Diaspora Groups Push Back Against High Costs of Indonesia’s Global Citizen Residency Scheme

Indonesia’s diaspora organisations have criticised the newly introduced Global Citizen of Indonesia (GCI) residency scheme, arguing that its high fees and financial conditions undermine its stated goal of reconnecting the country with former citizens and their descendants.

The GCI programme, launched on January 26, offers lifetime residence permits to eligible applicants with Indonesian family or historical ties. However, applicants are required to pay a visa fee of Rp34.8 million (about $2,090), a cost diaspora groups say is excessive for a policy meant to strengthen national bonds.

Beyond the visa fee, applicants must also show proof of a minimum income of roughly $1,500 per month or $15,000 annually, alongside a refundable financial guarantee in the form of investments such as bonds, stocks, mutual funds, or high-value property. Only those applying under family reunification are exempt from the financial guarantee.

The Indonesian Diaspora Network United (IDN United) and Indonesian Diaspora Network Global (IDN Global) have openly opposed the approach, warning that it frames the diaspora as a revenue source rather than long-term partners. Representatives say overseas Indonesians contribute through skills transfer, professional networks, and knowledge exchange, not just remittances.

Diaspora leaders also questioned the programme’s appeal, noting that only a handful of applications have been submitted despite an estimated overseas Indonesian population of more than seven million. Concerns include unclear eligibility rules for former citizens and mixed-marriage families, limited transparency on benefits, and uncertainty over long-term legal protections.

Immigration authorities, however, defend the policy, stating that the GCI balances Indonesia’s ban on dual citizenship with the need to attract diaspora participation in national development. Officials insist the scheme provides a legal pathway for sustained engagement, though critics argue its current structure may deter the very communities it aims to attract.