Indonesia Deserves Better Than Another Excuse Part 3

Indonesia’s gas supply cuts to Singapore began on 24 October 2026, with supplies redirected towards domestic electricity generation. Jakarta cites maintenance and local demand. Singapore says replacement supplies are available.

Protecting Indonesian households and businesses is a legitimate priority. The question is whether supply decisions are planned, explained and delivered competently.

Electricity does not become more reliable because the press conference sounds determined.

Domestic needs deserve a fair hearing

Indonesia’s upstream regulator, SKK Migas, said gas from Natuna and Sumatra was being redirected to support electricity needs in Batam, Bintan and Sumatra.

There is a concrete maintenance issue too. State-owned PLN Energi Primer Indonesia said the WNTS–Pemping pipeline would help supply Batam during planned maintenance at Jambi Merang from 24 October to 3 November.

That supports a practical explanation for redirecting gas. It also raises a reasonable planning question: when were the maintenance requirements known, and what replacement arrangements were secured beforehand?

Having gas reserves is not enough. Pipelines and generating equipment must deliver usable energy where demand exists.

A supply cut is not automatically a contract breach

On 29 October, Energy Minister Bahlil Lahadalia maintained that reduced deliveries remained above the contractual minimum.

Singapore had said its importer, Gas Supply Pte Ltd, would examine whether a breach occurred and pursue contractual remedies if necessary. On 28 October, Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan welcomed both sides’ stated commitment to honouring contracts.

Those statements do not establish a legal finding either way. The relevant terms and delivery records matter more than competing political assurances.

Singapore’s government put the reduction at less than 2% of its power-sector daily gas demand, with sufficient replacement gas, including liquefied natural gas shipped by sea.

Immediate shortages should therefore not be presented as inevitable. Neither should higher household electricity bills be asserted without evidence.

Who carries the cost of weak planning?

Separate problems require separate explanations.

After the 12 October Batam blackout, Indonesia’s Ombudsman called for stronger infrastructure maintenance, clearer crisis communication and a review of customer compensation. Its account described electrical equipment failures, so that outage should not simply be labelled a gas shortage.

For households, unreliable power can disrupt daily life. Businesses can lose production and face backup-power costs. Trading partners must maintain alternative supplies.

Whether particular costs were avoidable requires evidence about maintenance, notice periods and contingency decisions.

Authorities should publish the diversion timetable, explain contractual compliance without disclosing commercially sensitive terms, and report whether domestic reliability improves.

“Domestic needs first” explains a priority. It does not answer whether the system was ready. Indonesians deserve both the priority and the preparation.