A Series of Prabowo's Responses, from the Revision of the TNI Law to the Eradication of Corruption (2)

President Prabowo Subianto has been in office for almost six months since being inaugurated in October 2024. A number of controversial issues have emerged during the early stages of his leadership. The issues range from the revision of the TNI Law, which was carried out quickly and sparked public concerns about ABRI's dual function, repressive actions by officers in civil society demonstrations, poor public communication, to plans to prevent corruption by increasing judges' salaries.

The President answered various questions directly while talking to a number of media leaders at his private residence, at the Garudayaksa Padepokan, Hambalang, Bogor Regency, West Java, Sunday (6/4/2025). The following is an excerpt from the interview.

The revision of the TNI Law took place so quickly with a process that lacked transparency. What was the urgency that made this regulation be worked on so quickly?

The TNI Law was accelerated because we experienced a phenomenon, in those few years, the TNI Commander changed every year, the KSAD (Army Chief of Staff) changed every year, because his age was up. His time for his career, as soon as he wanted to use it, his age was up. Where can we have an organization whose leaders change every year?

There, I actually said, how many generals should we replace now? So, I beg you, if possible, the core of the TNI Bill is actually only to extend the retirement age of several high-ranking officers. There is no intention for the TNI to have a dual function again, come on? That's nonsense.

In my opinion, the TNI Law is a non-issue. There is no intention. All military officials who will enter civilian positions will retire early. There are only a few institutions that are allowed, such as intelligence, natural disasters, Basarnas, and the supreme court because there is a Military Court, it has always been that way. This is just formalizing it. If you look at everything, there is a reasoning. The people know that too.

The transparency of the discussion process was questioned and sparked demonstrations, in addition to the content which was feared to lead to militarism. What is your view?

There is none. What militarism? So, if you ask objectively, yes, conduct a survey and ask the people. Which institution is most trusted by the people? Not the intellectual elite in Jakarta, who have access, have certain views, in my opinion, they are biased like that, you know. Always looking at it with suspicion.

Indeed, surveys always position the TNI at number one, because since the reformation, the TNI has returned to the barracks. That image is what makes the TNI trusted by the people. However, through the revision of the TNI Law, is it feared that the dual function of ABRI will return?

Who brought the TNI back to the barracks? The TNI leaders themselves. We were aware at that time, Mr. Wiranto, Mr. (Susilo Bambang) Yudhoyono, and Mr. Agus Wirahadikusuma, including me. I was the one who pushed. I was the first in the TNI to say civilian supremacy. I submitted and I proved that I submitted to civilian leaders.

I was dismissed by Mr. Habibie, I was ready. In fact, I held the most troops at that time. So don't be mistaken. Don't always use a narrative that always..., right?

In my opinion, we are objective. The people still trust the TNI. Because why? If there is a natural disaster, who is the first (to come)? If there were thousands of bodies during the (tsunami) in Aceh, who would pick them up? So, we must be truly objective. Who guards this republic during Christmas Eve, New Year, Eid, homecoming, and so on? TNI-Polri.

There are indeed shortcomings. There are elements or things that are not good. This is our shared responsibility. Let's fix it. I continue to be firm in the TNI and Polri. Clean up. Clean yourselves up before I take action in the name of the people's mandate.

In the demonstration, there was also repressiveness of the apparatus. How does the President view the demonstrations of students and civil society, and the handling of the apparatus which is still prone to violence?

Demonstrations are common. In a country as big as ours, we have agreed to be democratic. People demonstrating are guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to assemble, the right to associate, and so on. I think that is common.

If there is abusive, yes we must investigate and process it legally. But, it must be known, try to observe objectively and honestly. Are the demonstrations genuine or are there people who pay?

We are not children either. We respect the right to demonstrate as long as the demonstration is peaceful. We do not want to incite riots. Well, burning tires is not peaceful.

And, why abusive? We have experience. I am a former security officer too. Sometimes officers are thrown plastic bags of urine, sometimes thrown plastic bags containing human waste.

In managing the country, we are always vigilant. Are there any foreign groups or powers that want to stir up conflict? This is common. The data is out now. The Trump administration (US) disbanded USAID. There was evidence that USAID funded many NGOs everywhere. It’s public knowledge.

So, I always invite us to think clearly. Demonstration is a right, but also if the demonstration is made to cause chaos and riots, in my opinion this is against the national interest and the interests of the people.

I understand and I know, every institution has something wrong. However, there is no intention from the government to suppress. For what? We want to work for the people.

The people are increasingly far from the legislative process. Public participation is also lacking these days. The role of citizens seems to be reduced, such as the Police Bill, the Prosecutor's Bill, and the Broadcasting Bill. What do you think, sir?

We have a political system. That all laws are discussed by all political parties elected by the people. Right, that's it, right? So, that's it. But, thank you for that input. I will give it special attention now. Maybe I will study it paragraph by paragraph. Actually, earlier I thought that the crucial issue of the TNI Law was only the increase in the retirement age. The point is the change there. There is nothing else.

But, we never know because it was never opened. The process was not transparent. The meeting was not in the parliamentary chamber. The people seemed to have no access. Moreover, 80 percent of the parties are in the government coalition. How?

Okay, we fixed that mechanism. But, there are some scripts circulating. Okay, there are 80 percent (in the government coalition). But, if they don't agree, what? In the sense, let's correct that.

If you are not satisfied with transparency, let's make it transparent. But, don't make something up like that. Right? Admit that this is a draft. As President, I have not written a letter to the DPR.

Specifically, regarding the National Police Bill, do you agree if the police's authority is increased, Sir?

In principle, the police must be given sufficient authority to carry out their duties. If they have been given sufficient authority, why should it be added? So, it is up to us to assess wisely, that gradation. Right?

If the police have been given sufficient authority to carry out their duties, to eradicate crime, smuggling, drugs, and so on, to protect the community, security, and order, I think that is enough. Why should we look for it? In my opinion.

The issue of public communication is in the spotlight. Moreover, there was terror against journalists. What will you do about this?

The problem of mispronunciation, my team, right, has many new people in the government. Indeed, some senior ministers come from the old cabinet. However, many are new. So maybe (the new ones) are less vigilant. Less careful in saying things. That's what I can explain.

Actually, I was also surprised about the pig's head issue. What kind of style was that? I thought the person who did it wanted to stir up trouble. Wanted to create a bad atmosphere. But, it was true that it was a statement that I thought was careless. It was wrong and I think he regretted it.

That the problem of poor communication I consider myself to be at fault. Because, our focus is on delivering. Work. The people are waiting for what decisions must be taken. So many problems end up having to be resolved by issuing quick decisions.

Overall, I am quite proud of what we have achieved in 150 days. And, I see, I believe, in the next 5-8 months, we will make fundamental steps that will strengthen the Indonesian economy amidst the global situation full of uncertainty.

The public is furious about corruption cases. What steps will be taken to create a deterrent effect for corruptors?

Let alone the people, I am also furious about the corruption problem. Because, I understand our resources are very large and what happens is robbery.

Sometimes the methods are pretendlegal. So, if checked there are no violations. The tender has been arranged for the winner. The attorney general is sometimes furious. The case has been revealed and won, but he (the corruptor) appealed to the Supreme Court, and we were defeated.

My steps in the near future, I have ordered the Minister of Finance and the State Secretary, I want to increase the salaries of all judges significantly. I calculated that we are capable. We need approximately Rp 12 trillion. Not up to Rp 20 trillion. Savings on official travel abroad can increase salaries throughout Indonesia.

Judges must be made so honorable and so confident that they cannot be bribed. I also gave instructions so that judges have proper official residences. This is being worked on by the Minister of Housing. If I'm not mistaken, our judges throughout Indonesia are less than 10,000 people.

Then, there is the matter of impoverishing (corruptors), I think like this. That's why I want to negotiate, return the money you stole. But, it's hard, right? Because, by nature, humans don't want to admit it. So, first they have to be given a chance. What losses to the state that they caused must be returned. So, it's only right that the state confiscates the assets.

Well, we also have to be fair to his children and wife. If there are assets that were owned before he took office, for example. Later, legal experts will discuss it. Is it fair that his children suffer too? After all, a parent's sins should not be passed on to their children. However, I ask for input from legal experts.

It is true, there must be a deterrent effect. Sometimes the power of money makes people think, okay, I was arrested and went to court. But, then the six-year sentence can be served for three years. And, for three years you can bribe this official, that official, so that you get out (of prison) every five days.

So, I told the law enforcement officers, if the judge gives an unreasonable verdict, which hurts the people's sense of justice, we will appeal. And, we succeeded several times, right?

I ordered to pursue the legal crimes. This is a serious problem. The people are furious. Let alone the people, all of you are furious. We are not stupid. If he lost Rp 100 trillion and only got a six-year sentence, this doesn't make sense. So I totally agree.

Regarding the death penalty, in principle, if possible, not the death penalty. Because, the death penalty is final. Maybe, we are 99.99 percent sure that he is guilty, but there is a problem that he is actually a victim or framed. If sentenced to death, he cannot be brought back to life.

In principle, if possible, a firm deterrent effect should be sought, but perhaps not to the point of the death penalty. Of course, this is the consensus of political leaders and legal experts. However, I understand that the people are indeed questioning this.