TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsAnalysis: A house today, a lifetime of debt
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Rows of subsidized housing units are seen on Jan. 7, 2026, in Rajeg, Tangerang, Banten. (Antara/Putra M. Akbar)
H
ousing is shifting inexorably from a milestone to a mirage in Indonesia. With a national backlog of 15 million houses, housing affordability has turned into a crisis spanning income groups, pushing many families to rent rather than buy. The government’s proposed 40-year mortgage scheme might ease monthly payments but raises a harder question: Does extending debt across most of a person’s productive life solve the housing crisis or merely redefine what desperation looks like?
Speaking at the Labor Day commemorations on May 1, President Prabowo Subianto pledged to make homeownership more accessible for workers by extending mortgage loan tenors up to 40 years and offering an interest rate subsidy capped at 5 percent.
The appeal of the policy is easy to understand. A subsidized home priced at Rp 185 million (US$10,565) that is financed over 40 years at a fixed rate of 5 percent requires monthly installments of around Rp 890,000. That is roughly Rp 330,000 less per month than the same house with a tenor of 20 years. In that sense, the proposed scheme might genuinely help a narrow but important group of formal workers earning lower incomes who have been locked out of homeownership by rising prices and strict banking requirements.
Real Estate Indonesia (REI) chairman Joko Suranto has argued that repayment plan that carries lower monthly installments will also reduce default risk, as it affords households more room to manage their daily expenses. For a factory worker in Karawang, West Java, or a fisherman on the outskirts of Tangerang, Banten, the question is often not whether 40 years is too long but whether homeownership would otherwise remain permanently out of reach.
Yet the very factors that make the policy appealing in the short term also expose its deeper vulnerabilities over the long term. A mortgage spanning 40 years may bring monthly payments down to a more manageable level, but it does so by stretching debt across almost the entirety of an individual’s active working life. For private sector workers who typically retire at 55, they would need to take out a 40-year mortgage plan before they are 20 if they aim to repay it fully before reaching retirement. This is both legally and practically unrealistic for most Indonesians.
The proposed scheme also overlooks the possibility of structural risks becoming harder to manage over such a long repayment timescale. Informal and lower-wage workers often face unstable incomes, limited social protections and weak retirement security, while banks still apply strict lending requirements based on formal work, stable incomes and debt-service ratios. In practice, the policy therefore risks extending rather than resolving financial vulnerability for the very households it aims to help.
The policy also runs into a supply problem that a longer mortgage term cannot solve. Even if the government fully achieves this year’s Housing Financing Liquidity Facility (FLPP) target of 350,000 units, supply would still struggle to keep pace with growing demand and an expanding backlog. At the same time, the proposed scheme is likely to benefit only a narrow segment of lower-income formal workers, whereas many informal workers will remain excluded by banking requirements and rising long-term costs, including mandatory insurance premiums.
