Indonesia RPTKA for Remote Positions: Can a Foreign National Work Remotely for an Indonesian Company?

A Jakarta based PT PMA wants to hire a senior developer based in Lisbon. The role is fully remote, the developer has no intention of relocating, and the company assumes that since they are formally employing a foreign national, an RPTKA must be the starting point. It is not. The entire premise behind that assumption misunderstands what an RPTKA is built to authorize, and getting this wrong early can mean weeks lost chasing a permit that was never going to apply to this situation in the first place.

This confusion sits at the intersection of three separate frameworks that rarely get untangled clearly: the manpower authorization that governs foreign workers physically employed inside Indonesia, the immigration permit introduced specifically for remote workers, and the tax and payroll mechanics that apply when an Indonesian company pays someone who never sets foot in the country. Each answers a different version of “can a foreigner work remotely for us,” and the correct path depends entirely on which version actually describes the arrangement.

What RPTKA Was Actually Built to Authorize

The Rencana Penggunaan Tenaga Kerja Asing, the Foreign Worker Utilization Plan, exists under Government Regulation No. 34 of 2021 and Minister of Manpower Regulation No. 8 of 2021 as the foundational manpower approval an Indonesian employer must secure before placing a foreign national into a specific role. It is, by design, a company level authorization. It documents the position, the qualifications required, the duration of employment, and the company’s commitment to training an Indonesian counterpart to eventually take over the role.

Every part of that structure assumes physical placement. The RPTKA feeds directly into the work permit notification and the working KITAS process (the E23 category), which in turn assumes the foreign worker is physically present at a registered workplace in Indonesia, reporting to that location, and subject to ongoing manpower reporting obligations tied to that physical presence.

A role with no physical presence component does not fit naturally into this structure, because the structure was never written with that scenario in mind. This is the gap that catches companies off guard. They read that hiring a foreign national requires RPTKA, correctly, and then apply that rule to a remote arrangement where the foundational assumption behind RPTKA, physical placement at a workplace, simply does not exist.

The Permit That Actually Covers Remote Work: E33G

Indonesia did not leave this gap unaddressed indefinitely. Effective 1 April 2024, the government introduced the E33G Remote Worker KITAS, a residence permit specifically designed for foreign nationals who want to live in Indonesia while working for an employer based outside the country.

This is where the structure of the question matters enormously. E33G was built for exactly one direction of remote arrangement:

• The foreign national is employed by, or under contract with, a company registered outside Indonesia
• The foreign national wants to physically reside in Indonesia while performing that work
• Income is earned from foreign sources and may not be paid by, or received from, any Indonesian entity or individual

That last condition is the one most often misunderstood. E33G explicitly prohibits the holder from receiving compensation from Indonesian companies. Several visa agencies handling E33G applications note this restriction in plain terms: the moment an Indonesian entity becomes the source of payment, the E33G framework no longer applies, regardless of where the work is physically performed from.

This means E33G solves the opposite direction of arrangement from the one in our opening scenario. E33G is for a foreign national who lives in Indonesia and works for a company abroad, the developer relocating to Bali while still paid by a firm in London or Singapore. It is not for the reverse situation, a foreign national who lives abroad and is paid by a company inside Indonesia, which is exactly what the Jakarta PT PMA in our opening example was trying to do. Because E33G requires the income source to sit entirely outside Indonesia, an Indonesian employer cannot use this permit category to engage someone remotely, regardless of where that person happens to be living.

Explore Our Services  Work Permit (IMTA) in Indonesia

What E33G Requires in Practice

For a foreign national pursuing this route, the baseline requirements include:

• Employment by or a contract with a company registered outside Indonesia
• Minimum annual income of USD 60,000 from foreign sources
• Personal bank statements showing sufficient funds, generally USD 2,000 or more depending on application channel
• A passport valid for the required minimum period
• No authorization to sell goods or services within Indonesia, or to take on local clients

The permit runs for one year and functions on a reapply basis rather than a true renewal. Holders who want to continue beyond the initial period generally need to exit Indonesia, process an Exit Permit Only, and reapply for a new E33G from outside the country rather than extending in place. This procedural detail is frequently described online as “renewable,” which creates its own confusion among foreign nationals planning their stay around it.

So What Happens When the Indonesian Company Is the Employer?

Return to the original scenario. A PT PMA in Jakarta wants to formally employ a developer in Lisbon, paying that person directly, with no expectation that the developer relocates to Indonesia at all. Neither RPTKA nor E33G is built for this. RPTKA assumes physical placement inside Indonesia. E33G assumes the income source sits outside Indonesia. This arrangement is neither.

What actually governs this situation is a combination of employment structuring and tax withholding rules, not immigration permits at all, because no immigration permit is required for someone who never enters Indonesia to work.

The mechanics that matter here include:

• PPh 26 withholding. Where an Indonesian company pays a non-resident foreign individual for services rendered, Indonesian tax law generally requires withholding under Article 26 of the Income Tax Law, at a standard rate of 20% unless a tax treaty between Indonesia and the individual’s country of residence provides a reduced rate.
• Employment contract structuring. Indonesian labor law protections under the Manpower Law, as amended through the Job Creation framework, are generally oriented around employment relationships physically performed within Indonesian jurisdiction. A genuinely offshore remote arrangement is more commonly structured as a foreign-law employment contract or an independent contractor relationship, rather than an Indonesian PKWT or PKWTT governed by domestic labor protections.
• No RPTKA, no KITAS, no working visa requirement. Because the individual never performs work from within Indonesian territory, the manpower and immigration frameworks that exist to authorize foreign labor inside the country do not apply at all.

This is precisely the kind of structuring question that benefits from review before an offer is extended, because the default assumption many HR teams reach for, “we need a work permit for any foreign hire,” simply does not hold once the physical location of the work shifts entirely outside Indonesia.

Explore Our Services  HR Administration in Indonesia

The Scenario Most Companies Actually Mean: Hybrid and Frequent Travel

In practice, the cleanest version of “fully remote, never sets foot in the country” is rarer than the messier reality most companies actually encounter. A foreign hire who travels to Jakarta periodically for strategy sessions, a regional manager who splits time between Singapore and an Indonesian subsidiary, or an executive who relocates but continues managing a primarily remote team, all sit somewhere between the RPTKA framework and the E33G framework, and the correct classification depends on specifics that are easy to get wrong.

The relevant threshold to track is physical presence and tax residency. A foreign individual present in Indonesia for more than 183 days within a 12-month period generally becomes an Indonesian tax resident, taxed on worldwide income, regardless of which visa or permit they hold. This residency threshold operates independently of immigration status, which means a company can find itself with unexpected withholding obligations even where the underlying work arrangement was structured around a remote or E33G framing.

For roles involving regular but limited physical presence in Indonesia, the standard E23 working KITAS route through RPTKA generally remains the correct structure if any meaningful portion of the role is performed from inside the country on a recurring basis. The step by step RPTKA application process covers what that pathway requires once it has been confirmed as the right one for the role in question.

What This Means for How Companies Should Actually Plan This

The practical sequence that avoids the most common missteps starts with classifying the arrangement honestly before reaching for any permit category at all.

If the foreign national will be physically based in Indonesia and the Indonesian entity is the direct employer, RPTKA and the standard E23 work permit pathway apply, and this is the scenario the existing RPTKA application guide addresses in full. If the foreign national wants to live in Indonesia while remaining employed and paid by a company outside the country, E33G is the correct route, and RPTKA is not relevant at all. If the foreign national will never be physically present in Indonesia and the Indonesian entity is paying them directly, the governing questions shift entirely to tax withholding and contract structuring, with no immigration permit required because no work is being performed inside Indonesian territory.

Companies that skip this classification step and default straight to “we need RPTKA because we are hiring a foreigner” are the ones who end up either filing for a permit that does not match the actual arrangement, or discovering months later that a withholding obligation under PPh 26 applied all along and was never addressed. Getting the classification right before any paperwork is filed is significantly less expensive than untangling it after a payment has already been made or a permit application has already been rejected for not fitting the framework it was submitted under.

For PT PMA companies building out a team that includes a genuine mix of in-country hires, relocating remote workers, and fully offshore contractors, working through this classification as part of broader workforce planning is exactly where XPND’s team tends to add the most value, surfacing the right structure for each role individually rather than applying a single template across very different employment arrangements. 

If you are planning to bring a foreign hire into a role that does not fit neatly into “based in our Jakarta office full time,” it is worth working through where that role actually falls before extending an offer or starting any permit process. Our team can help map the right structure for your specific arrangement, whether that means RPTKA and a working KITAS, the E33G pathway, or a withholding and contracting structure that requires no immigration filing at all.