Being fiscally prudent amid these uncertainties is a good thing, but the manner and scale of these cuts raise serious questions about their urgency, rationale and long-term impact of such a decision.

While some aspects have been clarified and rolled back, we never expected that the cut would be so deep in certain ministries and agencies that it would create unnecessary impacts.

It is saddening to see the government consider slashing government contract workers and scholarships to meet the target despite later canceling such plans.

It is understandable that people are disappointed with the cuts that were supposed to pave the way for the free nutritious meal program.

A broadcaster from a state-owned radio station who summarized accounts of those impacted, showed this contrast, saying that the budget cut may help provide meals for some students at school, but with their parents no longer employed, they may not be able to afford dinner.

Moreover, those who designed the cuts did not thoroughly consider that the policy also contradicts Prabowo’s food self-sufficiency priority as the government canceled thousands of hectares of irrigation projects and over a dozen dams that were supposed to be built starting this year.

A 50-percent cut of the national weather agency’s budget also shows how the government undermined disaster preparedness in a country facing numerous and intense natural disasters for which adequate responses are already lacking.

Businesses had also been anticipating that these cuts may disrupt public services, particularly those related to permits and bureaucracy, which even under normal conditions are deemed to be unpredictable and often lengthy.

If there is a positive note about the policy, it is perhaps the fact that for the first time in years, President Prabowo finally moved the National Police and the Defense Ministry into the target sights of these cuts. The two institutions are the country’s two largest spenders in the state budget and also enjoy almost consistent increases in their allotments each year.

However, President Prabowo should look even closer; with more than 100 members, his cabinet may be one of the largest in the world, with numerous ministries and agencies having overlapping responsibilities. Trimming this excess should have been the first step he took in any cost-cutting exercise.

The abruptness of these cuts suggests a lack of thorough planning. The government appears to have acted hastily, only to roll back some of the most controversial cuts after public outcry.

Budget adjustments of this magnitude should be preceded by rigorous analysis and stakeholder consultations.

Until now, the public is still guessing where the money that the government desperately wants to save will go. So far, we only understand that around Rp 100 trillion will be channeled to beef up the free meals program, for which the administration had already earmarked over Rp 71 trillion.

The purpose of the remaining Rp 200 trillion plus remains a mystery that the government is not able to detail apart from assuring that it will choose to reallocate the funds to areas deemed to have a significant multiplier effect to the economy.

The House of Representatives, which appears to have been largely bypassed by the government, should be critical and not give a rubber stamp to the administration just because they were excluded from the cuts.

The recent budget cuts may not just imply a policy misstep; they reflect skewed priorities. In the absence of a genuine emergency, the government’s actions appear less like prudent fiscal management and more like a reckless gamble with the country’s future.