The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsHow knowledge is mobilized, actioned or rejected
Knowledge is not neutral; it can be deployed to legitimize those residing in the ivory tower just as easily as those seated at the policy table. Crucially, knowledge must travel if it is to inform state responses to recurring crises.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
People take part in a rally in Yogyakarta on Sept. 8, 2026, demanding an end to the government's free nutritious meal program after multiple cases of food poisoning. (Reuters/Dwi Oblo)
I
ndonesia’s contemporary policy debates are increasingly defined by demands from civil society for the administration to justify its decisions using rigorous empirical data, sound evidence and institutional expertise.
A recent survey by Kabinetbayangan.id (shadow cabinet), a civil society initiative comprising think tanks such as CELIOS, has revealed broad public concern that President Prabowo Subianto’s administration is guided primarily by political expedience rather than technical proficiency.
Academics, nongovernmental organizations and youth advocacy groups argue that many of the country's persistent crises, from catastrophic wildfires to widespread food poisoning incidents linked to the free nutritious meal (MBG) program, stem directly from the administration's dismissal of expert consensus. Rather than engaging with constructive critique, President Prabowo has repeatedly rejected and discredited independent findings, advancing state-sponsored counternarratives through public rhetoric and political maneuvering.
Indeed, Prabowo has explicitly voiced contempt for pakar (domain experts). In a public address before the National Mandate Party (PAN), he derided specialists, remarking that researchers could become so absorbed in academia that they became “goblok” (a derogatory term denoting utter stupidity).
The remark triggered widespread outrage within the academic community, prompting warnings that the state was leaning into anti-intellectualism: a known hallmark of democratic backsliding. While Prabowo subsequently convened expert forums amid worsening national crises, this gesture was largely performative rather than a substantive shift toward evidence-based governance.
The continued implementation of high-risk programs despite documented failures illustrates that the marginalization of expert input is not accidental but structurally embedded in the regime’s institutional logic.
First: populist imperatives versus administrative reality. Prabowo’s core campaign pledge, "no child will go hungry", operates primarily as a populist vehicle designed to sustain electoral support. While initial approval ratings were high, subsequent polling as highlighted by international outlets such as The Economist indicates sharp declines.
