining democratic governance and preventing the politicization of the armed forces. While civilian leadership and democratic leadership overlap in democracies, they are not inherently the same. Civilian leaders can operate under various leadership styles (e.g., authoritarian or laissez-faire), depending on their approach to governance. Democratic leaders specifically focus on participative methods and fostering collaboration among stakeholders.
In the next episode, we will discuss the challenges facing both civil and democratic leaders. Before we go, listen to an Ode by Horace,
Virtus repulsae nescia sordidae
[Virtue, unaware of disgraceful defeat]
Intaminatis fulget honoribus,
[shines with untarnished honor,]
Nec sumit aut ponit secures
[and does not take up or lay down the axe of power]
Arbitrio popularis aurae.
[at the whim of the shifting popular breeze.]
(Odes 3.2.17-20)
