IndonesianTalk.com — Rp1.9 Trillion for Government Communications: Can BAKOM Turn Public Perception of Prabowo Around?
The Government Communications Agency’s proposed budget is set to surge to Rp1.9 trillion in 2027. Lawmakers are demanding measurable results.
But improving public approval of President Prabowo Subianto is not simply a matter of crafting better messages. The greater challenge is bridging the gap between economic statistics and people’s everyday experience.
THE Rp1.9 trillion figure quickly drew attention in Senayan.
During a working meeting between Commission XIII of the House of Representatives and the Ministry of State Secretariat on August 31, 2026, the proposed 2027 budget for the Government Communications Agency, or BAKOM, became one of the subjects of scrutiny.
The reason was obvious: the proposed amount represents a dramatic increase.
According to information cited in the House meeting, BAKOM’s budget in 2026 was around Rp22 billion. For 2027, the agency led by Muhammad Qodari is proposed to receive approximately Rp1.9 trillion.
The scale of the increase prompted Sugiat Santoso, Deputy Chairman of Commission XIII and a politician from President Prabowo Subianto’s Gerindra Party, to demand tangible results.
Sugiat argued that BAKOM had not done enough to communicate the government’s achievements to the public. In his view, there is a significant gap between economic indicators that he considers positive and the perception developing among Indonesians.
“If, in 2027, the approval rating of President Prabowo’s administration is still at 50 percent, then BAKOM has failed,” Sugiat told the meeting.
His statement raises a question that goes far beyond the size of BAKOM’s budget:
Can government communications really change public perception?
Economic Numbers Versus Public Sentiment
Sugiat’s argument rests partly on economic data.
According to figures cited in the meeting, Indonesia’s economy continued to grow by more than 5 percent in the first half of 2026. Sugiat also pointed to household consumption and investment as indications that the economy remained relatively resilient.
Such numbers can certainly provide useful material for government communications.
But gross domestic product is a macroeconomic measurement. People do not necessarily evaluate their government by reading quarterly GDP figures.
They judge it through their wallets.
Are daily necessities affordable? Are jobs easier to find? Are incomes increasing? Can families afford education and healthcare? Are small businesses finding enough customers?
This is where government communications face a far more complicated challenge.
Statistics may show that an economy is expanding. But if parts of society continue to feel financial pressure, no amount of infographics celebrating economic growth will automatically change that perception.
BAKOM’s task, therefore, cannot simply be to produce more positive messages.
Not a Public Relations Factory
With Rp1.9 trillion at its disposal, the greatest temptation for any government communications apparatus would be to treat communication as a question of volume: more content, wider distribution, more appearances by government officials and more campaigns.
Public trust, however, does not necessarily work that way.
Indonesia’s information ecosystem has changed dramatically.
Government statements can now be checked within minutes. Official data can be compared with other sources. Old videos can resurface instantly. Criticism can spread through TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, X, WhatsApp and news outlets before a ministry has even finished drafting its press release.
Under these circumstances, communications that highlight only government successes risk being perceived as propaganda.
BAKOM therefore faces a fundamental choice: become an image-building machine or serve as a bridge between the government and the public.
The difference may appear subtle, but in practice it is substantial.
An image-building machine works to ensure that the government always looks good.
A public-information bridge helps citizens understand what the government is doing—including its problems, setbacks, policy corrections and the reasoning behind important decisions.
One pursues impressions.
The other builds credibility.
Should Presidential Approval Be BAKOM’s KPI?
This is where Sugiat’s proposal deserves closer examination.
His demand for measurable performance is reasonable. A public budget of Rp1.9 trillion should come with clear indicators that can be scrutinized.
But making the President’s approval rating the primary measure of BAKOM’s performance presents another problem.
Presidential approval is shaped by numerous factors beyond the control of a communications agency: economic conditions, employment, food prices, taxation, law enforcement, the quality of public services, political decisions and the conduct of government officials.
Communications can explain policy.
Communications cannot replace policy.
If a government program works well but citizens know little about it, that is indeed a communications problem.
But if people understand a policy and still disagree with it, the problem is something else entirely.
Poll numbers themselves must also be interpreted carefully. Survey methodology, sampling periods, the wording of questions and the institutions conducting the surveys can all affect the results.
BAKOM’s performance should therefore be measured through more than the President’s popularity.
Other indicators could include how well citizens understand government programs, how quickly misinformation is corrected, how easily official information and data can be accessed, whether government institutions communicate consistently, and—most importantly—whether people trust information issued by the government.
Qodari Acknowledges the Challenge
BAKOM chief Muhammad Qodari did not dismiss the criticism coming from lawmakers.
Responding to Sugiat’s remarks, Qodari said the House’s criticism would encourage the agency to improve its performance.
He argued that numerous government programs were already underway and that several fundamental economic indicators remained positive. At the same time, he acknowledged that communicating those achievements to the public remained unfinished business.
“The homework is to make communication more proactive and systematic,” Qodari said.
Those last two words matter: proactive and systematic.
Government communications often become reactive.
An issue emerges, and officials respond. A controversy develops, and the government issues an explanation. Information has already spread widely before an official clarification arrives.
In the social-media era, being several hours late can be enough for a narrative to harden into public perception.
Being proactive, however, does not mean flooding citizens with content.
It means anticipating emerging issues, providing accessible data, appointing credible spokespersons and ensuring that ministries and government agencies communicate consistently.
Rp1.9 Trillion Must Produce Auditable Results
Because BAKOM operates with public money, the proposed increase in its budget carries another obligation: transparency.
Citizens have the right to know how Rp1.9 trillion will be spent.
How much will go toward content production? Media spending? Technology and information monitoring? Public-opinion research? Human resources? Communications campaigns?
The House should therefore go beyond asking whether Prabowo’s approval rating rises or falls.
It should examine the effectiveness of every rupiah spent.
A government communications budget is not a political campaign fund. It comes from taxpayers and should therefore serve the public interest by providing accurate, accessible and verifiable information.
The Real Battle Is for Trust
Government officials sometimes describe today’s information environment as a “battle of narratives.”
Under this logic, the government has its narrative, other groups have competing narratives, and each side fights to influence public opinion.
Taken too far, however, such an approach can become problematic.
Citizens are not targets to be conquered in an information war.
They are members of the public entitled to reliable information.
BAKOM’s success, therefore, should not be measured by its ability to make everyone support the government. Criticism will always exist, and dissatisfaction is a normal feature of democracy.
A healthier benchmark is whether citizens receive enough reliable information to judge their government rationally.
If the government succeeds, show the evidence.
If a program falls short, explain why.
If a policy proves wrong, acknowledge the problem and correct it.
If false information spreads, respond quickly with evidence that citizens can easily verify.
That is where the Rp1.9 trillion will ultimately be tested.
Not by how many videos BAKOM produces.
Not by how often government officials appear on people’s smartphone screens.
But by something far more difficult to purchase with any communications budget: public trust.
If that trust grows, public perception of President Prabowo may improve along with it.
But if only the packaging changes while people’s everyday experience remains the same, BAKOM may encounter one of the oldest realities of political communication:
Perception can be shaped. Trust must be earned.
