Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Yozami, Fitri Novia Heriani, Robert Sidauruk
Since the House of Representatives passed its Bill on Trade on 11 February 2014, the Bill has generated many comments and responses from stakeholders in the trade sector. The Government, as the party responsible for overseeing trade practices, advocates that the Bill will protect national trade.
In contrast, the Indonesian Market Traders Association (Asosiasi Pedagang Seluruh Indonesia – APSI) contends that the Bill is indicative of the Government’s continued reluctance to provide comprehensive protection to traditional traders and a tendency to favor large scale traders.
Ngadiran, Secretary General of APSI, explained that the impartiality shown to traditional traders can be noted in the use of the word “community market” (pasar rakyat) instead of “traditional market” (pasar tradisional) in the Bill.
Although a simple matter, Ngadiran, views this as an indication of the Government’s reluctance to protect traditional sellers and create opportunities for market liberalization.
“There is a reluctance of the Government to make ‘traditional market’ official terminology and a desire to change it to ‘community’s market’”, said Ngadiran in Jakarta on Thursday.
The Government, according to Ngadiran, should preserve the words “traditional market” as it accentuates traditional aspects, which is the main characteristic of Indonesia’s markets. By changing this to “community’s market”, the Bill has distorted the true meaning of traditional traders.
Ngadiran further notes that, APSI must now rely on the central and regional governments to create implementing regulations for the Bill that could strengthen the protection of micro, small, and medium traders so the Bill can be enforced in fair manner.
However, the Indonesia Employers Association (Asosiasi Pengusaha Indonesia – APINDO), has a different point of view. Franky Sibarani, Deputy Secretary of APINDO, said that the Bill is far from market liberalization. The Bill, as Franky explained, provides more protection to domestic traders, including traditional and medium level traders, rather than foreign traders.
“We don’t see the Bill as accommodating market liberalization”, says Franky.
Similar to APINDO, Aria Bima, Deputy Chairman of Commission VI at the House, asserts that the Bill is aimed at protecting national trade, especially traditional markets. Aria, however, admits that provisions in the Bill on zoning between traditional markets and modern markets are not clearly defined. This matter, he continued, is to be supplemented by further intervention by the central and regional governments.
“The Government is obliged to revitalize traditional markets as this cannot be done independently by the traders without Government intervention,” concludes Aria.
(hot/kc)
Since the House of Representatives passed its Bill on Trade on 11 February 2014, the Bill has generated many comments and responses from stakeholders in the trade sector. The Government, as the party responsible for overseeing trade practices, advocates that the Bill will protect national trade.
In contrast, the Indonesian Market Traders Association (Asosiasi Pedagang Seluruh Indonesia – APSI) contends that the Bill is indicative of the Government’s continued reluctance to provide comprehensive protection to traditional traders and a tendency to favor large scale traders.
Ngadiran, Secretary General of APSI, explained that the impartiality shown to traditional traders can be noted in the use of the word “community market” (pasar rakyat) instead of “traditional market” (pasar tradisional) in the Bill.
Although a simple matter, Ngadiran, views this as an indication of the Government’s reluctance to protect traditional sellers and create opportunities for market liberalization.
“There is a reluctance of the Government to make ‘traditional market’ official terminology and a desire to change it to ‘community’s market’”, said Ngadiran in Jakarta on Thursday.
The Government, according to Ngadiran, should preserve the words “traditional market” as it accentuates traditional aspects, which is the main characteristic of Indonesia’s markets. By changing this to “community’s market”, the Bill has distorted the true meaning of traditional traders.
Ngadiran further notes that, APSI must now rely on the central and regional governments to create implementing regulations for the Bill that could strengthen the protection of micro, small, and medium traders so the Bill can be enforced in fair manner.
However, the Indonesia Employers Association (Asosiasi Pengusaha Indonesia – APINDO), has a different point of view. Franky Sibarani, Deputy Secretary of APINDO, said that the Bill is far from market liberalization. The Bill, as Franky explained, provides more protection to domestic traders, including traditional and medium level traders, rather than foreign traders.
“We don’t see the Bill as accommodating market liberalization”, says Franky.
Similar to APINDO, Aria Bima, Deputy Chairman of Commission VI at the House, asserts that the Bill is aimed at protecting national trade, especially traditional markets. Aria, however, admits that provisions in the Bill on zoning between traditional markets and modern markets are not clearly defined. This matter, he continued, is to be supplemented by further intervention by the central and regional governments.
“The Government is obliged to revitalize traditional markets as this cannot be done independently by the traders without Government intervention,” concludes Aria.
(hot/kc)
Agus Yozami, Fitri Novia Heriani, Robert Sidauruk
Since the House of Representatives passed its Bill on Trade on 11 February 2014, the Bill has generated many comments and responses from stakeholders in the trade sector. The Government, as the party responsible for overseeing trade practices, advocates that the Bill will protect national trade.
In contrast, the Indonesian Market Traders Association (Asosiasi Pedagang Seluruh Indonesia – APSI) contends that the Bill is indicative of the Government’s continued reluctance to provide comprehensive protection to traditional traders and a tendency to favor large scale traders.
Ngadiran, Secretary General of APSI, explained that the impartiality shown to traditional traders can be noted in the use of the word “community market” (pasar rakyat) instead of “traditional market” (pasar tradisional) in the Bill.
Although a simple matter, Ngadiran, views this as an indication of the Government’s reluctance to protect traditional sellers and create opportunities for market liberalization.
“There is a reluctance of the Government to make ‘traditional market’ official terminology and a desire to change it to ‘community’s market’”, said Ngadiran in Jakarta on Thursday.
The Government, according to Ngadiran, should preserve the words “traditional market” as it accentuates traditional aspects, which is the main characteristic of Indonesia’s markets. By changing this to “community’s market”, the Bill has distorted the true meaning of traditional traders.
Ngadiran further notes that, APSI must now rely on the central and regional governments to create implementing regulations for the Bill that could strengthen the protection of micro, small, and medium traders so the Bill can be enforced in fair manner.
However, the Indonesia Employers Association (Asosiasi Pengusaha Indonesia – APINDO), has a different point of view. Franky Sibarani, Deputy Secretary of APINDO, said that the Bill is far from market liberalization. The Bill, as Franky explained, provides more protection to domestic traders, including traditional and medium level traders, rather than foreign traders.
“We don’t see the Bill as accommodating market liberalization”, says Franky.
Similar to APINDO, Aria Bima, Deputy Chairman of Commission VI at the House, asserts that the Bill is aimed at protecting national trade, especially traditional markets. Aria, however, admits that provisions in the Bill on zoning between traditional markets and modern markets are not clearly defined. This matter, he continued, is to be supplemented by further intervention by the central and regional governments.
“The Government is obliged to revitalize traditional markets as this cannot be done independently by the traders without Government intervention,” concludes Aria.
(hot/kc)
Since the House of Representatives passed its Bill on Trade on 11 February 2014, the Bill has generated many comments and responses from stakeholders in the trade sector. The Government, as the party responsible for overseeing trade practices, advocates that the Bill will protect national trade.
In contrast, the Indonesian Market Traders Association (Asosiasi Pedagang Seluruh Indonesia – APSI) contends that the Bill is indicative of the Government’s continued reluctance to provide comprehensive protection to traditional traders and a tendency to favor large scale traders.
Ngadiran, Secretary General of APSI, explained that the impartiality shown to traditional traders can be noted in the use of the word “community market” (pasar rakyat) instead of “traditional market” (pasar tradisional) in the Bill.
Although a simple matter, Ngadiran, views this as an indication of the Government’s reluctance to protect traditional sellers and create opportunities for market liberalization.
“There is a reluctance of the Government to make ‘traditional market’ official terminology and a desire to change it to ‘community’s market’”, said Ngadiran in Jakarta on Thursday.
The Government, according to Ngadiran, should preserve the words “traditional market” as it accentuates traditional aspects, which is the main characteristic of Indonesia’s markets. By changing this to “community’s market”, the Bill has distorted the true meaning of traditional traders.
Ngadiran further notes that, APSI must now rely on the central and regional governments to create implementing regulations for the Bill that could strengthen the protection of micro, small, and medium traders so the Bill can be enforced in fair manner.
However, the Indonesia Employers Association (Asosiasi Pengusaha Indonesia – APINDO), has a different point of view. Franky Sibarani, Deputy Secretary of APINDO, said that the Bill is far from market liberalization. The Bill, as Franky explained, provides more protection to domestic traders, including traditional and medium level traders, rather than foreign traders.
“We don’t see the Bill as accommodating market liberalization”, says Franky.
Similar to APINDO, Aria Bima, Deputy Chairman of Commission VI at the House, asserts that the Bill is aimed at protecting national trade, especially traditional markets. Aria, however, admits that provisions in the Bill on zoning between traditional markets and modern markets are not clearly defined. This matter, he continued, is to be supplemented by further intervention by the central and regional governments.
“The Government is obliged to revitalize traditional markets as this cannot be done independently by the traders without Government intervention,” concludes Aria.
(hot/kc)