Issues in Indonesia's Artificial Intelligence Roadmap
Gap for AI Implementation
Indonesia’s regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence has been primarily anchored in Law No. 27/2022, commonly referred to as the Law on Personal Data Protection (UU PDP). Although it serves as a regulatory reference, UU PDP regulates only a narrow aspect of AI.
It never mentions AI as a subject of scrutiny, only implying its existence in Articles 10 and 34 of the UU PDP. The articles strictly discuss the procedural response for individuals who object to automated processing of personal data. Uncertainty regarding its definition of crime also increases ambiguity with respect to enforcement mechanisms, amplifying public caution about its potential misuse as an instrument to disarm criticism.
Furthermore, the governance of cybersecurity and AI in Indonesia remains severely underdeveloped. Indonesia’s National Cyber and Encryption Agency (BSSN), which is responsible for cybersecurity, cyber intelligence, and signal intelligence, has only partially met the requirements of “Cybersecurity Good Practice” developed by the International Telecommunication Union’s Guide. The World Bank reports that research funding in Indonesia reached only 0.28% of GDP in 2020, significantly below the global average of 2.46%.
Governance failure in AI and cybersecurity is evident both before and after the establishment of UU PDP. The ‘Bjorka’ data breach case in 2022 showcases the fragilities of cybersecurity governance in Indonesia. The enforcement of UU PDP during the National Data Centre Ransomware Attack in 2024 highlights an urgent problem following its enactment. Issues of human resources allocation in BSSN also persist.
Indonesia’s current government has frequently emphasized the importance of AI to increase productivity. President Prabowo has expressed his view on AI as a crucial instrument for growth, particularly for developing countries. In relation to this commitment, the Ministry of Communication and Digital of Indonesia has stated that it is drafting a national roadmap for AI development.
Although these approaches provide an immediate baseline for AI usage in Indonesia, the government has prevented the result of this evaluation from being made public. This risks undermining the importance of engaging collective inputs on AI development.
The same process happened during the establishment of UU PDP. The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia, along with Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW), has frequently criticized the legislative process undertaken to create UU PDP. The House of Parliament was deemed to have violated the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 91/2020 by preventing meaningful participation in regulatory changes.
The development of AI Law should be a collective priority. However, by acting as a gatekeeper for the national roadmap and regulatory settings, the Indonesian government risks deteriorating the quality of AI guidelines. A lack of public involvement undermine a sense of collective stake.
The government should not risk repeating past mistakes. UU PDP became evidence of a flawed regulatory framework derived from a flawed mechanism.
It is evident that Indonesia is not lacking in ambition, President Prabowo made that clear. It is, however, lacking an enforcement mechanism. And so far, nothing in the roadmap design signals that necessary change.