Do Not Let Dubious Practices Tarnish the President's Leadership

Senior officials and close associates of President Prabowo Subianto should be vigilant against genuine efforts in the public sphere aimed at damaging or destroying the character and credibility of the President and the Red and White Cabinet.

These efforts manifest as threats, terror, and intimidating responses directed at observers and individuals who voice criticism. These threats and intimidation seek to create the impression and shape public perception that President Prabowo and cabinet members are opposed to criticism.

Various figures, including influencers who know and understand President Prabowo’s character and personality well, are convinced that the perpetrators of threats, terror, and intimidating responses to observers and critics are beyond the President’s control.

This is because Prabowo is genuinely known as a person who does not hesitate to ask questions, listen to explanations, and then engage in debate.

Furthermore, it is an established and verifiable fact that Prabowo is a figure who is very open and willing to respond to criticism that he considers worthy of response.

An example is the President’s open admission that he is aware that many social media activists frequently criticise and condemn him with various expressions. To this day, despite indications of coordinated criticism and condemnation of the President continuing to flow through social media platforms in the public sphere, there are no attempts at restriction or prohibition. All criticism is allowed to flow in the public sphere as long as it remains within the bounds of propriety.

This fact demonstrates that the President has never attempted to silence critical views, opinions, and aspirations from society, because the president is genuinely open to receiving criticism.

In fact, not long ago, the President invited several figures who openly often voice condemnation and criticism, both of the President himself and of cabinet members. In a dialogical atmosphere, the president listened to the aspirations of his guests, and in turn, the president also explained the direction of his government’s policies.

Therefore, when various circles have recently discussed cases of terror and threats against those voicing criticism, the main question is: who is behind these acts of terror and threats? Who is playing dirty politics?

The President’s closest aides and trusted associates should be vigilant about this case. Before wild assumptions or speculations emerge that damage the image of the President and his government, this case should be addressed wisely.

In any case, the threats and terror are being perpetrated by certain individuals who deliberately aim to destroy or kill Prabowo’s character in his role and function as President and head of government.

Through terror and threats directed at government critics, the masterminds and perpetrators seek to create the impression and shape public perception that President Prabowo and his government are opposed to criticism.

This issue needs to be brought forward to be heeded and also to ensure the preservation of national stability. This is because the target of the latest threats and terror being discussed by various circles is the unfortunate experience of Tiyo Ardianto, chairman of the Executive Board of Students (BEM) of Gadjah Mada University (UGM).

This young man was threatened and terrorised after voicing his criticism, stating that the government failed to guarantee children’s basic rights, following the tragedy of a primary school student’s suicide in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT). The terror did not stop at Tiyo; his mother was also threatened.

When stories of Tiyo’s unfortunate experience spread through the public sphere, various assumptions will form. One such assumption is that the perpetrators of the terror and threats are people acting under orders from those in power or the government. Such assumptions must be prevented quickly so that the government’s image is not tarnished.

Through various policies and approaches, every president or head of government should always strive to build a positive image. Therefore, responding to every criticism with terror has never been an option.

Thus, the President’s closest aides need to provide measured responses as a counterweight to such disreputable actions. This is because allowing acts of terror and threats to continue being the subject of public discussion risks undermining conduciveness. The intellectual actors and perpetrators of terror seek to position the Government and the critical community in confrontation with each other.

Once again, it is proven that the President has never attempted to silence critical views, opinions, and aspirations from society, because the president is genuinely open to receiving criticism.

Therefore, acts of terrorising and threatening critics should never be tolerated. As a suggestion, staff at the presidential office should be ready to issue official statements whenever reports of terror and threats against government critics emerge in the public sphere.

Ministers should also be advised to realise the President’s priority programmes with full wisdom so that the President does not become the target of criticism. Errors in programme implementation should be minimised. Negligence—let alone deliberate—should not be tolerated.

Therefore, oversight at the programme implementation stage should be strengthened. This aspect needs to be emphasised because President Prabowo’s priority programmes directly affect society. Because they directly touch the dynamics of people’s lives, it is natural that these priority programmes attract the attention of many communities.

For example, there is nothing wrong with the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) priority programme. Problems will emerge when the programme realisation or implementation fails to meet minimum standards for nutrition provision.

To this day, the realisation of the MBG programme continues to be a target of public criticism. All parties involved directly and indirectly in the realisation of the Free Nutritious Meals programme are encouraged to continue making improvements and corrections.

Errors and negligence should not be allowed to repeat and should not be tolerated, because criticism is a natural part of democratic governance and serves an important function in holding the government accountable.