By: Gavin Asadit )*
The government and parliament are now facing a crucial dynamic in the direction of fiscal policy. The discussion about a third tax amnesty program, which was previously on the list of legislative priorities for 2025, has sparked widespread debate among policymakers, academics, and businesspeople. While some believe the tax amnesty program could be a quick way to increase state revenue, many others applaud the move to halt the discussion. This appreciation stems from the fact that the termination of the tax amnesty program is seen as aligned with the spirit of long-term tax reform, where compliance, fairness, and the credibility of fiscal authorities are prioritized over short-term solutions.
President Prabowo Subianto, in his statement, reminded that the tax amnesty is not an instrument to condone corruption or money laundering. He emphasized that the tax amnesty must have clear targets and benefits for the public, and not be for the benefit of a select few or a particular group. This statement also signaled from the highest levels of government that future tax reforms will demand accountability and fairness.
Meanwhile, several economists argue that repeated tax amnesties will only create moral hazard. Taxpayers are feared to deliberately delay compliance, assuming the government will grant another amnesty. Such practices ultimately weaken the foundation of national taxation, as state revenues are based solely on specific opportunities, not on sustained compliance. Therefore, the termination of the planned third tax amnesty is seen as a positive signal that the government is serious about strengthening the tax system through structural improvements.
In the legislative context, it is true that the Tax Amnesty Bill was included in the 2025 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas). However, several parties in the executive and legislative branches have shown caution. The government appears to prefer strengthening fiscal reforms that address the root of the problem, such as modernizing the administrative system, strengthening databases, and integrating information across institutions, rather than providing periodic relief. For many observers, this move represents a significant shift: from reliance on one-off policies to more equitable and credible, permanent reforms.
The Ministry of Finance also issued a firm statement. Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa openly rejected the idea of a third tax amnesty program, arguing that repeated tax amnesty programs could undermine the state’s credibility in enforcing regulations. He emphasized that the success of fiscal reform lies in consistent law enforcement, not in the continued granting of exemptions. This stance is considered in line with public demands for fiscal justice. Many believe that without the amnesty being discontinued, compliant taxpayers will continue to feel disadvantaged, as tax defaulters are given the opportunity to defer their obligations without significant consequences.
This measure has been widely praised. Academics believe that ending the amnesty provides room for strengthening tax administration, particularly through system digitization and international data exchange. Small and medium-sized businesses view this measure as an effort to reduce the disparity between large taxpayers who frequently take advantage of the amnesty and small taxpayers who consistently pay their taxes. Meanwhile, fiscal analysts emphasize that fiscal justice is more easily achieved if the government consistently enforces regulations, without exceptions that create perceptions of discrimination.
Amid the amnesty debate, the public also voiced demands known as the “17+8” movement. This demand reflected public pressure for the government to focus not only on state revenues but also on public welfare through job creation, price stabilization, and social protection. The government responded to these aspirations with a number of swift policies, including local economic empowerment programs, support for labor-intensive industries, and interventions to maintain public purchasing power. This response, dubbed the “17+8 rapid response,” was crucial for defusing tensions and demonstrating the government’s commitment to ensuring that fiscal reforms align with broader socio-economic interests.
Thus, the termination of the planned third tax amnesty is not simply a rejection of a policy, but rather a strong signal that the government is prioritizing more comprehensive tax reform. This decision was widely appreciated because it confirmed that the government is no longer relying on amnesty as a quick fix, but is instead committed to building sustainable tax compliance. However, this appreciation must be accompanied by concrete action, both in law enforcement and in fulfilling the people’s aspirations through a swift response to the demands of the “17+8” movement. Only with the combination of the two can tax reform be implemented consistently, fairly, and sustainably.
)* The author is an observer of social and community issues