Several high-profile infrastructure projects initiated during President Jokowi’s tenure have faced delays, remain partially completed or finished, but are seen as detrimental to the public, generating debate over their social and moral implications. Applying David Miller’s five principles of social justice—need, desert, equality, freedom, and community—provides a structured way to evaluate their impact.Firstly, the principle of need underscores that public projects should primarily address the most urgent requirements of citizens. For instance, unfinished rural roads, irrigation projects, or regional hospitals disproportionately affect communities that already experience socio-economic vulnerability. When these projects stall, the intended benefits for the poorest and most marginalised are withheld, revealing a gap between policy intentions and lived realities.Secondly, the principle of desert highlights accountability and recognition of merit. Those entrusted with planning, funding, and executing these projects have a duty to ensure their completion. Mangkrak projects reflect a breach of this principle, as bureaucratic inefficiency, political interference, or mismanagement prevents the proper execution of initiatives, undermining both trust in public officials and the notion that effort and responsibility are rewarded.Thirdly, the principle of equality comes into play in the distribution of infrastructure benefits. Many delayed projects are located in less developed or remote regions, meaning that citizens in wealthier urban areas receive completed infrastructure while rural populations remain underserved. This perpetuates inequality and demonstrates how social justice is compromised when access to public goods is uneven.Fourthly, the principle of freedom reminds us that social justice should empower citizens rather than create dependency or frustration. Mangkrak projects can limit citizens’ economic and social agency: unfinished transport hubs, airports, or industrial estates hinder mobility, commerce, and employment opportunities, reducing people’s freedom to improve their own lives.Finally, the principle of community stresses the moral and social fabric that binds citizens together. When public projects remain incomplete, they erode public trust, weaken social cohesion, and diminish the shared sense of responsibility between the state and its citizens. For social justice to be fully realised, communities must perceive that the state acts fairly and that collective resources are managed ethically.In conclusion, analysing mangkrak projects through Miller’s framework reveals that their incompletion is not merely a technical failure, but a multi-dimensional challenge to social justice. Addressing these issues requires not only bureaucratic efficiency but also moral and civic accountability, ensuring that public resources are allocated according to need, executed with merit, distributed fairly, empower citizens, and strengthen communal bonds.A government project that genuinely serves the public interest can only be considered “clean” from corruption and private gain when it is built upon the foundation of transparency, accountability, and impartial decision-making. Every stage—from planning and procurement to execution and evaluation—must be open to public scrutiny, with clear records of how funds are allocated, who benefits from the contracts, and what outcomes are expected. There must be no secret deals, no political favours, and no manipulation of tenders to benefit insiders. Integrity should not be a slogan, but a system enforced by independent oversight bodies that have the power to investigate without interference. When officials are required to disclose conflicts of interest, when citizens have access to real-time data on spending, and when media and civil society can freely question authority without fear, only then can a project truly reflect the will of the people rather than the greed of a few.
One might marvel at the declaration that Whoosh is the “Best Work Ever,” as if the mere presence of a bestselling author’s name automatically transforms ink on paper into pure gold. Critics, it seems, are expected to bow before the pages and exclaim, “Behold! Genius!” while ignoring the glaringly obvious: the prose occasionally meanders like a lost tourist, and some chapters feel like filler material written during a coffee break. Yet, the marketing machine hums along, reassuring the public that buying this book is akin to purchasing a ticket to enlightenment, when in reality, it might just be a slightly overpriced nap.
Let's examine reported irregularities and problematic facts about the Whoosh Jakarta–Bandung high-speed rail project that critics say point to cost mark-ups, poor procurement choices, and governance failure—and creates political responsibility at the highest level. We stick to what reputable reporting and public statements have documented (allegations, investigations and official figures) and flag where something is still disputed or under inquiry.First, multiple news outlets and analysts document a clear and consequential switch in project partners and financing from Japanese proposals to a Chinese-led bid, despite earlier Japanese interest and apparently lower estimated costs; critics say that procedural irregularities and the sudden policy pivot created opportunities for non-competitive outcomes. Reporting quotes former ministers and analysts who place that policy shift at the president’s desk, which is why accountability questions are being raised.Second, several reports highlight that the Whoosh project’s final price rose substantially from initial estimates—figures published in the press show the project cost rising from an earlier estimate in the low billions of US dollars to about US$7.2–7.3 billion—and that the per-kilometre cost was higher than comparable projects. Cost escalation of that size is a classic red flag for potential mark-ups, contract scope changes, or weak cost control.Third, independent commentators and watchdogs have pointed to procurement and contractual features that reduced transparency or transferred unusual financial risks to state-linked entities. Examples noted in the press include the use of a joint venture and financing structures that left Indonesian state-owned firms and the public balance sheet exposed to debt servicing and losses, rather than placing predictable guarantees or clearer fiscal protections up front. Those structural choices can hide contingent liabilities and limit parliamentary or public scrutiny.Fourth, there are specific allegations of “mark-up” and suspicious tender handling in public commentary and from civil society actors; these claims have now prompted at least preliminary inquiries and calls for formal investigation by anti-corruption bodies. That development is important because it moves the issue from opinion into the realm of formal fact-finding and possible legal accountability. It is proper to note, however, that allegations are not proven until investigations conclude.Fifth, confidentiality clauses, loan terms and legal provisions reported in the media have generated additional concern because they may limit Indonesia’s policy flexibility and expose state assets if contractual problems arise. Prominent legal and political figures have warned publicly that contract terms and the scale of Chinese lending could create long-term fiscal and sovereignty risks, which strengthens the argument that political leaders who authorised or pressed the deal should explain their decisions.Sixth, operational performance has not matched the optimistic projections used to justify the financing. Multiple outlets report ridership well below feasibility-study forecasts and substantial operating losses, meaning the public and state-owned enterprises have faced a heavier financial burden than promised—a practical harm that critics use to argue that political accountability for the project’s design and oversight is warranted.Taken together, these documented facts—the abrupt partner/financing switch with competing bids in the background; large cost overruns; procurement and contracting structures that put public institutions at financial risk; public allegations of mark-ups and a formal anti-corruption inquiry; and underperforming operational results—form a coherent case for serious public oversight and for asking top political leaders to answer how and why those decisions were made. Whether this chain of evidence is legally sufficient to “prove” criminal liability is a matter for investigators and courts, but from a governance and civic accountability standpoint, the combination of (a) strategic policy choices that benefitted the final bidder, (b) big cost increases, (c) opaque contractual terms, and (d) heavy fiscal consequences for state actors is the basis on which critics argue that President Joko Widodo—as the head of the administration that greenlit and steered the project—should be held politically and administratively responsible and must submit to transparent investigation. This case also shows that the demand for "Jokowi to be tried immediately" is still very relevant.Looking at the Whoosh project through the lens of social justice highlights several stark tensions between public welfare and the exercise of political and economic power. Social justice, in its most basic sense, demands that state resources, opportunities, and burdens are distributed fairly and transparently, and that citizens—particularly ordinary taxpayers—receive benefits proportionate to the costs they bear. In the case of Whoosh, critics argue that cost escalations, opaque tendering, and contractual arrangements that shifted financial risk onto the state violate the principle of distributive justice. Ordinary Indonesians are effectively paying for a project that delivers minimal social benefit while a small circle of political and corporate actors stands to gain financially, either through mark-ups, construction contracts, or financing arrangements.Moreover, procedural fairness, another pillar of social justice, appears compromised. When decisions are made without clear competitive bidding, transparent evaluations, or public scrutiny, citizens are denied their right to participate meaningfully in decisions that shape the infrastructure and economy of their country. The underperformance of ridership and limited societal utility reinforces the argument: the social cost is high, the social benefit low, and the burdens are concentrated on those least able to bear them—typical signs of social injustice.Viewed in this light, the Whoosh case can be framed as a cautionary example of how infrastructure projects, if poorly governed, can exacerbate inequality and undermine citizens’ trust in government. The accountability of leaders, especially those who authorised and oversaw the project, becomes a social justice issue itself, because justice is not just about law or policy—it is about ensuring that public decisions equitably serve the common good rather than privileging a few insiders.From the perspective of social justice, the controversy surrounding Vice President Gibran’s educational documents, particularly allegations that he may not possess qualifications equivalent to a high school diploma, raises serious questions about fairness, transparency, and merit in political leadership. Social justice is not merely concerned with economic or material equity; it also encompasses procedural integrity, ethical standards, and equal application of rules within society. When top officials appear to bypass or obscure basic qualifications, it undermines citizens’ trust in institutions and signals a potential breach of the principle that leadership should be based on competence and moral legitimacy.Applying David Miller’s framework, the principle of equality is immediately relevant. Citizens expect that requirements for political office are applied consistently to all candidates. If Gibran’s educational background is unclear, yet he holds a high office, it creates an unequal situation where ordinary citizens or aspiring leaders must meet standards that elites might circumvent, fostering a perception of injustice.The principle of desert or merit is likewise implicated. Leadership positions carry moral authority that should reflect qualifications, effort, and responsibility. When these credentials are in doubt, the ethical basis for granting authority is weakened, challenging the social contract between government and citizens. Meritocracy becomes compromised, and public trust in governance erodes.The principle of need is indirectly connected. Political leadership has real consequences for policy-making and resource allocation. Leaders who lack sufficient qualifications may be less effective in addressing the needs of society, particularly vulnerable populations, thus indirectly undermining social justice outcomes.Finally, the principles of solidarity and community highlight broader societal effects. Public perception of unfairness or opaque standards at the highest levels of leadership erodes social cohesion. Citizens may feel alienated or cynical about their ability to participate in a just political system, weakening collective moral responsibility and the shared sense of civic belonging essential for a socially just society.In sum, from a social justice perspective, the controversy surrounding Gibran’s educational qualifications is not merely a private or procedural matter but a public ethical issue. It underscores the importance of transparency, merit-based appointments, and equal application of standards as foundational elements of social justice and democratic legitimacy.
In a display that could only be described as theatrically reassuring, President Jokowi allegedly unveiled his diploma to an enthusiastic crowd, who immediately erupted with cries of “ASLI LI!” (It's really genuine!) as if the mere act of showing a piece of paper instantly confirmed centuries of unquestionable legitimacy. One might imagine that somewhere, in an alternate universe, textbooks are now being rewritten: the proof of one’s competence, it appears, is no longer exams or experience, but the spontaneous cheers of a fan club. Meanwhile, the rest of the population is left squinting, wondering whether verification involves rigorous scrutiny or merely applause.
When comparing the controversies surrounding President Jokowi’s allegedly fake diploma and Vice President Gibran’s unclear educational documents, both cases raise significant social justice concerns, yet in slightly different ways. Both instances touch upon issues of transparency, accountability, and fairness, central pillars in the ethical governance of public institutions.The principle of equality is directly implicated in both cases. Citizens expect that eligibility rules for high political office apply equally to everyone. If these rules are perceived as being bypassed by top officials, it creates a moral and procedural imbalance, undermining trust in the system. While Jokowi’s case involves allegations of falsified credentials, Gibran’s situation revolves around incomplete or unclear documentation, yet both generate perceptions that ordinary citizens may face stricter scrutiny than elites.Regarding the principle of desert or merit, both cases challenge the moral basis of authority. Leadership legitimacy depends on competence and integrity. Any doubt regarding educational qualifications diminishes the ethical foundation of authority and questions whether meritocracy is truly respected. In both instances, citizens may feel that authority is granted based on political privilege rather than achievement, which weakens the social contract.The principle of need is indirectly relevant. Competent leadership affects the state’s ability to allocate resources fairly. If leaders’ qualifications are questionable, policies addressing public needs — from education and healthcare to infrastructure — may be compromised, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations.The principles of solidarity and community also apply. Both controversies have the potential to erode public trust and social cohesion. Transparency at the top levels of governance is essential for citizens to feel included in the ethical and civic life of the nation. When leaders’ qualifications are doubted or concealed, collective confidence in institutions suffers.While Jokowi’s and Gibran’s cases differ in specifics—allegations of falsification versus incomplete documentation—both challenge the ethical and procedural dimensions of social justice. They highlight the importance of transparency, merit-based appointments, and equality under the rules as foundational to a fair and socially cohesive political system.
Arguing that Vice President Gibran should be impeached or resign due to doubts surrounding his educational credentials is morally compelling, especially in terms of transparency, equality, and meritocracy, it must be reconciled with Indonesia’s legal framework and political mechanisms. Advocates may use public pressure, scrutiny, and calls for institutional reform to reinforce the importance of ethical and competent leadership.
[Part 5]In Thomas Risse's seminal work Transparency, Accountability, and Global Governance (2008, Global Governance Vol. 14, No. 1 (January–March 2008), pp. 73-94, published by: Brill), he explores how transparency functions as a cornerstone of accountability in global governance. Risse identifies three primary forces—market pressure, external discourse, and internal norms—that influence the behaviour of global actors through transparency. These forces can regulate actions by making them visible and subject to scrutiny, thereby holding actors accountable to the public and other stakeholders.Applying Risse's framework to the controversies surrounding President Jokowi's alleged fake diploma and Vice President Gibran's unclear educational documents reveals significant concerns regarding transparency and accountability in Indonesian governance. The lack of clarity and transparency about the educational qualifications of these high-ranking officials undermines public trust and raises questions about their legitimacy and adherence to democratic principles.Risse's analysis underscores the importance of transparency as a mechanism for accountability. When leaders' qualifications are obscured or misrepresented, it not only breaches the public's right to know but also erodes the foundational norms that support democratic governance. In the context of Indonesia, such issues highlight the need for robust transparency measures to ensure that political leaders are held accountable and that their authority is derived from legitimate and verifiable credentials.The controversies surrounding President Jokowi’s alleged fake diploma and Vice President Gibran’s unclear educational documents have multi-layered implications for social justice in Indonesia. In the short term, these cases primarily affect public perception and trust. Citizens may feel that leaders are not held to the same standards as ordinary people, undermining the principle of equality and fostering scepticism towards governmental institutions. This perception can reduce civic engagement and increase public cynicism, which in turn weakens social cohesion.In the medium term, the lack of transparency and accountability may influence political norms and governance practices. If unaddressed, these controversies can set a precedent where political elites feel they can bypass scrutiny, eroding meritocratic standards in appointments and promotions. Such erosion can exacerbate social inequalities, as opportunities and resources may be allocated based on privilege rather than competence or need.In the long term, persistent doubts about leadership integrity can undermine the foundations of democratic legitimacy and institutional trust. Social justice relies not only on fair distribution of resources but also on ethical governance. If the public consistently perceives that leaders evade accountability or obscure their qualifications, the state’s ability to implement equitable policies is compromised. Over time, this can weaken the social contract, hinder collective action for the common good, and entrench systemic injustices.In conclusion, both cases pose serious risks to social justice in Indonesia, highlighting the critical importance of transparency, merit-based appointments, and consistent application of rules to maintain public trust, equality, and ethical governance.
[Part 3]
