IndonesianTalk.com — Correcting an Anomaly in Ride-Hailing Justice, By Dr. Eko Wahyuanto
The commemoration of May Day on May 1, 2026, at Monas became more than a ritual gathering of workers. It evolved into an arena of competing ideas between ride-hailing platforms and their drivers.
Standing before the crowd, Prabowo Subianto introduced a striking proposal: to cap the maximum commission charged by ride-hailing companies at 8 percent.
The statement, bold in both tone and substance, signals an attempt to address what many drivers have long perceived as an imbalance in the relationship between application companies and their partners.
For years, the so-called “partnership” model has masked asymmetrical practices, where drivers shoulder disproportionate burdens through commissions, promotional costs and various deductions.
Government intervention, therefore, is expected to inject new momentum into resolving a long-standing structural issue.
This policy marks a significant shift in redefining the relationship between capital owners and service providers. The term “partnership” is no longer treated as an unquestioned mantra.
Through a forthcoming presidential instruction, the government seeks to compress commission rates from an average of around 20 percent to a ceiling of 8 percent, effectively redistributing income toward drivers.
Such a move reflects a broader effort at socio-economic engineering aimed at fostering digital justice. For over a decade, a 20:80 income split was often framed as an industry norm.
In reality, however, the 20 percent cut has been compounded by additional charges, leaving drivers with less than what the ratio suggests.
By limiting commissions to 8 percent, the policy would allocate at least 92 percent of earnings to drivers — a direct response to what can be described as a market anomaly in an increasingly saturated ride-hailing industry.
With an estimated workforce of 7 million, the sector serves as a critical socio-economic buffer. Compared to commission structures in other countries, which range between 10 and 30 percent, Indonesia’s context — marked by high transaction volumes and dense market activity — presents a different economic logic. Smaller margins, when applied to large volumes, can still sustain profitability.
This is where the government positions itself as a facilitator, ensuring that companies remain viable while drivers achieve a fairer share.
Critics may hastily label such intervention as anti-investment. This argument, however, appears premature. Rather than discouraging investment, the policy pushes for an evolution in digital business governance.
For years, many platforms have relied on “burning money” strategies, subsidizing user acquisition while indirectly transferring costs to drivers.
The government now signals a recalibration: innovation should enhance efficiency, not justify margin extraction.
Ride-hailing companies are thus encouraged to streamline operations, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and develop more effective algorithms.
Future profitability, the policy implies, should not rest on the daily sacrifices of drivers navigating harsh roads and unpredictable weather.
This shift also represents a new governance framework. Fair regulation provides legal certainty for investors while reducing the likelihood of horizontal conflicts between drivers and platforms.
A healthier digital ecosystem, in turn, strengthens long-term investment prospects.
Skepticism nonetheless persists. Some view the President’s announcement as a momentary “Monas directive” — a rhetorical flourish tied to May Day enthusiasm.
Yet the government’s commitment will ultimately be measured by its follow-through. Translating the proposal into a formal presidential instruction, complete with technical guidelines, is essential to maintaining public trust.
Concerns have also been raised about the potential withdrawal of major players such as Gojek and Grab. However, with Indonesia’s digital financial inclusion reaching 92 percent, according to Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, the market remains highly attractive. In most cases, large corporations adapt rather than exit.
From a macroeconomic perspective, the policy could deliver a meaningful consumption boost. If millions of drivers experience a real income increase of around 12 percent, the resulting liquidity injection would directly enhance purchasing power.
Unlike capital gains concentrated in financial markets, these earnings circulate immediately within the real economy — in traditional markets, small shops and local services.
The multiplier effect could be substantial. Rising consumption fuels production demand, stimulates job creation and reinforces domestic economic stability. In this sense, the digital economy is not an isolated sector; it must contribute to broader, inclusive growth.
Labor issues, however, are often entangled in political currents. It is therefore crucial that the 8 percent cap be framed as a public interest policy rather than a tool for short-term appeasement.
Its integrity will depend on consistent and effective implementation, ensuring tangible financial benefits for drivers.
The government rejects the notion that investment and worker welfare are mutually exclusive. Both, it argues, must progress hand in hand. Indonesia now stands at a crossroads: whether to allow the digital economy to evolve unchecked or to demonstrate that technological advancement can coexist with social justice.
By positioning itself as a fair arbiter, the government aims to establish a new standard — one that ensures the digital economy does not reproduce inequality but instead becomes a driver of inclusive prosperity.
The policy, though controversial, underscores a broader commitment: without the well-being of drivers, the future of the industry itself may be at risk.
