Commotion Over Inaccurate Social Assistance Deciles: Bakom Chief Explains
Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia – The Government Communication Agency (Bakom) has spoken out regarding the controversy over welfare decile categorisations that do not reflect reality. Bakom stressed that the data is evolving and needs to be continuously updated.
Bakom chief Muhammad Qodari explained that the government is building the digitalisation of social protection so that assistance distribution becomes more integrated, accurate and responsive to people’s conditions.
The National Socio-Economic Single Data (DTSEN) and decile updating form the data foundation so that the government no longer works with fragmented data that fails to reflect current conditions.
Deciles are one element of information within DTSEN, implementing Presidential Instruction Number 4 of 2025. The Central Statistics Agency (BPS) compiles and manages DTSEN as a joint reference for the government to improve the accuracy of policy and programme targeting, including determining priority recipients of social assistance.
“The government recognises that data as large and complex as DTSEN requires continuous updating. BPS continually updates DTSEN together with relevant ministries and agencies, as well as regional governments. At the same time, the public is not treated as a passive object,” Qodari said in a statement quoted on Tuesday (8/9/2026).
He affirmed that a good digital system must be continuously improved based on the latest data. Updating is part of efforts to improve targeting accuracy. In this regard, the public can submit proposals or objections so that their current welfare category is correct.
“The public can check and submit proposals or objections through the Proposal-Objection mechanism, including channels provided by the Ministry of Social Affairs such as Cek Bansos and the Next Generation Social Welfare Information System (SIKS-NG), as well as the Cek-DTSEN channel available through BPS according to applicable procedures,” Qodari explained.
If there are field conditions not accurately captured in the data, he added, mechanisms are available to submit information and carry out further verification.
Qodari cited the case of Pak Timbul, a becak driver from Kulonprogo Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta, who went viral after being placed in Decile 9. Pak Timbul’s data has now been updated and he falls in Decile 3.
“This proves that the updating mechanism is working and will continue as the dynamics of people’s welfare conditions keep changing,” he said.
He added that deciles are not the sole determinant of whether a person receives social assistance. The decile number is not a single ‘verdict’ on a person’s right to social assistance. Deciles are an instrument for mapping the relative welfare levels of the population and serve as one important reference in programme targeting.
“The ministries and agencies implementing programmes continue to use their own indicators, requirements and mechanisms according to programme objectives. Therefore, a change in a person’s decile cannot automatically be interpreted to mean that they will certainly lose all rights to government social programmes,” Qodari explained.
People’s conditions can change, data must be updated, and the system must be able to capture those changes. The ultimate goal, he said, is not merely to determine decile numbers, but to ensure that state assistance genuinely reaches those most in need.
“The government’s main principle is that assistance must be well-targeted, but we must not turn a blind eye to people’s real conditions. The government does not want anyone entitled to assistance to be missed by social protection, and at the same time does not want assistance to fall to parties who no longer need it,” he said.
Therefore, data accuracy is a priority. The pros and cons that have emerged serve as input to continually refine the system, improve data quality and ensure correction mechanisms run effectively.
“The digitalisation of social protection is ultimately not merely about technology or changes in decile numbers, but about building a system that is fairer, more accurate, more transparent and better able to capture people’s real conditions,” he concluded.