Chromebook Case Not the Administration's Fault, the State Locked the Vendor until it Lost Trillions

JAKARTA - Indonesian Audit Watch (IAW) assesses the procurement of Chromebooks in the education digitization program is not merely an administrative error, but a policy failure that has systemic impacts and has the potential to harm the country up to trillions of rupiah.

The case of the procurement of Chromebooks, which is now rolling in court with former Education Minister Nadiem Makarim as the defendant, according to IAW, reflects serious problems in the design of public policies during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Founding Secretary of IAW, Iskandar Sitorus, said that the program, which was initially claimed to be a quick solution for distance learning, ended up being a problematic project in the field. Based on the findings of IAW and the Financial Audit Agency (BPK) report, many Chromebook devices were eventually not used by schools.

"In many schools, Chromebooks are piling up in cabinets. Some have never been turned on, some can't be used at all," Iskandar said in a statement, Monday, January 12.

IAW assesses that the main problem is not in the hardware, but in the system attached to the Chromebook. Iskandar explained, Chromebooks depend on the paid services Chrome Device Management (CDM) and Chrome Education Upgrade (CEU) to be activated and managed according to the needs of educational institutions.

"Without CDM and CEU, Chromebooks lose their institutional function. The state buys hardware, but the control of the flame-out is out of the state's hands," he said.

According to IAW, this dependence is not merely an additional cost or an optional feature, but an integral part of the procurement design from the beginning. This pattern, said Iskandar, is known in the world of audits and business competition as vendor lock-in.

"Countries are locked into one technology ecosystem, one operating system, and one licensing track. This creates a single market, where only one party holds the key," he said.

IAW assessed that the decision to shift the procurement specifications to a Chrome OS-based system was not a normal technical decision, but a policy that had far-reaching and beneficial effects on certain technology ecosystems.

In the legal context, IAW supports the steps of the Attorney General's Office to see this case not as a procedural error, but as an alleged engineering of a policy that harms the state.

Iskandar also responded to Google's statement that there was no bribery or reward because it only acted as a license provider. According to him, this approach is no longer relevant in reading modern corruption.

"Corruption no longer has to be interpreted as giving money. What is sought is who is systematically benefited from a policy," he said.

IAW emphasized that, within the framework of Indonesian law, corporations can be held criminally liable not because they give bribes, but because they benefit from state policies that harm public finances.

The BPK report, according to IAW, is an important evidence that shows the weakness of program planning. The findings noted procurement that was not in accordance with needs, the absence of supporting infrastructure, and the lack of human resource readiness in schools.

"There are even schools without internet that are forced to accept cloud-based devices, and teachers without training are asked to manage digital systems," said Iskandar.

IAW emphasized that the Chromebook case is no longer just about individuals, but rather a test for the country in prosecuting alleged corporate crimes that work through system design, licensing, and public policy.

"The Attorney General's Office should not stop at individuals. The investigation must dare to touch the corporations that benefit from this policy," he concluded.