Piter Abdullah, who serves as Policy and Programs Director at Prasasti, will appear as a guest speaker on Tempo's Jelasin Dong podcast. This particular episode tackles the theme "The Debate Surrounding Online Lending Rate Limits and Consumer Protection." Structured as a strategic dialogue, the program unpacks the interplay of policy direction, regulatory jurisdiction, and the legal as well as economic ramifications of capping interest rates on online loans (pindar) in Indonesia. The episode has aired on Tempodotco's official YouTube channel.
Opening the conversation, Piter underscored that the dispute over online lending rate caps deserves a holistic examination, especially when viewed through the lens of consumer protection. He argued that the rate ceiling imposed by the Financial Services Authority (OJK) was never intended to favor industry players, but rather to insulate the public from disproportionate financial pressure. "What we have here isn't a pact among market participants. It is a mandate issued by the regulator. The figure set is not a maximum permissible rate; operators are barred from charging anything higher than the cap. The objective is to shield consumers, not to enrich companies," he remarked.
Piter went on to spotlight the differing approaches taken by the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) and OJK in tackling this matter. While KPPU tends to focus on the dynamics of market rivalry, OJK directs its attention squarely toward consumer wellbeing. "When you trace where they converge, both ultimately stand on the same foundation, namely consumer protection. KPPU views it through the prism of fair competition, whereas OJK zeroes in on consumer interests directly. Those two perspectives ought to be reconciled through dialogue," he noted.
Responding to accusations of cartel behavior, Piter maintained that identical pricing across various platforms does not, in itself, amount to a cartel arrangement. He pointed out that what truly defines a cartel is not pricing similarity, but rather a calculated effort to extract maximum profit from consumers via inflated margins. "The signature of a cartel lies in pursuing peak margins, intentionally configured to maximize corporate earnings. Yet what OJK has done here works in the opposite direction. Firms are restrained from claiming oversized margins. The core elements that would constitute a cartel are therefore absent," he affirmed.
To illustrate the predicament faced by licensed online lenders amid the proliferation of illegal operators, Piter offered a simple analogy. He likened the situation to a licensed fried banana seller bound by price controls, set against an unlicensed counterpart down the street who runs his stall completely unmonitored. "What stands out is that it is the legally compliant operators who get penalized, while those operating outside the law go untouched. And yet the legal ones abide by regulations, pay their taxes, and generate employment. That is a question we all ought to raise," he commented.
From Piter's vantage point, OJK's rate ceiling also functions as a firm dividing line separating above-board online lending services from underground loan operations. He explained that before the policy came into force, online lending rates were noticeably high and hard to tell apart from those of illegal services. "This cap is precisely what is required to draw that distinction. Public appetite for this kind of financing is immense. We are talking about millions of unbanked individuals who simply cannot tap into formal banking channels. That is the very market segment that loan sharks and underground lenders have long preyed upon with much steeper rates. Speaking as someone reasonably acquainted with microfinance institutions, OJK's directive setting the cap at 0.8 percent is a genuinely protective step for the public," he elaborated.
Piter further warned that any friction between regulatory bodies could breed ambiguity in the legal arena, with knock-on effects for the broader investment environment. "When one authority disregards another, the result is confusion and unpredictability. Uncertainty breeds risk, and risk is the natural adversary of investment. Investors, particularly those from abroad, will begin to question whether our legal framework holds together," he explained.