We Are Busy Building, But Weak in Uniting

There is one anxiety that slowly accumulates when we repeatedly read the speech of the BPK RI Chair during the Submission of the Semester II 2025 Examination Results Summary before the DPR RI Plenary Session on Tuesday, 21 April 2026. The figures are large, achievements are visible, and there is even legitimate pride when it is mentioned that from 685 examination result reports (LHP)—consisting of 7 financial LHPs, 237 performance LHPs, and 441 LHPs with specific purposes—the state has successfully uncovered and saved potential losses of up to Rp42.87 trillion. Within that, there is Rp18.53 trillion in the form of losses and potential revenue shortfalls, as well as Rp24.34 trillion due to inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and lack of prudence.

However, amid this series of achievements, something feels not entirely intact. This country appears to work very hard—but not always as one body. It moves, but not necessarily in the same direction. It builds, but not necessarily unites.

This is where we need to reflect: the problem with our development today is no longer the absence of programmes, but the weakness of the architecture that contains them. If we trace it deeper, the problem originates from the upstream—from the place where policies should be born clearly and measurably: data.

The BPK Chair’s speech indicates that food data and information systems are not yet complete and optimal, and even between ministries, they are not fully connected. At the same time, in the education sector, the Basic Education Data (Dapodik) has indeed been improved through verification with population data, but it does not yet guarantee the integrity of data quality throughout the cycle—from input stage to synchronisation.

At this point, the problem becomes more fundamental than mere administrative technicalities. It touches on how the state understands its people. How can policies be on target if the reality that forms their foundation is not yet intact?

The state walks in a fog—making big decisions with limited vision. We do not lack good intentions, but we often lose precision. Yet, precision can only be born from accurate, intact, and interconnected data. Therefore, future development cannot start from projects. It must start from a fundamental decision: uniting data as the single foundation of state policy.

From the data issue, we move to the next layer, which is deeper and more obscure but has broad impact: policy fragmentation.

The BPK firmly reveals the existence of cross-ministry and agency issues that remain fragmented. Even in human development, cross-sectoral health and education norms, standards, procedures, and criteria (NSPK) have not been fully established.

Here, the state appears to work in separate spaces. Ministries proceed with their agendas, state institutions with their programmes, and regional governments with their respective priorities—without truly intact orchestration.

The consequence is simple, but costly: programmes overlap, budgets flow without maximum efficiency, and results never truly reach their best potential.

Thus, we need to change our perspective. Coordination cannot be merely interpreted as meetings or discussions. It must be elevated to policy integration. The role of coordinating ministries cannot stop as administrative connectors, but must become architects ensuring all parts of the state work within one grand design. Without that, development will only be a series of activities—not an intact change.

In this context, the food sector provides the most tangible illustration. On one side, achievements deserve appreciation: 2025 rice production reached 34.71 million tonnes, an increase of 13.36% from the previous year, and the unhulled rice absorption policy successfully gathered 3 million tonnes of rice reserves without imports.

However, on the other side, the BPK found that land extensification and intensification planning does not fully consider needs and land suitability, and is not yet synchronised with infrastructure support such as irrigation.

Here is where the irony emerges: we talk about big targets, but the basic foundation is not yet fully solid. This is not merely a technical issue, but a reflection of how we design policies—too quick to set targets, but not deep enough in understanding conditions. Yet, the land cannot be deceived.

If development is to succeed, it must learn to submit to reality. That every region has its character, every land has its limits, and every policy must be formulated not only with ambition, but with precision.

From food, the problem continues to the health and education sectors—two fields that directly touch the quality of Indonesians. The BPK notes that health regulations are not yet fully harmonious, complete, and up-to-date, especially in supporting services in 3T and DTPK areas, including in the National Health Insurance scheme. Meanwhile, in the education sector, Dapodik is not yet fully able to provide reliable data to support timely and targeted policy-making.

Here we see a recurring pattern: policies often come with a uniform approach, while field realities are diverse. Remote areas, border regions, and archipelagic zones have different challenges. Yet the state often arrives with the same design. As a result, justice becomes uneven—not because of misguided intentions, but because of designs that are not sensitive enough.

Therefore, going forward, regulations cannot just be neat on paper. They must be flexible to contexts, but still directed. Standards must be clear, but not impose uniformity. It is there that justice is truly designed, not merely stated.

When we delve deeper into the energy, fertiliser, and SOE sectors, the problem changes form—from policy design to management discipline. The BPK found that fuel reserves