The beginning of September in Aceh, Indonesia, was once again marked by disappointment. Not because of the national political turmoil that had seeped into the region, but rather because of a classic problem that would never recur: the crash of the Byond application owned by Bank Syariah Indonesia (BSI).
Complaints were popping up everywhere. There were housewives who failed to pay their children's college fees. Others transferred funds from other banks to BSI, but the money still hadn't arrived for days. Social media was filled with expressions of frustration: customers felt they were being manipulated by the bank that was supposed to provide certainty.
This disruption wasn't just an application issue. The impact was real: delayed transactions, unpaid bills, hampered activities, and some even had to go into debt to meet urgent needs. A situation where money has been deducted but never reached its destination clearly violates the fundamental principle of banking: trust.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the first time such a problem had occurred. Almost every year, the BSI system experiences mass disruptions. The public naturally asked: how much moral and material loss have customers borne? What are the results of BSI's internal evaluation? Why do the problems recur, seemingly without a complete solution?
Outside Aceh, customers may feel more at ease: they still have other, more reliable banking options. But in Aceh, since the "total conversion to Sharia" policy was implemented, the public has only had one option: BSI. This monopoly has created costly vulnerabilities. Instead of bringing benefits, it has actually caused harm.
Therefore, this incident should be a serious evaluation for policymakers in Aceh. Is the policy of closing conventional banks really the best course of action? Should the public continue to be sacrificed to maintain a monopoly that often creates technical and service problems?
The Byond disruption is a stark warning: Aceh needs a healthy, competitive financial ecosystem that favors the people's interests. A system that opens up opportunities for choice, not closes doors to alternatives. Otherwise, the Acehnese people will continue to pay a high price for policies that are beautiful on paper but flawed in practice.[]
