Pertamax Price Adjustment a Consequence of Global Energy Market Dynamics

The polemic surrounding the increase in the price of non-subsidised fuel Pertamax has sparked debate not only from an energy perspective but also regarding its impact on the economy. The price adjustment should be viewed proportionally, as it does not target low-income groups who are beneficiaries of government energy subsidies.

According to activist and maritime expert Yulian Paonganan, the increase of Pertamax to Rp16,250 per litre differs from a subsidised fuel price hike, which would directly pressure the purchasing power of ordinary people. He emphasised that Pertalite, a fuel widely used by low-income communities, has had its price maintained by the government.

“What has increased is Pertamax, a non-subsidised fuel. The fuel used by ordinary people, Pertalite, has not gone up. If students are demonstrating because Pertamax has risen, who exactly are they defending?” said Ongen, as Yulian Paonganan is familiarly known, on Friday (12/6/2026).

From an economic perspective, Ongen assessed that the government’s policy of maintaining the prices of Pertalite, Biosolar, and subsidised 3-kilogram LPG is a measure to protect public purchasing power amid global economic uncertainty and fluctuating world energy prices. By continuing to provide subsidies for commodities widely consumed by the lower classes, the direct impact on inflation and household consumption can be minimised.

He added that the pricing mechanism for Pertamax is different because it is a non-subsidised fuel that follows the development of world crude oil prices and the rupiah exchange rate. Therefore, the price adjustment is seen as a consequence of global energy market dynamics.

Ongen also criticised the planned student action protesting the Pertamax increase. In his view, student movements should focus more on economic issues that directly impact the welfare of the wider community, such as unemployment, access to education, the welfare of farmers and fishermen, and the protection of vulnerable groups.

“In the past, we students took to the streets to defend the people. Now, there are students who want to demonstrate in defence of a fuel mostly used by the affluent? This needs to be explained to the public,” he said. He assessed that the economic challenges facing society today are far more complex than merely a rise in the price of non-subsidised fuel. Therefore, the energy of student movements should be directed at issues that have a broader economic impact on the lower classes.

The government itself has stressed that the price increase only applies to non-subsidised fuel, while energy commodities that are the main needs of low-income communities are maintained. This policy is described as part of an effort to maintain domestic economic stability while protecting people’s purchasing power.

For Ongen, students as an intellectual group play an important role in overseeing public policy. However, he reminded that every movement must have a clear orientation towards the interests of the majority of society. “If they are fighting for the common people, everyone will certainly support them. But if they are fighting for non-subsidised fuel whose main users are the middle to upper classes, the public has the right to ask, who exactly are the students defending?” he asserted.