Is the digital economy truly empowering and inclusive, or is it silently reinforcing new forms of exploitation, masked behind algorithms and convenience?
This question grows more urgent as millions of gig workers across Southeast Asia, particularly motorcycle taxi drivers in countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, begin to speak out against the very platforms that claim to empower them. In May 2025, thousands of Indonesian drivers staged mass demonstrations and coordinated “off-bid” strikes, demanding recognition of their employment status. Many rejected the so-called “partnership” system that strips them of basic labor protections, calling it a form of “modern-day slavery.” Reni Astuti from the Indonesian Parliament revealed that platforms such as Gojek and Grab often take commissions as high as 30–50%, far above the government’s recommended 20% cap (Melina, 2024). These protests actually reveal a deeper truth. Digital technology, while transformative, does not automatically create justice. In fact, without careful regulation, it can deepen social and economic exclusion, especially in regions where institutional protections remain weak.
Southeast Asia is one of the world’s fastest-growing digital economies. By mid-2020, investment in tech had surged to USD 2.7 billion in just one quarter, a 91% increase over the previous period (Iwamoto, 2020, as cited in Rahmadhani, 2020).With over 400 million internet users, about 70% of the region’s population, the demand for digital services has exploded, from ride-hailing and food delivery to e-wallets and mobile banking. In this ecosystem, Gojek and Grab stand as dominant players. More than mere platforms, they are reshaping labor structures, consumer behavior, and even public policy. But behind their sleek apps lies a labor model that increasingly relies on outsourcing risk to workers while hoarding profits and power at the top.
According to the UNCTAD Digital Economy Report (2021), the global data economy is alarmingly unequal. A handful of corporations now control massive flows of user data, turning it into a form of capital. This concentration of digital power creates new asymmetries not only between corporations and individuals but also between the Global North and South. In countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, where laws and oversight mechanisms remain underdeveloped, these asymmetries translate into real harm, especially for gig workers who lack legal recognition or safety nets.
Take the case of Gojek drivers in Indonesia. Labeled as “partners” or “independent contractors,” they are excluded from the protections given to formal employees who have no minimum wage, no social security, and no paid leave. Their income depends entirely on platform-controlled algorithms, which assign orders, determine fares, and calculate bonuses without transparency. Gojek has promoted this model as flexible and empowering. In practice, however, this so-called freedom becomes a trap. Many drivers feel pressured to stay online constantly just to earn enough for daily survival. Their “freedom” is one of necessity, not choice.
The situation is similar in Vietnam, where drivers for Gojek and Grab are technically independent but are treated like employees in practice—told where to go, how much to charge, and when to work. In 2019, a tax hike on Grab drivers in Ho Chi Minh City sparked mass strikes. In response, the Vietnamese government began considering an hourly minimum wage for platform workers. Even in Singapore, known for its regulatory sophistication, challenges persist. In 2023, Grab officially recognized two worker associations, Delivery Champions Association (NDCA) and National Private Hire Vehicles Association (NPHVA), to represent delivery riders and private-hire drivers. This was a positive step, yet many drivers still struggle with long hours, income instability, and a lack of bargaining power. Ultimately, these platforms aren’t just restructuring labor. They are also shaping the narrative around empowerment. And often, that narrative disguises a deeper imbalance of power. The promise of flexibility is often used to mask a new kind of exploitation that falls outside traditional labor law categories. The result is a labor force that appears “free” but operates within systems that offer few rights, little stability, and no accountability.
Beyond labor, the dream of digital inclusion remains far from reality. Gojek and Grab primarily serve urban centers, leaving rural areas with limited access due to poor infrastructure and low profit potential. This reinforces existing geographic inequalities where digital services and opportunities are concentrated in cities while rural communities are left behind. Moreover, the dominance of digital payments excludes those without access to banking services. Millions of “unbanked” individuals, especially in remote or low-income communities, cannot participate fully in the digital economy due to lack of infrastructure, devices, or financial literacy. But inequality in digital access is just one part of the story. A deeper imbalance exists in who controls the infrastructure of the digital economy, especially data.
The digital economy runs on data, but the benefits don’t always stay with those who generate it. Developing countries often don’t benefit from the value created by data collected within their borders. This is largely due to a lack of infrastructure, legal protections, and institutional capacity (UNCTAD, 2021). Even companies like Gojek and Grab, which originate in the Global South, operate within a global capitalist logic, backed by foreign investors and integrated into international markets. Data extracted from users and workers in Indonesia or Vietnam is often stored and monetized elsewhere, beyond the reach of national regulations. This leads to a dangerous dependency. National governments are increasingly reliant on private platforms to provide digital infrastructure, but they lack the legal and technical tools to enforce fairness or accountability. This creates a structural imbalance where developing countries remain subordinate in a global digital architecture shaped by powerful corporate actors.
Indonesia’s legal frameworks have not kept pace with digital transformation. Although the country passed a Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP), enforcement remains weak, especially concerning cross-border data flows and the accountability of multinational platforms like Gojek and Grab. Gig workers’ legal status also remains ambiguous. The state has yet to issue comprehensive policies that recognize gig workers as part of the formal labor market. This legal vacuum keeps millions in a precarious position, vulnerable to income fluctuations and arbitrary treatment by platforms.
By contrast, Singapore has taken a more balanced approach. Through its Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) and participation in the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), it has promoted cross-border data governance while strengthening domestic protections. This proves that inclusive innovation is possible when governments are proactive.
Digital inequality in Southeast Asia is not just a domestic issue; it reflects deeper global divides. In the global data economy, developing nations often serve as raw data exporters without sovereignty over how that data is used or monetized. UNCTAD (2021) warns that this imbalance risks creating new layers of exclusion, especially for low-income communities who are both digitally invisible and economically marginalized.
To build a fairer digital future, countries like Indonesia must enact reforms that go beyond growth targets. First, governments should formally recognize gig workers as employees, with rights to minimum wages, social protections, and representation. Second, data governance must be reoriented around digital sovereignty, the idea that people and governments have the right to control how their data is collected, stored, and used. Finally, Southeast Asian countries should work through ASEAN to harmonize ethical and legal standards across the region. A shared framework on labor protections, data governance, and algorithm transparency could form the backbone of a digital economy that empowers rather than exploits.
The rise of the digital economy should not be used as an excuse to bypass social justice. If left unregulated, the digital boom will not reduce inequality. It will simply reproduce it in digital form. As UNCTAD (2021) notes, when digital transformation is driven solely by market forces, it does not lead to inclusive revolution. It leads to a restoration of economic power in new forms. To prevent this, states, civil society, and regional communities must work together to build a digital architecture that is transparent, fair, and grounded in human dignity—not just algorithms.
