Leaders Who Know the Button
There are problems that seem large because they are discussed in large meeting rooms. Once handed over to someone who understands technology, they sometimes shrink into a few database tables and web pages. We then ask: is the problem complicated, or is it the bureaucracy’s way of viewing the problem?
I was reminded of this when reading about the steps taken by Sudaryono, Head of the National Nutrition Agency (BGN), who was appointed by President Prabowo Subianto on 22 July 2026. He is 41 years old, considered young for the top of this nation’s bureaucracy, where age is sometimes treated like a software version: the longer it exists, the more complete its features are assumed to be.
A few days after his appointment, Sudaryono promised a system that would allow parents to view information about the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme: what menu their child received, its nutritional content, which kitchen it was cooked in, and even the name of the head of the Nutrition Service Fulfilment Unit (SPPG) responsible.
He hoped the system could be accessed by all parents of students this week. For someone accustomed to tinkering with computers and coding, I find it somewhat difficult to call it a ‘sophisticated system’. If the databases for kitchens, schools, menus, and beneficiaries are already available, the basic work becomes easier. One simply needs to create a web-based interface, determine which data can be read by the public, connect it to the database, and present it in a mobile-friendly dashboard. Of course, in practice, there will be issues related to security, integration, and data quality. But conceptually, the technology is ordinary.
Precisely because the technology is ordinary, the extraordinary question is: why couldn’t the people who previously led the BGN see this? This is where the matter of technology turns into a matter of leadership.
A leader does not need to be able to write Python code or memorise SQL. An agency head also does not need to know why a programmer can become depressed because of a single semicolon. But today’s leaders need to have ‘digital imagination’: the ability to see that data stored in the office can be transformed into a service for citizens.
A mother whose child receives MBG does not need a three-day seminar on national nutrition governance. She just wants to know: what did my child eat today? From which kitchen? Who is responsible? If there is a problem, who should she complain to? Simple questions. Yet therein lies the clue as to whether the state is present or absent.
To be fair, the digitalisation of the BGN was not born with Sudaryono. The BGN had already launched an e-tracking platform in September 2025 to record MBG distribution. In April 2026, the BGN also announced the opening of data checking access. So the previous BGN office was not an archive warehouse still working with typewriters.
What is interesting about Sudaryono’s move is the change in perspective: government data should not only be useful for the government. Our bureaucracy loves to digitise forms. Paper is moved to a screen, and then we feel we have carried out a digital transformation. In reality, the suffering of citizens remains the same, only the pen has been replaced by a keyboard. Queues are moved from the office yard to the mobile phone screen, whose fate is determined by the internet signal.
Digital transformation should start from the needs of citizens, not the agencies’ fondness for creating applications. The OECD calls this approach human-centred public services: government services designed based on user needs. Technology is not the goal, but a tool for openness and accessibility.
Therefore, a leader’s technological intelligence should not be measured by their ability to create applications. That is the programmer’s job. The measure is whether, when facing a problem, they know that technology can provide a faster and cheaper solution. A leader’s digital literacy is not a skill of the fingers. It is a skill of the mind. And, more importantly, a skill of the heart. Technology without empathy only produces machines that work faster. Empathy makes a leader ask: what information do citizens need? Transparency makes them ask further: if the data concerns the public interest, why should it be kept under lock and key?