Child Passport, WNI Dignity, and LPDP

LPDP has provided many scholarships to Indonesian youth to study in various countries. (www.kemenkeu.go.id)

There is a sentence that makes the public flinch. Not because it is poetic. But because it feels degrading. "It's enough that I am a WNI, don't have children."

The sentence came from a social media upload by Dwi Sasetyaningtyas (DS). He showed off his son's British passport. Many people interpreted the caption as a dig at the Indonesian passport. This event was crowded in February 2026.

Within hours, the family's upload turned into a national issue. Why? Because this controversy was then linked to the Education Fund Management Agency (LPDP), a scholarship program whose funds come from state finances. DS's husband, Arya Iwantoro, is said to be an alumni of LPDP. LPDP then stated that it was calculating the obligation to return the scholarship funds and the consequences.

At this point, the public no longer discusses "misspeaking". The public discusses two sensitive things, namely the dignity of citizenship and the accountability of public funds.

The government emphasizes that the LPDP fund is a state investment to build the quality of human resources. Therefore, scholarship recipients bear a not small responsibility. Not only graduating, but also fulfilling obligations according to the agreement, including contributions after the study.

This kind of scholarship is basically a social contract. The state bears the cost. The recipient bears the obligation. The details can be different between classes and schemes, but the essence is the same. Public money must return to public benefit.

Because of that, when scholarship recipients appear in public spaces with narratives that are considered to be degrading to Indonesia, the reaction can explode. This is not just the emotion of netizens. There is a sense of justice that is also shaken.

"We can't be satisfied with government policies. It's okay. Criticism is also the right of citizens. Even harsh criticism. That's the oxygen of democracy. A healthy state actually needs citizens who dare to correct. We criticize because we love and feel that we have this country, not because we hate it.

The problem is, what the public reads from DS's uploads is not a criticism of policy. Many people see it as a mockery of national identity. Here the limit is important. Criticism leads to state policies and services. Mockeries target collective dignity.

In fact, the country sends its children to the best campuses abroad through scholarships, with the hope that the knowledge brought home will be used to build. When this hope is confronted with a narrative that is considered to belittle Indonesia, it is natural that the public feels slapped.

One can be disappointed in the country. That's normal. But disappointment in policy does not automatically justify an attitude that belittles citizenship, especially when the public sees there is a connection with state-funded programs.

The main point is not about whether people can change their nationality or not. That's the realm of law and personal choice. Okay-okay. What is in question is the way to show off that choice while giving the impression of degrading Indonesia, especially when there are traces of relations with state investment.

The Minister of Finance stated that the government could impose sanctions, including the return of scholarship funds and interest, for LPDP recipients who were judged to have violated the provisions and demeaned Indonesia. LPDP also said that there were findings of violations of the obligation of service by dozens of awardees. Some have been decided to return the funds and the rest are being processed.

However, firmness should not stop at the pulpit. Firmness must be a neat, consistent, and transparent procedure.

The public has the right to know how the state works in matters of public money. How much value must be returned, calculated by what formula, and where does the starting point begin.

The public is also entitled to see how the interest is determined. What is the basis of the regulation. Is it uniform for all cases. And is the calculation reasonable.

More than that, the public needs to know the standard of proof used. What indicators of violations are considered valid, what evidence is accepted, and how are the mechanisms for clarification or objection.

The most decisive is, how does the country ensure that sanctions are applied consistently, without discrimination. Don't be sharp down, blunt up.

In the business of public money, the state is not enough to ask the people to trust. The state must give the people access to supervise.

"This controversy should not be turned into an anti-scholarship sentiment. LPDP is important. Many recipients return home and contribute to campuses, research, bureaucracy, industry, and social work. What needs to be strengthened is the ethical fence and its accountability mechanism.

The selection is not enough to measure academics. Integrity and commitment to contribution must be tested more seriously. After graduation, supervision of contributions must also be more measured. Not to embarrass alumni, but to maintain public mandate.

If the state claims to be able to trace compliance through administrative data and digital traces, the state should also be able to build a reporting system for contributions that is clear, measurable, and socially auditable.

Also, in the case of DS, a point of view emerges. The passport is considered a trophy of social class. The more "strong", the more prestigious. This way of thinking is shallow and dangerous. Because citizenship is not just a travel document. It is a bond.

Indonesia stands through a long struggle. This country does not stand through gifts, but through sacrifice. There is blood and tears. And in the context of state scholarships, there are many hands that bear the burden. From taxes collected, from state spending that is patched with debt, from budget choices that always have victims of opportunities.

If someone chooses another nationality, it is a right. But when that choice is displayed with a tone of disdain for Indonesia, while the public sees that there is a link to state investment, the polemics become reasonable. Because what is touched is not just personal identity. What is touched is respect for the common home.

Criticism is not hate. Criticism is love that does not want to be silent. And love for the country does not require us to praise. Just one. Do not insult your own house, especially when the house also helps finance us to stand up.