On my previous post, I blogged about the new rule on negative list of investment (Daftar Negatif Investasi or “DNI”). The BKPM recently issued a press release about this. Here’s a snippet:

 

8)  Several sectors give opportunities for foreign capital to more help strengthening the financing capacity for domestics:
a.  Industrial sectors in siklamat and saccharine were previously closed for investment and now they are opened with certain license.
b.  Public works industries in construction have an upgrade of foreign capital ownership from 55% to 67%.
c.  Culture and tourism sectors in filming service (studio of filming, laboratory of film processing, dubbing facilities, printing and film reduplication) is now opened for foreign capital of 49%.
d.  Health sector in hospital services, clinics of specialist doctors clinic laboratories and medical check-up clinic has also an upgrade in foreign capital ownership from 65% to 67% and the location of the activities can now be done all over Indonesia.
e.  Electricity sectors in electricity generators (1-10MW) can be carried out in partnerships, whereas the generators higher than 10 MW, the ownership of foreign capital is maximum 95%.

9)  There will be several adjustments on foreign capital ownership for several sectors and it may be due to the existing of some new decrees or to give wider opportunities for local investors:
a.  Agricultural sectors in the cultivation of principal food crops (corns, soybeans, peanuts, green beans, rice, cassava, sweet potato) with the width of no more than 25 hectares, the ownership of foreign capital is maximum 49% based on the Decree No. 41 Year 2009 regarding the Protection of Sustainable Agricultural Land.
b.  Sectors of Communication and Information in the fields of:

i.  Mailing administration, is conditioned to have special permission and the foreign capital is maximum 49% based on the Decree No. 38 Year 2009 regarding mailing.
ii.  Providing, managing, (operating and renting) and providing construction service for telecommunication towers are 100% local investor ownership.

10) In order to implement Indonesian commitment in investment related to ASEAN Economic Community, this current DNI adds one new attachment (Attachment II.j) which rules out the conditions of foreign capital ownership and/or location for investors from ASEAN countries. These investors are given dispensation in owning capital more than the other foreign investors, for example in the transportation sectors in maritime cargo handling services of which the ASEAN investors are allowed to own foreign capital with the maximum of 60% while the other foreign investors are only allowed for 49%.

You can download the Presidential Regulation 36 Year 2010 on Negative List of Investment here (in Bahasa Indonesia). Alternatively, you can have a look at Google’s translation of the DNI regulation in this page (Google’s translate has been improving quite a lot although it can get lousy for technical terms sometimes). You may find some tips on filling out BKPM Forms on my previous posts below.

 

If you have any specific question, you can email me at movanet(at)gmail.com

 

Related Posts:

 

The new investment negative list (2010)
The New Negative List of Investment (2007) 
How to set up a company in Indonesia
Geothermal projects in Indonesia
Water investment in Indonesia
Some note on Indonesian Investment Law
Living with the Other Fishes
Guide to doing business in Indonesia

 

As of today, still no news in BKPM’s website about the new Presidential Regulation 36/2010 on investment’s negative list. But below is the new list according to some news source. Note: as I don’t have the Perpres 36 with me yet, please treat this as an unconfirmed.

 

1. Industrial sector: In the industry of cyclamate and saccharin previously closed to investments, now opened with special permission.
2. Public works: In the field of construction services foreign capital ownership increased from 55 percent to 67 percent.
   Culture and tourism: in the business of filming techniques 49 percent is opened to foreign capital.
3. The health sector: in specialist medical clinics and medical support services, foreign equity ownership is increased from 65 percent to 67 percent and its activities can be conducted at locations throughout Indonesia.
4. Electricity sector in the business of power plant (10-10 MW) can be done in the form of partnerships, while for above 10 MW, the maximum foreign equity ownership of 95 percent.

 

Meanwhile, in some other business sectors foreign capital ownership is adjusted:

 

1. The agricultural sector: in the cultivation of staple food crops (corn, soybeans, peanuts, green beans, rice, cassava, sweet potato) with an area of more than 25 hectares, the maximum foreign equity ownership of 49 percent (in compliance with Law No. 41 Year 2009 on the Protection of Agricultural Land Sustainable Food).
2. Communication and Information Sector: in the business of the postal administration, special permit is required and the maximum foreign capital is 49 percent (in accordance with Law Number 38 Year 2009 on Postal Service).  Meanwhile the provision, management (including operation and rental) and provider of construction services for telecommunication towers (BTS towers ) must have 100 percent domestic capital.

Allrite mate, time for sum intermezzo. Here's a homework for you CSR and social media experts. That fake BPGlobalPR twitter account just crowdsource a disparaging quizz a few minutes ago. What does BP stand for? he asked. Well, here's a snippet of the answers:

Reminder: An audio conference with the topic "Protection of water consumer's rights in Indonesia" will be held on this page today, June 2, 19.00-20.30 (GMT+0) -- that's around 1.a.m. Jakarta Time (GMT+6)! The discussion will be in Bahasa Indonesia. Materials are available below. Read here for previous announcement.

 

 

Live Videos by Ustream




Materials
Discussion Paper titled  “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Konsumen Air di Indonesia” is downloadable here.  
Op-ed and blog posts:
Transparency in Water Services 
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance 
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam 
Missing water and shadow users 
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water 
Tomorrow, the Freedom of Information Law is in force! 
Three ways for your business to be implicated by the new Indonesian freedom of information law 
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison 
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault? 
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector 
Is water a commodity or human rights? 
The human right to water is not a property right 
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance 
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector 
The Economist and the human right to water 
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation 
Hukum Air (Water Law) is not really a topic in Indonesia 
Papers: 
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia 
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation: 
Anticipating water trade

 

I interviewed an Indonesian government official about the Flotilla incident. As you might have been aware, around 12 Indonesian journalists and volunteers are on board the vessels, which makes this issue even more emotive for the Indonesian.

The key question is what diplomatic avenues are available to protect our citizens there and as a follow-up to that, what mechanisms of redress is available under International Law. It is unfortunate that he refuse his name to be mentioned. The analysis he provides is very interesting. Enjoy the interview.

 

Why is there no "international law" when it comes to Israel?

Not necessarily the case. There are many areas in international law that must be followed by Israel. Take for example in area of diplomatic relations. The fact that Israel has embassies worldwide and official mission in the UN shows that Israel bound to international law. Failure to follow international law thereof will bring consequences.

The latest consequences or "slap in the face" for Israel in diplomatic relations was when UK and Australia expelled or "persona non grata" Israel diplomats from their embassies in relation to passport frauds done by Mossad in the recent Hamas' leader assassination.

In the context of freedom flotilla, one of the main issues of international law is the legality of unilateral interdiction in high seas, including among others, compensation. 

Can Indonesian government provide diplomatic protection to its citizens on board Flotilla -- notwithstanding that there is no preexisting diplomatic ties between the two nations?

Indonesian Government can provide protection for its nationals aboard freedom flotilla. As a matter of fact, it is required by indonesian law and international law acknowledges the existence of  such obligation.

Is it possible to ask for reparation for injuries?

Of course, in the context of Israel, the United Nations, in particular via the UNGA or UNSC may serve as a media to ask for reparation of injuries. What needs to be underlined though, both UNGA and UNSC are not law tribunals rather they are political bodies.   

 

Is there any way to charge the perpetrators under war-crime?

Charging is less difficult compared to find the means and enforcement to do so. Once there was an attempt to charge former US President Bush for war crimes in Iraq, but because neither the means and enforcement are sufficient, the attempt was useless.

Netanyahu claimed that it was an act of self-defense. What is your comment?

This incident reminds me of a self defence character policy announced by the US in 2004 called Proliferation Security Initiative or PSI, which basically allows interdiction of vessels on high seas assumed to carry WMD for terrorists.

In this case, both PSI and Israel's interdiction share similar motive; threat of terrorists attack (Netanyahu statement in BBC in responding to the interdiction). A clear difference between the two, however, is in the methods: the PSI requires a consent from the vessel's flag states before attempting to board the vessel to begin with whilst the Israelis clearly does not.

Surely, there is a valid reason why International law governs strict requirements when it comes to self defence and use of force, that is to maintain peace, not otherwise. 

 

How compelling (or binding -- as lawyer's often put it) is the law on interdiction under international law? Boarding a foreign vessel on an international water is a clear violation of international law, no? What can Turkey does to redress this internationally wrongful act of the Israeli state?

International law governs interdiction of ships both by customs and treaty laws. Israel is bound to follow; it if not by treaty law then by ways of customs. Because vessel is an extension of a state's territory being the flag state or the owner state, it can be considered as an act of war to board a foreign vessel without valid justification and procedures. Prima facie, such act violates that particular state sovereignty. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter is crystal clear when it comes to territorial integrity, let alone ICJ decisions.

Bilaterally, Turkey can seek compensation from Israel via its diplomatic channels. Multilaterally Turkey or any other nations for that matter that have been effected by this incident may ask UNGA to exercise Article 96 (b) of the UN Charter that is to seek ICJ's advisory opinion on the legality of Israel's interdiction on freedom flotilla as it did in 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, which was decided as contrary to international law.

In a more concrete terms, what can we do provided that no diplomatic relation exist? Can we use the diplomatic arm of a third country to facilitate protection? Can we pursue international enforcement through ICJ, i.e. that states victim collectively demand reparation for its citizens on board Flotilla (that includes Turkey as the ship's flag-state) through ICJ mechanism?

I see several scenarios with regard to protection of Indonesian nationals, among others first, all or one Indonesian nationals are taken as hostages or worst prisoners and second possible compensations. For the first scenario, Indonesia via its permanent representative in the UN can demand a release or deportation of its nationals from Israel or use a third state having diplomatic relations to Israel to do so. The second scenario, however, is rather difficult because the Israel has to be found responsible first.

Enforcement through ICJ is unlikely to result in actual reparation. Unless Israel accepts ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction for contentious case, the only available means in ICJ is by advisory opinion under Article 96 (b) as I have mentioned earlier.

As part of procedures in advisory opinion, Indonesia can submit its official views to the ICJ on the case as it did in the advisory opinion case on legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

 

 

 

And, a gentle reminder:
An online discussion on consumers rights in the Indonesian water services sector will be held on Wednesday, 2nd of June 2010 at 19.00 (GMT+0) in here. More detail.

And, a gentle reminder:
An online discussion on consumers rights in the Indonesian water services sector will be held on Wednesday, 2nd of June 2010 at 19.00 (GMT+0) in here. More detail.

Following is the announcement (in Bahasa Indonesia):

Waktu:  Rabu, 2 Juni 2010, pk. 19.00 - 20.30. (GMT + 0)

Pembicara: Mohamad Mova Al 'Afghani
(Ph.D Candidate, UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science. University of Dundee, UK) 

Chair: Rizal Yaya
(PhD Student University of Aberdeen UK) 

Tema: "Perlindungan Hukum bagi Konsumen Air di Indonesia"

 
Tambahan informasi dari Indonesia Law Reporter:
Acara ini bisa juga diikuti dari twitter dengan menggunakan hashtag #lawtalk atau me reply ke @movanet atau mendengarkan broadcast di home page Web Conference Indonesia Law Report. 

Prosiding dari acara ini akan disiapkan oleh Indonesia in Motion. 

Bahan bahan diskusi.
Makalah diskusi dengan judul “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Konsumen Air di Indonesia” dapat di download di sini. 
Op-ed and blog posts:
Transparency in Water Services
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam
Missing water and shadow users
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Tomorrow, the Freedom of Information Law is in force!
Three ways for your business to be implicated by the new Indonesian freedom of information law
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault?
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector
The Economist and the human right to water
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation
Hukum Air (Water Law) is not really a topic in Indonesia
Papers:
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation:
Anticipating water trade