Sumber : Infobank
THE battle over digital payment systems is underway. The United States government, through the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), has recently raised objections to Indonesia’s implementation of the Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard (QRIS). In addition, concerns have been voiced regarding the National Payment Gateway (GPN). Both initiatives are being characterized as trade barriers, allegedly placing American companies such as Visa and Mastercard at a disadvantage.
However, these objections extend beyond mere commercial concerns. They underscore deeper geopolitical and economic tensions, revolving around a fundamental question: who holds the authority over the flow of money, access to financial data, and, ultimately, a nation’s economic sovereignty?
In discussions hosted by the Infobank Institute, it became clear that QRIS and GPN represent more than alternative payment options. They are strategic instruments that support Indonesia’s financial independence. These systems offer lower costs, greater efficiency, and crucially, the ability to process and store data domestically.
Why should Indonesia reduce its reliance on Visa and Mastercard? Firstly, to prevent the significant loss of foreign exchange, as a portion of transaction fees flows overseas. When aggregated at the national level, this results in billions of dollars leaving the country annually.
Before the introduction of GPN in 2017 and QRIS in 2019, every debit and credit card transaction in Indonesia had to be processed through Visa or Mastercard networks. This applied even to small purchases, such as buying a plate of nasi pecel at a local food stall, and even when the transaction occurred between domestic bank accounts. Transaction fees of 1% to 3% flowed to U.S.-based companies.
Imagine this on a national scale from buying nasi pecel to purchasing smartphones and online goods. With millions of transactions occurring daily, data from the Infobank Research Bureau estimates that between 2 billion and 3 billion U.S. dollars, or approximately 35 trillion rupiah, leave Indonesia annually through Visa and Mastercard transaction fees.
Second, the cost factor. Visa and Mastercard fees are significantly higher than those of GPN and QRIS, which only charge 0.3%–0.7%, and even offer free transactions for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Settlement through GPN and QRIS is faster, and all data is processed domestically reducing the risk of data leaks and foreign surveillance. Let’s be honest this is not just about money. It’s also about transactional data like spending habits, location, and consumer preferences being sent overseas when using Visa or Mastercard.
This is a clear threat to national sovereignty. In contrast, QRIS is considered more democratic usable by all levels of society. From small traders (like corner shops, street food stalls, and even vegetable vendors) to large-scale merchants, even religious donations (such as mosque alms or church collections) can be made via QRIS. No hefty fees, and no physical card needed.
Third, the matter of economic diplomacy and U.S. pressure. It’s obvious that the U.S. is worried this isn’t just about protesting QRIS and GPN. Visa and Mastercard risk losing a strategic market. Moreover, ASEAN is building a regional payment network. In Q1 2025, QRIS transactions soared by 169.1% year-onyear, while Visa/Mastercard saw a decline in dominance. QRIS is now connected to DuitNow (Malaysia), SGQR (Singapore), and PromptPay (Thailand).
Thus, the U.S. criticism of QRIS and GPN can be seen as a form of economic coercion. Allegations of non-transparency against Bank Indonesia are a tired excuse simply an attempt to keep Visa and Mastercard profiting from Indonesia’s market. It’s time to strengthen GPN and expand QRIS across borders.
Let’s protect Indonesia’s payment sovereignty and keep Bank Indonesia independent, a referee that doesn’t get tempted to become a player. BI must remain impartial, even against government pressure including demands to compromise on Visa/ Mastercard just for the sake of lower U.S. trade tariffs.
This is a moment that calls for unity and resolve. The temptation to give in may be strong, but the longterm costs of doing so would be far greater. A sovereign nation cannot afford to let control of its financial systems slip away in the name of compromise. Let us not become, in local terms, an ayam sayur—timid, soft, and easily defeated. Indonesia has built a strong foundation for its digital economy. Now is the time to protect it.
However, these objections extend beyond mere commercial concerns. They underscore deeper geopolitical and economic tensions, revolving around a fundamental question: who holds the authority over the flow of money, access to financial data, and, ultimately, a nation’s economic sovereignty?
