Indonesia Doesn't Need the Corleone Family

The student representatives who staged a protest in Jakarta were received directly by Vice‑President Gibran on Monday, 15 June 2026, while President Prabowo was contending with a wave of demonstrations. This meeting may be viewed as a political manoeuvre, in which Gibran opened direct access to the protesting crowd. More accurately, however, it should be described as an attempt to preserve Gibran’s image and position amidst the pressure of demonstrations, rather than as a hidden threat.

The students welcomed by Gibran came from UBK (Universitas Bung Karno), UT (Universitas Terbuka), and UMh Thamrin (Universitas MH Thamrin). These institutions are not traditionally recognised as strongholds of student activism, unlike UI, UGM, Unair, or ITB. This lends the situation an unusual air: suddenly there was a protest over the MBG issue, which is typically championed by students from major universities with a robust activist base.

The presence of only fifteen participants further undermines the notion of a “large‑scale protest” deserving national attention. Stranger still, after the orator announced the agenda, the students were promptly received by Gibran in a process that appeared swift and highly structured. The meeting itself lasted an hour behind closed doors, with the media barred from entry and asked to wait outside, thereby raising concerns about transparency.

Possible interpretations include the idea that this was a “manufactured” or “co‑ordinated” protest, perhaps initiated or supported by certain parties to exert pressure on the government. Students from smaller universities may have been “steered” towards demonstrating on a specific issue. While the MBG controversy is undeniably a hot topic nationwide, which could plausibly draw in students from less activist‑oriented campuses, the circumstances remain peculiar. With such a small number of participants, the action seems more symbolic—an opportunity to gain access to Gibran—rather than a genuine attempt to destabilise the government.

Questions worth raising:

• Who actually organised the demonstration?
• Why did BEM UBK suddenly issue a 5×24‑hour ultimatum, despite its usual inactivity?
• Do these fifteen students represent a broader protest movement, or were they acting alone?
• The observation that “it seems odd for them to protest in isolation” is indeed reasonable. It suggests that this was not a purely spontaneous student movement, but rather one facilitated by a co‑ordinator or third party.

Gibran’s meeting with representatives from non‑traditional universities raised significant questions about its motives and substance. Amidst the public scrutiny surrounding this political manoeuvre, he then appeared in a video that proved equally controversial: speaking about artificial intelligence whilst stroking a cat, a gesture that immediately drew comparisons with Vito "Don" Corleone in The Godfather.

Many observers argued that the video emphasised image over substance. The act of stroking the cat rendered his political message more akin to a visual “gimmick”, with audiences more inclined to note the resemblance to Don Corleone than to listen to the content of his speech. Some even suspected that the AI discourse might serve as a potential business or commercial project, particularly should Gibran pursue the presidency.

The video can be interpreted as an attempt to project a “modern and technologically attuned” persona, yet it ultimately reinforced the impression that Gibran relies more on visual symbolism than intellectual capacity. With public doubts about his competence already widespread, the cat became a symbol that further entrenched the perception of style prevailing over substance.

A Family at the Wrong Address

Picture a dimly lit room. Velvet curtains seal off the windows, and the only light falls from a single desk lamp, trained squarely on the host’s face. In his lap sits a Persian cat, stroked slowly, in time with words delivered low and measured, as though each one were a bullet too precious to waste. “I’m going to make him an offer,” he murmurs, “he can’t refuse.”

We know this scene so well from the cinema that we forget it isn’t merely fiction. It is a mirror—and, unfortunately, that mirror sometimes hangs in rooms that ought to contain a roadmap for the people’s welfare, rather than a roadmap for one family’s grip on power.

In the world of film, the Corleones operate by their own logic: loyalty above the law, honour above truth, power handed down like an heirloom. That makes for gripping cinema. But a nation is not a crime family, and a president is not a Don bequeathing the throne to his eldest son with a murmured, “It’s not personal. It’s strictly business.”

Regrettably, some of our elites seem altogether too fond of playing the lead in their own family saga: deciding who may run, who must step aside, which projects are “safe”, and who is fit to kiss the ring before being granted their blessing. The difference is that in the film, the casualties are fictional extras. Here, the casualties are the budgets that should have built schools, clinics, and village roads.

Lighthouses That Dazzle Rather Than Guide

There is a particular species of project that always seems to spring up in election years: vast, grand, christened with an imposing name, unveiled with a red ribbon and a rousing speech. A “beacon project”, they call it—a symbol of progress. But a true lighthouse guides ships safely home; it does not blind the public to the sight of other vessels sinking under the weight of poverty, nor obscure the fact that its dazzling beam is funded from the very same purse as healthcare and education.

More damning still is the rumour that some of that light also illuminates the path to the party congress, the roadside billboards, and, naturally, the ambition to become the country’s most powerful man. The beacon project, then, is no longer about lighting the nation’s way—it is about lighting one man’s way to the throne, with the electricity bill quietly settled by the public.

 

Not the Inheritance the Founders Intended

The founding fathers did not gather in committee to draft a dynasty. In the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution—not as decorative prose, but as a solemn pledge—they wrote that this nation was established to protect the entire people, to advance the general welfare, to educate the life of the nation, and to realise social justice for all Indonesians.

Not one of those four aims reads: to ensure a particular family remains in power. No clause states: beacon projects are permissible, provided they benefit the sponsoring party. The founders bequeathed an ideal, not a signet ring to be kissed down the generations. 

Closing: Stroke the Cat, but Don’t Take the Public for Fools

There is nothing wrong with stroking a cat—it is, after all, a soothing private habit. What is wrong is when that soft-spoken, dignified delivery is used to mask a cold calculation: how many projects can be secured, how much can be funnelled into party coffers, how many steps remain to the top seat—while poverty and inequality are left as a footnote, skimmed over rather than read.

Indonesia does not need a family that speaks in gentle, veiled threats. It needs leaders who speak plainly about the price of rice, the wages of labourers, and access to healthcare in the furthest-flung villages. Not an offer that can’t be refused, but accountability that cannot be avoided.

For in the end, a great nation is not measured by the grandeur of its beacons, but by how brightly it lights the way home for those left furthest behind—without requiring anyone to kiss a ring to get there.

Bahasa

Should the Free Nutritious Meals Programme Be Terminated

The Free Nutritious Meals Programme is a public policy designed to ensure adequate nutrition for schoolchildren, reduce stunting, improve concentration in class, and strengthen the foundations of long‑term human capital. Amid public debate, calls have arisen to terminate the programme because it places a heavy burden on the State Budget (APBN). This essay adopts a firm position: the programme must not be terminated. The analysis employs an ideopoleksosbud framework — ideology, politics, economy, social, and culture — to demonstrate that ending the programme would inflict structural harm far greater than the short‑term fiscal burden often cited as justification.

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

This analysis integrates human development theory, political legitimacy theory, and welfare perspectives. Methodologically, it is normative‑analytic: it examines the programme’s consistency with the nation’s ideological commitments, assesses political impacts on governmental legitimacy, evaluates the economic trade‑offs between fiscal outlays and human capital investment, and weighs social and cultural consequences. Arguments are constructed through causal and conceptual reasoning linking child nutrition to future productivity, public health costs, and social cohesion.

Ideological Analysis

From the standpoint of national ideology, particularly Pancasila which foregrounds social justice for all Indonesians, the Free Nutritious Meals Programme is a concrete manifestation of that mandate. A state that professes to secure citizens’ welfare cannot readily abandon responsibility for basic needs of children, especially nutrition that determines cognitive development and learning capacity. Terminating the programme solely for fiscal efficiency would be ideologically inconsistent: the state would be rhetorically committed to equity but retreat from implementation when costs become tangible.

Moreover, human development ideology prioritises investment in children as both a moral and strategic imperative. Adequate nutrition in childhood is not mere consumption; it is human capital formation shaping the next generation’s productive capacity. Thus, ending the programme would contravene ideological principles that require the state to prioritise the welfare of future citizens.

Political Analysis

Politically, the programme serves both symbolic and instrumental functions. Symbolically, it signals government commitment to public welfare; instrumentally, it can increase school attendance, reduce dropout rates, and enhance the administration’s public image. Termination would produce tangible political costs: erosion of public trust, narratives that the government values fiscal metrics over citizens’ welfare, and opportunities for opposition actors to mobilise discontent.

Political legitimacy depends on the perception that the state meets basic citizen needs. When policies that affect daily life—such as provision of nutritious meals to children—are withdrawn, legitimacy is undermined. Over the medium term, this erosion can precipitate political instability that, in turn, generates additional economic and social costs, rendering the short‑term fiscal savings counterproductive.

Economic Analysis

The principal fiscal objection is the programme’s drain on the APBN. While national‑scale programmes do require substantial budgetary allocations, a comprehensive economic assessment must account for long‑term costs and benefits. Childhood undernutrition is directly associated with reduced cognitive capacity, lower adult productivity, and higher lifetime healthcare costs due to chronic conditions rooted in early malnutrition.

Public expenditure on child nutrition should be viewed as productive investment in human capital. Spending on nutritious school meals increases learning outcomes and eventual earnings potential, thereby expanding the tax base and reducing future reliance on social assistance. Additionally, reductions in stunting and nutrition‑related illnesses lower public healthcare expenditure. Terminating the programme to reduce short‑term deficits, without considering cumulative effects on national productivity, is a shortsighted fiscal policy.

Cost‑benefit analyses typically show that the long‑term economic returns from improved child nutrition exceed initial outlays. Therefore, fiscal concerns alone do not justify termination; instead, budgetary management should focus on improving implementation efficiency while preserving coverage and quality.

Social Analysis

Socially, the Free Nutritious Meals Programme functions as a redistributive instrument that narrows disparities in access to basic needs. Children from low‑income households frequently face nutritional deficits that impede physical and cognitive development. The programme provides direct compensation that mitigates intergenerational inequality. Ending it would reinforce poverty cycles: undernourished children are more likely to underperform academically, secure lower‑paid employment, and perpetuate poverty into the next generation.

The programme also fosters social cohesion. State provision of basic needs strengthens perceptions of fairness and solidarity. Conversely, termination could engender feelings of injustice and alienation among vulnerable groups, weakening social networks essential for stability and collective action.

Cultural Analysis

Indonesia’s cultural values of gotong royong and mutual care are reflected in collective responsibility for the young and vulnerable. The Free Nutritious Meals Programme can be interpreted as a modern policy expression of these cultural norms. Termination would not merely be an economic decision; it would signal a cultural shift towards individualisation of welfare responsibilities, placing the burden solely on families.

Such a shift risks eroding communal practices of mutual support. Over time, diminished collective responsibility may reduce societal capacity to cooperate in addressing shared challenges, including public health crises and natural disasters.

Addressing Fiscal Objections and Policy Recommendations

Fiscal concerns are the most frequently cited reason for calls to terminate the programme. These concerns can be addressed without abolishing the programme. First, conduct independent audits and operational reviews to eliminate waste, leakage, and corruption. Second, improve targeting so that resources prioritise the most vulnerable populations. Third, integrate the programme with complementary interventions—nutrition education, support for local agriculture, and family economic empowerment—to amplify impact.

Concrete policy recommendations include:

• Strengthen targeting mechanisms to ensure benefits reach the most needy.
• Enhance transparency and accountability in procurement and distribution to reduce leakage.
• Standardise kitchen operations and food safety protocols, and provide training for staff.
• Foster public‑private and civil society partnerships to share costs and introduce innovation.
• Integrate the programme with health and education services to create synergistic outcomes.
• Implement rigorous monitoring and evaluation using outcome indicators such as stunting reduction and academic performance.
• These measures demonstrate that fiscal constraints are a managerial challenge rather than a reason to terminate a strategically important programme.

Risks and Consequences of Termination

Terminating the programme would carry concrete risks: increased stunting and malnutrition, declining academic achievement, higher long‑term healthcare costs, erosion of political legitimacy, and weakened social cohesion. These risks are cumulative and mutually reinforcing, meaning the aggregate cost of termination would far exceed immediate budgetary savings. In strategic terms, termination would constitute a false economy: short‑term fiscal relief that generates larger social and economic liabilities in the future.

The Free Nutritious Meals Programme must be kept, and its governance and accountability need urgent improvement so public funds are used efficiently and can be properly accounted for. Improvements should include transparent, auditable procurement, clear division of responsibilities between central and local government, and firm sanctions for misuse to reduce budget leakage.

To ensure the benefits reach those who need them most, the targeting system must be refined so assistance goes to vulnerable children and communities rather than being distributed uniformly. A data‑driven approach using social protection registries and school enrolment records will cut waste, and an appeals process should be available to prevent eligible families from being excluded.

Meal quality directly affects nutritional outcomes, so nutrition standards and menu design must be clear and evidence‑based. Menus developed by qualified nutritionists and adapted to local ingredients and seasons will increase acceptance, reduce food waste and ensure adequate calories, protein and micronutrients.

Operational problems often stem from limited capacity at school kitchens and local providers, so technical skills must be strengthened through certification, training and regular inspections. Kitchens and suppliers should meet food‑safety, storage and distribution standards, and central kitchens must have reliable cold‑chain systems.

To contain costs without lowering quality, procurement and supply chains must be reformed. Open, competitive tendering and local sourcing where feasible will reduce prices and support local farmers, while contracts should include clear performance metrics and penalties for non‑compliance.

Policy decisions must be guided by solid evidence, which means establishing a robust monitoring and evaluation system. Real‑time data on coverage, meal quality, school attendance, nutritional outcomes and unit costs should be collected, and findings focused on reductions in stunting and improvements in learning should be published regularly.

Financial sustainability requires a mix of efficiency measures, diversified funding and medium‑term budget planning. Savings can come from cutting duplication and administrative overheads, while additional funding might be secured from local government contributions, targeted private‑sector partnerships and performance‑based grants.

Community involvement will improve accountability and local relevance. Parents’ associations, farmer cooperatives and credible civil‑society organisations should be engaged in menu design, quality monitoring and logistical support, with clear rules to prevent conflicts of interest.

Reform also depends on skilled personnel, so investment in human resources is essential. Training for procurement officers, nutritionists, kitchen managers and monitoring staff, together with career paths and performance incentives, will help retain qualified staff and build lasting capacity.

Public trust is vital, so transparency and communication must be prioritised. An accessible public dashboard showing budgets, procurement contracts, service coverage and evaluation results will reduce misinformation and enable civic oversight. Clear, regular communication about the programme’s aims, costs and measurable outcomes will help secure broad public support for its continuation. 

Conclusion

Based on an ideopoleksosbud analysis, the Free Nutritious Meals Programme must not be terminated. The strongest rationale is that termination would undermine investment in human capital, contravene the principle of social justice enshrined in Pancasila, erode political legitimacy, exacerbate social inequality, and weaken cultural norms of mutual care. The fiscal burden cited by critics is a solvable governance issue; it should be addressed through improved management, targeting, transparency, and cross‑sector collaboration rather than by abolishing a programme with strategic long‑term benefits.

Closing Remarks and Policy Implications

Retaining the programme requires a firm commitment to efficiency, transparency, and evidence‑based evaluation. The government should treat the programme as a strategic investment rather than a mere expenditure. Better implementation will maximise economic and social returns, reinforce political legitimacy, and uphold the nation’s ideological and cultural commitments. Maintaining the Free Nutritious Meals Programme is therefore a rational, ethical, and strategic choice for the country’s future.

Bahasa