Indonesia's government is moving forward with a contentious plan to introduce limited dual citizenship for select adults, but the proposal has triggered sharp criticism from advocates for mixed-nationality families who contend it violates the country's own legal foundations and ignores those with the most compelling claims to hold multiple passports.
The resurfaced proposal came to light when Law Minister Supratman Andi Agtas announced that his ministry had formally requested a presidential letter to initiate parliamentary discussions on the policy. Under the latest iteration, dual citizenship would be extended only to adults whose skills the state deems essential—a restrictive framework that has alarmed both civil society and legal experts examining its implications for citizenship doctrine and practical administration.
Rulita Anggraini, heading the Indonesian Mixed-Marriage Society (Perca), articulated the fundamental objection: by tying dual citizenship to state requirements rather than legal principle, the government risks transforming citizenship from a matter of fundamental rights into a transactional arrangement determined by bureaucratic convenience. She contends this inverts Indonesia's established approach to citizenship, which is rooted in descent through blood ties rather than instrumental value to the state. "If dual citizenship is now going to be granted, shouldn't the first legal subjects be our children?" Anggraini posed to The Jakarta Post, highlighting what advocates view as a logical inconsistency in the government's reasoning.
Indonesia's current legal framework already permits a limited form of dual citizenship for children born to parents of different nationalities. Under the 2006 Citizenship Law, these children may hold both nationalities until age 18, when they face a three-year window to select one. This existing regime acknowledges that some Indonesians have legitimate connections to two states through their parentage, establishing a precedent that Anggraini and other advocates believe should form the foundation for any expansion of dual citizenship rights.
The government's interest in introducing broader dual citizenship reflects strategic calculations about national development. Officials have framed the proposal as integral to Indonesia's Golden Indonesia 2045 vision, an ambitious development roadmap aimed at enhancing human capital and competitiveness. Minister Supratman outlined the envisioned scope in stark terms: dual citizenship would be granted only when the state identifies a specific need, whether for nuclear scientists, elite athletes, or chemists possessing urgently required expertise. Crucially, nominations would come exclusively through ministries and state institutions, creating a top-down selection mechanism rather than a rights-based framework.
This approach has generated concern among legal scholars and observers who warn of cascading complications. An eligibility system centred on state interests rather than clear legal criteria creates space for arbitrary decision-making, potential discrimination, and overlapping rights and obligations that could generate disputes. The lack of transparent, pre-established standards for what qualifies as "needed expertise" introduces uncertainty that could invite political interference or favour certain sectors over others. For Malaysia and other regional countries with significant diaspora populations and mixed-nationality citizens, Indonesia's deliberations offer instructive lessons about citizenship policy design and the pitfalls of discretionary approaches.
Anggraini articulated a sharper critique: if dual citizenship becomes dependent on utility calculations and state interest, citizenship itself degenerates from a matter of principle into a commodity. She emphasised that children of mixed marriages possess an "objective" rather than "subjective" connection to Indonesia through their parentage, making their claim categorically different from that of adults whose value derives from professional credentials. "Their inherent connection to Indonesia is not subjective, but objective," she stated, underscoring how bloodline-based citizenship principles would logically place these children at the front of any queue for policy expansion.
The debate also reflects longer-standing tensions within Indonesia's citizenship philosophy. Since independence, the country has maintained single citizenship as the default, viewing dual allegiance as potentially problematic for national cohesion. Yet this position has become increasingly difficult to sustain in practice, given globalisation, cross-border migration, and the existence of millions of Indonesians abroad with mixed-nationality children. The government has previously considered alternatives to full dual citizenship, including enhanced permanent residency schemes designed to engage the diaspora and mixed-marriage families while avoiding formal citizenship multiplication.
Perca's advocacy over nearly two decades has focused on the legal rights and practical vulnerabilities of mixed-nationality families navigating Indonesia's bureaucratic landscape. The organisation argues that any expansion of dual citizenship should prioritise those with the deepest and most consistent legal basis for recognition: children born of one Indonesian and one foreign parent. Their position gains weight from Indonesia's own citizenship principles, which inherently recognise descent-based claims as foundational.
Anggraini concluded her intervention with a plea for consistency and fairness in whatever direction the government ultimately pursues. Whether Indonesia maintains single citizenship or adopts limited dual citizenship, the policy should rest on defensible legal reasoning rather than ad-hoc accommodation of state preferences. "The government must be consistent. If it maintains single citizenship, we will respect it. But if it adopts dual citizenship, it should be based on justice," she told the Jakarta Post, framing the dispute not as opposition to dual citizenship per se but as insistence that any policy expansion observe logical and equitable principles.
The government's timetable for parliamentary deliberation remains uncertain, but the controversy signals that Indonesia faces difficult choices about how to balance national interests against legal consistency and fairness. Regional observers will be watching closely, as Indonesia's approach may influence how other Southeast Asian nations with similar demographics address citizenship questions for their own mixed-nationality populations.
