The Indonesian water system is also marked by high system loss, decades of under-investment in the water infrastructure, and a poor regulatory system. Rivera explained that "they are not anchored on cost reflective tariff so... it's very difficult to invite the private sector.
However, he said there is a lot of potential in Indonesia since it has a larger population of 200 million and it is growing faster than the Philippines. Indonesia has an emerging metropolis and its metropolitan areas are much bigger than those in the Philippines.
"The key to sustaining these areas would be water infrastructure," noted Rivera adding that it will take one to two years before a project can start development.
As for cost, it will require investments of $30 million to $50 million if its a bulk water supply project. If it's a distribution project, the cost can be much bigger because there is a need to replace the pipes.

Article 156a of the Indonesian Criminal Code contained a criminal provision of 5 years of imprisonment for those “who deliberately, in public, which in essence sparked hostility, insulting or abusive views towards religions with the purpose of preventing others from adhering to any religion based on God.”. This Article has been ambiguous with respect to its criminalization theory as there are doubts as to whether it is motivated by Religionschutzstheorie or public order reasons. Judging from its position in the Criminal Code, Article 156a is placed in Chapter V of the Criminal Code which regulates the crimes against public order, along with Article 156 which criminalizes those who spark hatred against others. However, if seen from the content, the Article does not contain any condition which suggest that it will be activated only if carried out in a manner which disturbs the public peace such as the German’s § 166. Thus, Article 156a could be enforced irrespective of whether the insult caused public peace to be disturbed, or whether it would injure the feeling of religious adherents or not. To give a concrete example, Article 156a could be activated although the offence is conducted before persons who are not an adherent of any religion.[1]

The ambiguity of Article 156a has been acknowledged by Prof. Seno Adji with him proposing it to be reformed so that it can fully protect religion. It was proposed that Article 156a should be reconstructed and removed from Chapter V as it is clear that its content is in protecting religion, irrespective of public order.[2] However, even without this modification, in practice Article 156a has been very extensively applied so as to cover cases involving both public order and non public order. With these facts, it can be inferred that the interpretation and application of Article 156a leaned toward Religionschutzstheorie rather than Friedenschutzstheorie or Gefühlschutzstheorie.