Recommended approach. In the light of the explanation in Article 31(2) of Law 24, our position remains that the best interpretation is that the Indonesian version and the foreign language version should be equivalent. However, we recommend being especially careful in preparing the Indonesian version, in order to ensure that there are no significant differences between the two versions. For the second scenario, in accordance with Article 26(3)(63), the foreign language and/or English version shall only be used as an equivalent or translation of the Indonesian language, in order to reconcile the understanding of MOUs and agreements involving foreign parties. This provision raises the question of when the Indonesian language version of the agreement is to be implemented. PR 63 does not distinguish between Indonesian subjects who may have foreign stakeholders, such as LDCs (considered Indonesian private companies). It is true that Article 26(2). that contracts concluded by an Indonesian party and in which a foreign party is involved must be drafted (including) in the language of that foreign party and/or in English and that Article 26, paragraph 4, allows the parties to agree on the relevant language (which could therefore be English) is unclear whether the same provisions and principles also apply in the event that an LDC concludes a contract with another Indonesian legal person. In this context, would the parties be required to sign the contract only in Indonesian, although this does not correspond to the wishes and interests of the parties to such a transaction (including foreign interested parties)? Unfortunately, there are no clear answers to these questions in PR 63.
The Indonesian and foreign language versions] shall also be authentic. Third, the Court held, in accordance with Indonesian civil law, that the trust agreement or, in that regard, any type of guarantee contract was an accessory to a loan agreement. According to Law 24, it is mandatory, according to PR 63, to use the Indonesian language in any official communication in the working environment of government institutions and the private sector. This includes written or oral communication between staff and institutions or communication by electronic means. It would also involve formal communication with foreign bodies for which an interpreter can be consulted in order to smooth the communication. PR 63 does not provide for a transitional period and entered into force at the time of its adoption (30 September 2019), although it appears that the regulation was not made public until 9 October. This means that all agreements concluded from 30 September on or after September are covered by this regime. . . .