When the State Weighs Fees for Lost ID Cards: Lessons from Global Practices

The discourse on imposing fees for citizens who lose their physical National Identity Card (KTP) has resurfaced following remarks by Bima Arya Sugiarto and coverage by Kompas.com on 27 April 2026. Although still a proposal within the revision of Law Number 24 of 2013, this issue quickly transcends administrative boundaries. It touches on fundamental questions about how the state interprets citizens’ identity: as a basic right that must be guaranteed, or as a service that can be charged. On one hand, the state has rational reasons to reduce fiscal burdens while promoting administrative discipline. Repeated loss of documents undoubtedly incurs costs. However, on the other hand, the KTP is not merely a card but a gateway for citizens to access public services—from healthcare and education to social assistance. When access is hindered by costs, what is at stake is no longer efficiency, but justice. In Singapore, the national identity card (NRIC) is provided free on first issuance, but replacements for loss are charged, especially if repeated. A similar model applies in Malaysia through MyKad, with progressive fees for repeated losses. Meanwhile, Australia and the United States do not have a single national ID card, but generally still charge for replacing identity documents with certain exceptions. The common thread is clear: identity is guaranteed as a basic right, while fees are corrective, not exclusive. In the Indonesian context, the discourse raised by Bima Arya Sugiarto must be designed with caution. Without a protection scheme, a fee policy risks widening inequalities. Vulnerable groups who most need quick access to identity may become the most affected parties. Theoretical approaches reinforce this caution. Richard Musgrave in The Theory of Public Finance (1959) emphasises that the state’s distribution function demands public policies be designed to maintain social justice, particularly in imposing costs on citizens.