@Lavergne,
Miss Bad_azz has already done a good job answering you.
She is absolutely right (save perhaps for the "Orang
Asin"
) to stress the fact that there is no gender discrimination in the Law. Both male and female are treated equally.
Article 61 of the Immigration Law (UU 6/2011) stipulates that ANY holder of an ITAS or an ITAP sponsored by an Indonesian spouse (ie: suami atau istri) may work and/or do business in order to satisfy
his/her living needs
and/or his/her family living needs.
Basically it means that you can not only work to feed your family but, and it is important, in case of a divorce or death of the Indonesian spouse and assuming that you are eligible to keep your ITAS/ITAP, you can continue to work/do business to satisfy your living needs.
Basically as long as your ITAS/ITAP which has been
issued because of your legal marriage with an Indonesian is still valid, you keep this right. It is attached to the type of ITAS/P you has been issued, NOT with the fact that you remain married or that your husband/wife is still alive. It's a very important point to keep in mind. Those of us who have cumulated 10 years+ of marriage have a very strong ground.
This article of Law, since passed in May 2011, has been widely commented, often by people with little clue about Indonesian Law.
Worse, I have read people saying "I've asked/I will ask my Notaris... blablabla..." as if Notaris would have any knowledge of either the Immigration Law or the Manpower Law or would have ever attended a session in an Indonesian Court of Justice.
I have also heard/read comments as silly as: "you can work but you should not make much money". Really? How someone who pretend having some kind of Education can peddle such inanities is beyond me. But if you check the archives of Expat forums you may find similar comments. As if an Indonesian panel of judge would take in consideration your income to decide if you have broken the law or as if a prosecutor would assess what should be considered your personal or family living needs.
The law doesn't say that you should be able to have a bowl of rice and a three inches ikan deho but no more. The Law says that you may provide for your family. Only you and your spouse can define what are the family needs. Not a judge, not a prosecutor, not an Immigration officer or Manpower civil servant. Also, the exact wording of art. 61 is "keluarganya". What is the legal definition of "keluarganya"? Does it includes your mother, father or brots and sis who may also depend on you financially? The argument of "we may work but only make small money" is just ludicrous.
Now the Law (both the Immigration Law and Manpower Law) also say that, despite having the right of work, you can't be considered as a Tenaga Kerja Asing (a foreign worker) and therefore, as the Law stands at the moment, it rules you out of the list of those who can be concerned by an IMTA (the employment permit issued to companies for a foreigners). This may sound innocuous, but it is of the utmost importance for us, foreigners holding an ITAS/P sponsored by an Indonesian spouse. A company should NOT have an IMTA issued for a foreigner who is holding an ITAS/P sponsored by his/her spouse.
We should not be issued an IMTA and anyway criteria to have an IMTA issued to a foreigners are far too restrictive to accommodate article 61 UU 6/2011. Basically a foreigner concerned by an IMTA should be fluent in Bahasa Indonesia, should have a certain number of years of experience in his/her field of work, should have a certain credential/diploma attesting he/she his an expert, should be assisted by a certain number of Indonesian worker to whom he/she should transmit his/her knowledge and last, he/she should be working for a PT, which rules out a lot of type of companies we could work for in order to satisfy our living needs and the one of our family. If we would be considered TKA, and therefore concerned by an IMTA, many/most of us would de facto be denied their right to provide for their family. This would be a gross infringement of art.61 UU 6/2011.
So... can we work anywhere, as we please? As BA already explained a certain number of Laws regulate professions and some of these professions are therefore out of reach to us. For example, we can't be doctors without having the proper cred and an izin to be a practitioner can't be issued to WNA...etc. We can't claim that these specific regs infringe our right to work/do business to satisfy the living needs of the family because there are still a LOT of option/work available to us. You can't claim seriously that you MUST be a doctor and nothing else.
Can you be a dive master freelance or free lance yoga instructor? Theoretically and technically you should be allowed to do so. However, I can tell you that Nakertrans (the Manpower posse) will not see it kindly. The reason is simple: money.
First, they have been used for decades to levy USD 1200 per foreign head per year from companies employing foreign instructors. And now you will have to explain them all the above and that their Ministry should find other ways to finance them. Good luck.
Second, most people at the lower levels in Nakertrans freak out whenever they hear that prices in the Diving industry are quoted in USD. When they hear that a diving day is charged over USD 100, they think it's only profit for you. They don't think cost and they don't give a rat's ass about your Diving Education and the fact that you've poured X thousand of dollars to become a PADI (or whatever) Instructor. They just see that the company or you are charging USD 100 per day per head and they definitely think that there is room for a share for them. Then starts the hassles.
Though you shouldn't be restricted I believe it is much better to avoid being directly confrontational. In the past 6 years+ I have always made my kantor Imigrasi and my regional nakertrans office aware of all my activities. I have also explained them politely my point and I have tried to have them feel, without saying it, that should they disagree with my point, neither my wife not I were willing to bow.
Personally, I don't mind to be the first test case in court concerning art. 61 UU 6/2011. There are so many articles of law to build up a defense that what worries me the most is the time I will have to sacrifice to just pick a few.