Category: Uncategorized

Hari ini Indonesia genap 81 tahun merdeka. Tapi ada satu pertanyaan yang rasanya perlu kita jawab dengan jujur:

merdeka bergerak, sudahkah kita?

Mobilitas bukan kemewahan. Kemampuan untuk berpindah dari satu tempat ke tempat lainnya, untuk bekerja, untuk pergi ke sekolah, mengakses layanan kesehatan, atau sekadar berinteraksi dengan teman, adalah kebutuhan dasar dari manusia. Karen Lucas, merumuskannya lebih jauh: keterbatasan mobilitas bukan hanya soal tidak bisa bepergian kemana-mana, tapi soal tidak bisa ikut serta dalam pasar kerja, dalam layanan publik, bahkan dalam kehidupan sosial dan politik[1]. Ketika seseorang tidak bisa bepergian, ia secara perlahan tersingkir dari berbagai kesempatan yang seharusnya menjadi haknya sebagai warga negara.

Apabila kita menggunakan kerangka tersebut, maka kemerdekaan bermobilitas bukan hanya sekadar isu tentang infrastruktur. Ia adalah isu tentang keadilan. Dan sayangnya, keadilan itu masih terasa jauh di angan-angan.

Dua lapis ketidakmerdekaan

Permasalahan mobilitas di Indonesia memiliki dua wajah yang masih berkaitan dan saling memperparah satu sama lain.

Wajah pertama adalah tentang daya beli. Rata-rata warga di Indonesia menghabiskan sekitar 12.46% dari total pengeluaran hidupnya untuk keperluan transportasi, melampaui ambang batas ideal yang seharusnya tidak lebih dari 10%[2]. Artinya, sebelum kita berbicara transportasi nyaman atau tidak, banyak warga yang sudah tersengal sekadar untuk menanggung ongkos transportasi itu sendiri.

Bayangkan seorang buruh harian di pinggiran kota, dimana sekarang pekerja informal justru mendominasi struktur pekerja di Indonesia[3], harus menghabiskan seperdelapan penghasilannya hanya untuk pulang-pergi bekerja. Atau seorang ibu rumah tangga yang membatasi pergerakannya bukan karena tidak perlu keluar, tetapi karena setiap perjalanan membawa konsekuensi ekonomi yang tidak bisa diabaikan dalam perhitungan sehari-hari mereka. Bagi mereka, tidak bepergian bukan karena pilihan tetapi karena terpaksa.

Wajah kedua adalah soal absennya pilihan bahkan sejak awal. Di banyak wilayah Indonesia, pilihannya sederhana saja: kendaraan pribadi, atau tidak bisa kemana-mana. Layanan angkutan umum yang andal, terjadwal, dan terjangkau bukan barang yang bisa ditemukan di kehidupan sehari-hari. Bukan hanya di luar kawasan perkotaan utama Indonesia, bahkan di kota-kota tier kedua layanan ini masih menjadi barang langka.

Yang membuat kedua ketidakmerdekaan ini menjadi perangkap adalah strukturnya yang membentuk sebuah lingkaran tidak berujung. Untuk mengakses kendaraan pribadi, tentu diperlukan kapital untuk membelinya, untuk mengisi bahan bakarnya, serta untuk perawatannya. Bagi mereka yang tidak terlayani angkutan umum dan tidak punya akses terhadap kendaraan pribadi, hasilnya adalah ketimpangan yang berlapis: tersisih dari akses, tersisih dari pilihan, dan tersisih dari kesempatan.

Jakarta: Refleksi dari yang terbaik

Apabila kita ingin melihat seberapa jauh kita dari “merdeka bermobilitas”, Jakarta bisa jadi refleksi yang paling mudah sekaligus paling ironis, justru karena ia adalah kota dengan infrastruktur transportasi paling mumpuni di Indonesia.

Jakarta saat ini sudah memiliki jaringan transportasi berbasis rel yang cukup lengkap: Commuter Line, dua lini Light Rapid Transit (LRT) yang baru-baru ini melakukan ekspansi layanan, hingga Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) yang akan terus berkembang. Di sisi transportasi berbasis jalan, ada Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) TransJakarta dan layanan Mikrotrans yang mengintegrasikan angkot ke dalam jaringan pengumpannya.

Belum ada kota lain di Indonesia yang memiliki ekosistem transportasi seprogresif Jakarta. Dan tetap saja 80% perjalanan di Jakarta masih dilakukan dengan kendaraan pribadi[4]. Jakarta merupakan peringkat delapan kota termacet di dunia pada 2024[5], dengan kerugian ekonomi akibat kemacetan yang diperkirakan mencapai USD 4.6 miliar per tahun[6]. Belum lagi bicara soal dampak terhadap penurunan kualitas hidup warganya, Jakarta menempati peringkat ke-10 kota dengan kualitas udara terburuk di dunia pada tahun 2024[7].

Seluruh pembangunan ini bukan berarti sia-sia, sebagai gambaran program Mikrotrans berhasil meningkatkan proporsi warga yang tinggal dalam radius 1 km dari titik akses transportasi publik, dari sekitar 42% pada 2017 menjadi lebih dari 80% hanya dalam beberapa tahun[8]. Upaya-upaya ini tentu sangat baik dalam rangka meningkatkan aksesibilitas transportasi bagi warga dan harus terus dilanjutkan dan didukung.

Namun ada satu ironi yang mungkin kurang nyaman: yang paling banyak menikmati perluasan akses ini justru mereka yang sejak awal punya banyak pilihan. Yang paling memerlukan, mendapatkan paling sedikit. Pembangunannya terjadi, namun manfaatnya tidak merata.

Sumber: Analisis penulis, 2026

Jakarta dengan segala keunggulan infrastrukturnya, masih belum bisa memastikan akses terhadap transportasi yang merata, bagaimana dengan kota lain di Indonesia yang bahkan belum memiliki fondasi yang sama? Dan ini baru bicara soal siapa yang terlayani. Belum bicara soal siapa yang aman.

Merdeka bergerak, tapi untuk siapa?

Ada kelompok-kelompok warga yang kemerdekaannya dalam bermobilitas bahkan lebih terbatas lagi, bukan hanya karena faktor ekonomi, tapi karena sistem yang ada memang tidak pernah dirancang dengan mereka sejak dalam pikiran.

Penyandang disabilitas menghadapi infrastruktur yang secara sistematis mengabaikan kebutuhan mereka, dari trotoar yang tidak bisa dilalui kursi roda, hingga desain kendaraan yang tidak mengakomodasi berbagai jenis disabilitas. Hak bergerak yang tertulis di atas kertas, dalam praktiknya tidak pernah benar-benar sama.

Lalu perempuan. Penelitian konsisten menunjukkan bahwa perempuan menghadapi risiko pelecehan yang jauh lebih tinggi di transportasi umum dibandingkan laki-laki[9]. Yang lebih mengkhawatirkan, studi juga menemukan bahwa perempuan membatasi pergerakannya bukan hanya karena sudah pernah mengalami pelecehan, tapi karena mengantisipasi kemungkinannya[10]. Ketakutan ini sudah cukup untuk mempersempit radius hidup perempuan. Bukti bahwa, sistem yang minimal ini saja belum aman bagi semua kelompok warga.

Respons kebijakan yang ada, seperti gerbong khusus perempuan di layanan transportasi berbasis rel dan ruang khusus perempuan di transportasi berbasis jalan memang memberi rasa aman namun hanya untuk jangka pendek. Selama kapasitas angkutan umum masih jauh di bawah permintaan, selama penegakan hukum bagi pelaku masih lemah, dan selama desain ruang publik masih mengabaikan perspektif gender, masalah ini tidak akan pernah selesai dari akarnya.

Bukan pesimisme, tapi tuntutan

81 tahun adalah waktu yang panjang, dan tidak adil untuk mengabaikan sejauh apa kita sudah melangkah. Investasi infrastruktur transportasi dalam satu dekade terakhir nyata hasilnya, setidaknya di sebagian kota besar.

Tapi pembangunan transportasi di Indonesia masih terlalu sering diukur dari hal yang terlihat: berapa kilometer jalan tol dibangun, berapa stasiun beroperasi, berapa rute diluncurkan. Bukan dari pertanyaan yang lebih mendasar dan lebih jujur: siapa yang terlayani, dan siapa yang masih tertinggal?

Kemerdekaan bermobilitas seharusnya bukan privilege kelompok tertentu yang kebetulan tinggal di tempat yang terlayani, atau yang punya cukup uang untuk membeli kendaraan sendiri. Ia adalah hak seluruh warga negara, dan selama ia belum merata, maka kemerdekaan itu belum utuh.

81 tahun merdeka. Sudah saatnya kita mulai mengukur kemerdekaan itu bukan hanya dari benderanya yang berkibar, juga dari seberapa bebas setiap warganya bisa bergerak.

---

Kharisma Adyaksa is a first-year master’s student in Urban Engineering at the University of Tokyo and an ADB-JSP scholar. Before starting his master’s, he spent five years at Bappenas as an urban transport expert, working across policy, programs, and projects for urban transport development in Indonesia.

---

Referensi

[1] Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013

[2] https://www.dw.com/id/biaya-transportasi-di-ri-lampaui-batas-ideal-dunia/a-73873150

[3] https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20260505185105-92-1355431/pekerja-informal-di-ri-capai-87-juta-orang-mayoritas-wirausaha

[4] ITDP. (2025). Implementation of Electronic Road Pricing (ERP)/ Jalan Berbayar Elektronik (JBE) System in Jakarta. https://itdp-indonesia.org/publication/penerapan-sistem-electronic-road-pricing-erp-jalan-berbayar-elektronik-jbe-di-jakarta/

[5] Pishue, B., & Kidd, J. (2025). 2024 INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard. INRIX Research. https://inrix.com/scorecard

[6] Kompas.id. (2025). Public transportation services for residents’ welfare. https://www.kompas.id/artikel/en-layanan-transportasi-publik-untuk-kesejahteraan-warga

[7] IQAir. (2025). 2024 World Air Quality Report. IQAir. https://www.iqair.com/world-air-quality-report

[8] C40 Cities. (2023). How Jakarta integrated informal microbuses into the public transportation network. C40 Knowledge Hub. https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/How-Jakarta-integrated-informal-microbuses-into-the-public-transportation-network

[9] Tiznado-Aitken, I., Guerrero B., T. E., & Sagaris, L. (2024). Uncovering gender-based violence and harassment in public transport: Lessons for spatial and transport justice. Journal of Transport Geography, 114, 103766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103766

[10] Useche, S. A., Colomer, N., Alonso, F., & Faus, M. (2024a). Invasion of privacy or structural violence? Harassment against women in public transport environments: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 19(2), e0296830. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296830

My Eyes

I spent most of my years of education in Jakarta, where I interacted with tons of people with different lifestyles and socioeconomic backgrounds. The thing with living in a metropolitan area is that you get to observe all the ebbs and flows of society. Just by looking at what kind of transportation they ride to school, whether they do bimbingan belajar (cram school) or not, or what kind of technology they use at school, these little things that shape their habit in living will develop our understanding of how harsh it is to accept and acknowledge that there is a social discrepancy that I used to think that it was normal and that is just the way the world works. It is not. 

I began to question my whole understanding of education when I visited a small region called Pangandaran, where there is a school filled not just with people from Java, but with kids from far west Aceh to far east Papua. These kids were sent by their parents to pursue the education they deserve, since the place where they came from could not provide one. All the kids gathered in a small environment, yet I can feel their dreams are so big, and it feels like a slap to my face because I realized that I have taken everything for granted in the city for my whole life. This small school made me feel like a foreigner in my own hometown because with all the access to information I have, I somehow do not know anything about what is happening outside of the city. Indonesia is not just about Java or Bali. Indonesia is also about Sumatra, Nusa Tenggara, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Maluku, Papua, and all of the places where their stories need to be heard, and it is our job to spread them. From stories to movements, from practices to knowledges, from communities to change, that is how the school represents itself as the catalyst for equal educational opportunity for Indonesian youths. 

Their Eyes

Located on the southern coast of West Java, SMK Bakti Karya is a formal vocational education institution with the vision to grow in harmony with the diversity of nature, culture, and technology, through an integrated learning approach that encompasses ecology, humanities, and media. SMK Bakti Karya perceives heterogeneity as an essential concept and a place where students from different backgrounds can be blended and learn through many perspectives without undermining one another. The school mainly consists of students from so-called Frontier, Outermost, and Underdeveloped regions (Terdepan, Terluar, Tertinggal). Therefore, the idea of diversity in this context is not just about culture, but also about how people from different socioeconomic backgrounds are a crucial aspect for students to learn how other people speak, learn, walk, eat, and behave the way they do without judging.

Looking at Indonesia, with over 1,300 ethnic groups spread across its 350 million population, it is highly prone to ethnic-related conflict, which potentially produces chauvinism within the nation’s plural society. Conflict mainly occurred because the people did not know about each other directly; they were only exposed to the social media interpretation of some ethnic groups—the stigma and stereotyping—and they absorbed it as a fact or reality of it. This is exactly why the school is built for. The moment the kids meet someone whose world they had assumed they already understood through the media, it will break their pre-existing beliefs piece by piece as they begin to grasp a fresh view of them. Like a blank piece of paper, it lets the ink write the memory itself to reshape their thinking. SMK Bakti Karya is a prominent platform as a base of actualization of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) and Pancasila to maintain national resilience from any kind of threats, externally or internally. Therefore, a small act such as gathering all the kids from different socioeconomic backgrounds is critically important not just to understand each other, but also to manage how these kids can cooperate and live in harmony despite the differences. Imagine if we can establish more SMK Bakti Karya in more regions; I will strongly believe that we will have a more cohesive society, and the risk of conflict related to religion or ethnics will go down rapidly. 

Our Eyes Now

Looking at Indonesia’s condition now, we can tell that people are on the edge of despair because of the uncertain trajectory of their lives. If Leila Chudori in her “Malam Bercerita” book wrote about how the victims of the 1998 Indonesian crisis were just seen as statistics, Jaleswari Pramodhawardani (the head of Laboratorium Indonesia 2045) deliberately shows how the government did not count the number of deaths and affected people in the conflict area in Papua for some reason. The unawareness posed by the government is not merely due to its lack of capability, but rather what sociologists call strategic ignorance. It is a state of ignorance that is created and perpetuated because it serves a political purpose. Those “invisible victims” are the ones whose stories are buried deeply and we are responsible for digging them up and letting the world know that every life matters.

The moment when the government shows signs of overlooking its people, that is the moment when we need to fill the gap to advocate for society, because some people need further help from us. If it is not us, then who will? Filling that gap does not require grand gestures. It can start with small, deliberate acts of remembering such as writing down a name the state refused to record, sharing a testimony before it disappears into silence, or simply asking the question those in power hoped no one would ask. Because in the end, the fight against strategic ignorance is not fought with weapons, but with memory. And as long as there is someone willing to write, to speak, and to listen, the invisible victims of Papua, like the forgotten names of 1998, will remain unerased from history.

---

Achmad Prawira Singawinata is an International Relations student at Tokyo International University and Executive Director of Unlocking Nusantara, where he leads educational and scholarship programs for students from conflict-affected areas. He’s also active in student leadership, event management, and sports coaching, driven by a passion for cross-cultural connection and community impact.

On paper, Indonesia’s economic growth appears to be normal, at around 5 percent, the same figure as in recent years. However, for financial practitioners, 2026 began with a wave of anxiety that persisted. It began with global economic issues triggered by the outbreak of tensions in the Middle East, culminating in the decline of the Rupiah and the IDX composite (ICI), which continued to deviate from its fundamental value. By the end of April, the Rupiah had surpassed its weakest level since the 1998 crisis, and as of the date of this article’s writing (May 19, 2026), the Rupiah’s exchange rate has not improved and has worsened each week. This is evidenced by the ICI’s continued decline to 8%, which began in late January following Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI)’s announcement of a suspension of changes to Indonesian constituent stocks. The Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) also held negotiations with MSCI, and the ICI rebounded and reached an all-time high on January 20, 2026. However, since then, it has continued to decline until it reached its lowest point in the past year in mid-May.

Differences between Real Economy and Financial Sector

To understand the decline in the Rupiah exchange rate and the ICI amid stable GDP growth, we must distinguish between the real economy and the financial economy. Indonesia’s 5.11% GDP growth at the end of 2025 is a lagging indicator. This figure reflects past performance, including strong household consumption and ongoing manufacturing activity. The real economy moves slowly, taking time to grow or decline.

In contrast, the Rupiah and the ICI exchange rates move based on future expectations and short-term sentiment. Investors don’t invest solely based on current events, but rather predict and project future developments. Increased global volatility since early 2026 has caused many investors, particularly foreign investors, to adopt a preemptive stance and withdraw their investments. This has led to a divergence where production continues, GDP remains stable, but funds are diverted to safer assets, or safe havens, which has caused the Rupiah and the ICI to decline.

External Pressures and Global Market Phenomena

Economic divergence explains that in addition to the importance of a country’s macroeconomic fundamentals, external factors also impact the domestic market, particularly decisions made by the United States, the hegemonic economy. Throughout 2026, the United States Federal Reserve (The Fed) decided to maintain its interest rate at 3.50-3.75%. This policy was taken because The Fed considered the continued high domestic inflation in the United States, caused by tensions in the Middle East. Throughout 2026, a net sale of 40.82 trillion Rupiah in foreign funds was recorded by foreign investors.

The tensions in the Middle East have also impacted the global economy. Political tensions amid the Israel-Iran war have created new policies that have put pressure on the global economy. The most damaging policy was Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, restricting the free passage of ships. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital access point for the distribution of 20% of the world’s oil supply, and these restrictions have led to massive inflation across the globe, including Indonesia. The increase in fuel prices in Indonesia has contributed an additional 0.04 to 0.15% to inflation, triggering a revision of the year-end inflation projection to 3.5%.

These two phenomenons have impacted the Indonesian economy, with many foreign investors withdrawing from the Indonesian market, leading to capital outflow. This was driven by two main factors: first, policy uncertainty. In early 2026, Moody’s Corporation downgraded Indonesia’s credit rating outlook to negative. This was triggered by declining predictability and coherence in policy formulation, which led foreign investors to choose to wait, observe, and secure their capital out of Indonesia. Second, low market liquidity. A liquid market is one with a fast turnover rate, meaning investors can invest and quickly generate profits. However, negative sentiment from MSCI, which froze several stocks due to transparency issues, has raised fears among foreign investors about being trapped in a market with no quick exit, leading them to opt out to mitigate potential risks.

Policies in Stabilization Efforts

Given the high level of capital outflow by foreign investors and reduced market liquidity, there’s a need for intervention from the Bank of Indonesia and the government to address the problems that occur. The Bank of Indonesia itself has implemented several policies, namely the triple intervention policy, by supplying United States dollars, managing future exchange rate expectations, and purchasing government bonds released by foreign investors, a proactive interest rate policy, by holding the benchmark interest rate at 4.75% to maintain the interest rate differential with the Fed, and a policy of optimizing Bank Indonesia Rupiah Securities as a short-term monetary instrument.

From the fiscal side itself, the government is maintaining the fiscal deficit by tightening spending and keeping the state budget deficit below the law (3% of GDP) and by providing foreign exchange incentives from export proceeds by requiring commodity exporters to deposit export proceeds in domestic banks for a certain period to increase national foreign exchange liquidity.

Conclusion

In 2026, Indonesia’s economic resilience will face a significant test. Given the uncertainty of global geopolitical and economic conditions, it is undeniable that the significant challenge of restoring Indonesia’s economic health lies ahead. However, despite the importance of government cooperation with the central bank in addressing this issue, many state officials still fail to view the challenges as ones that must be addressed together. For example, the Indonesian Finance Minister, Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa, has repeatedly seemed to shift responsibility solely to Bank Indonesia when asked about the weakening Rupiah exchange rate, as well as the recent statement by Indonesia’s 8th President, Prabowo Subianto, regarding rural communities not using USD as a means of transaction.

This certainly raises major questions about the government’s seriousness in response to the increasingly difficult economic situation. If not addressed seriously, the weakening of the USD against the Rupiah to more than 18,000 rupiah is only a matter of months, or even weeks, and the question remains: how long will the ICI survive?

---

Nicholas Matthew is an undergraduate student of the Business and Economics Program at Tokyo International University, he also serves as the Commissioner of the Supervisory Board in PPI Korda Kanto. With a strong research interest in development economics and macroeconomic policy, his academic focus centers on examining how global financial shocks and monetary dynamics impact real sector growth in emerging markets.

Introduction

Today, we are facing many changes in our lives, especially in language learning. English has become a global language, and people are often expected to be able to speak English both at school and in the workplace. 

However, the continuous process of learning a language is not easy. One major challenge is that we have become heavily occupied with technology rather than social interaction. This situation is concerning. We use technology every day, especially artificial intelligence (AI), as a tool to assist language learning, and for many learners, this has become the primary method of study.

This phenomenon represents a digital paradox. While technology is designed to support human development, it often leads us away from authentic human interaction. As a result, we risk moving to the opposite side of what it means to be human — communicative, social, and relational. In this way, we no longer function as we naturally should.

The Rise of Technology Usage in Learning

Technology has become an essential part of our daily lives. We do homework using laptops, communicate with AI chatbots, and speak with AI representatives. Ironically, much of our time is spent interacting with artificial intelligence rather than engaging in face-to-face communication with family and friends.

After prolonged and continuous exposure to digital technologies—ranging from laptops and personal computers to smartphones, tablets, and other smart devices—individuals increasingly exhibit tendencies toward individualism rather than sociability. This transformation is deeply concerning, given that human beings are inherently relational and fundamentally oriented toward social connection. Since the earliest stages of civilization, human existence has been sustained and defined by interaction, dialogue, and communal exchange.

Ironically, many individuals gravitate toward language-learning applications during moments of loneliness, seeking connection through digital means. Yet solitary engagement with a screen may inadvertently intensify feelings of isolation, reinforcing the very detachment it was intended to resolve rather than genuinely alleviating it.

Language as a Social Phenomenon

English has become the most widely used language across the globe. In addition, Mandarin and Japanese are gaining increasing prominence as languages to learn, particularly due to their economic and cultural influence. In the business world, individuals are often expected to communicate in at least one foreign language in order to remain competitive. Without language, communication would inevitably deteriorate, rendering individuals incapable of exchanging ideas, knowledge, and information in a meaningful and effective manner. Language functions not merely as a tool of expression, but as the foundation of social organization and cultural continuity.

In countries such as Japan, communication is predominantly conducted in the national language, as individuals are socialized and educated from an early age within a relatively linguistically homogeneous environment. English, while taught academically, is often treated as a foreign language rather than a medium of daily interaction. By contrast, in the United States, linguistic diversity is far more visible. As a nation shaped by waves of immigration, it encompasses speakers of English, Spanish, French, et cetera. This multicultural composition fosters a multilingual landscape in which language use reflects the country’s demographic complexity and global interconnectedness.

Each country possesses its own language and distinct modes of expression, reflecting its unique culture and social norms. Ultimately, language is a fundamental human necessity, enabling global connection, cooperation, and mutual understanding in an increasingly interconnected world.

Efficiency of Culture and Language

In the contemporary technological era, human life is increasingly interconnected through the internet, the Internet of Things (IoT), and artificial intelligence. One of the most convenient ways to learn a foreign language today is by interacting with AI through laptops, personal computers, or smartphones. Learners simply need to download an AI-based application and communicate with a virtual personal assistant, allowing them to practice the target language repeatedly without temporal or spatial limitations.

Furthermore, for those who wish to interact with speakers from distant locations, video conferencing platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, or FaceTime provide opportunities for language practice, although these services often require financial investment. As an alternative, face-to-face language learning remains an option. In many developed countries, it is common for learners to meet tutors in informal settings, such as cafés or public spaces. This practice has grown significantly, contributing to the rapid expansion of language courses and tutoring services.

In Japan, for example, various online platforms allow learners to book private tutors and make advance payments before beginning their courses. In contrast, in developing countries such as Indonesia, online tutor booking systems are less commonly used due to concerns over security and trust. As a result, many learners continue to rely on traditional methods of finding tutors, such as direct, in-person arrangements. 

Although learners have become highly adept at utilizing digital devices for language acquisition, this increasing dependence has inadvertently diminished their engagement in real-world social interaction. Consequently, many develop social awkwardness and a lack of confidence in face-to-face communication — an outcome that is, in many ways, deeply tragic. The digital sphere, originally created to foster connection and bring individuals closer together, paradoxically assumes a negative dimension by distancing those who are physically near from one another. Rather than strengthening human bonds, it weakens them. This contradiction is what we identify as a digital paradox.

Toward a Balanced Approach

Recognizing the digital paradox does not mean rejecting technology. Instead, it calls for balance. Digital tools can serve as powerful foundations for vocabulary acquisition, grammar practice, and listening exposure. However, they should complement, not substitute, social interaction.

Learners may integrate:

• Online language exchange partnerships
• Conversation clubs
• Voice messages with native speakers
• Classroom or community-based discussions

By combining technological efficiency with human interaction, learners can develop both linguistic accuracy and communicative confidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while digital technology has made foreign language learning more efficient and accessible, excessive dependence on it may weaken the social essence of language itself. When interaction is replaced by screens, learners risk losing confidence and communicative authenticity in real-life situations. This tension between technological convenience and human connection ultimately defines the digital paradox.

---

Irkani Enrieta Magdalena is an alumnus of Tokyo International University, where she specialized in Business and Economics. During her studies, she worked as a Supply Chain Operator at UNIQLO in Japan, gaining strong operational skills in a fast-paced environment. She is currently working at an investment company in Jakarta, Indonesia, where she applies her expertise in business strategy and financial analysis.

Entering his second year of presidency, Prabowo Subianto’s approach and future outlook has sparked numerous debates regarding Indonesia’s direction of foreign policy and presence in the global stage. The altercation of Prabowo’s neorealist approach has brought Indonesia into a new trajectory as a middle power. From attaining presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council, to engaging with Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, Prabowo’s advancements and ambition attempts to manage multilateralism within the global stage all while maintaining domestic commitments. Yet, with Indonesia having a greater medium for utilising strategic power, this then poses the question of Prabowo’s commitments to maintaining moral alignment and preservation of human rights amidst plans of international engagement.

With plans to prosper Indonesia’s future, his priorities become evident—to strengthen Indonesia’s role in international affairs. It’s undoubtedly acknowledged that with the president’s military background and firm position on national security, Prabowo’s leadership demonstrates a pivotal turning point on Indonesia’s foreign policy going forward. Echoing words by the Human Rights Minister, Natalius Pigai, during his visit at the Indonesian Embassy in Tokyo with members of the Indonesian community, he further highlights Prabowo’s pursuit of a realist approach: believing that Indonesia’s interest may be strengthened through active political ideologies — allowing the reinforcement of mental resilience and readiness. 

Analyzed through a neorealist lens, Prabowo’s foreign policy aligns with the foundation of balancing strategies that seek states to maximize their own security whilst maintaining its free and active tradition. According to Kenneth Waltz, an American political scientist, he affirms that states moderate their pursuit of power for survival to maintain the status quo—henceforth, it becomes evident that Indonesia’s involvement between major powerhouses are adopted to avoid vulnerability and enhance the nation’s international standing. Through initiatives in navigating interests of influential power states such as China and the United States, as well as partnership talks of military accords separately with Russia and France, Prabowo’s efforts and recent executions underscores his neorealist’s approach in diversifying Indonesia’s presence and affiliation amidst foreign actors. 

Such a neorealist approach becomes critical in understanding how the international world churns great-power politics that’ll shape the future of our society, as we currently are seeing a downfall of multilateralism. While power states have reigned dominance over multilateral systems, the current political climate adds further a diverse set of actors. Having both the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations seemingly fatally blocked in times of crisis, the cohesion of international politics remains unstructured—and often, disruptive. Therefore, this gives middle powers—such as Indonesia, a role in systematically reviving global multilateralism. Seeing the world through Prabowo’s realist lens, his framework and decision makes grounds for believing that Indonesia’s newfound involvement may provide prospects for global stability. Though a sliver of realism may be warranted in hopes of potentially advancing international cooperation, given the current political state of the world, it’s imperative to remember that an approach by middle powers must have the capability of enforcing strategic balance amidst mixed motives and hidden self-interest.

The attempts of integrating multilateralism as a middle power can be seen executed earlier this year, with Indonesia given the privilege to be elected with the presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council as an acknowledgement of its ability to morally lead a platform of human rights. However, Prabowo’s efforts to strategically place Indonesia at the outreach of dominant power with its presidency raises concerns on the administration’s deliberate strategic motive, particularly of status play to wager institutional influence. As such a position allows Indonesia a medium to instead manage multilateral politics rather than hedging human rights outcomes. While the mandate of the presidency primarily acts to be procedural and facilitative, the president has the principal responsibility—as well as influence, to vocalize human rights activities globally. However, for a country without a dominant reach of power, institutional authority becomes a calculated pathway to be maximized, as it orchestrates the environment where outcomes of global diplomacy are created.

Yet, while Indonesia’s presidency in the global stage showcases its moral obligations, human rights affairs on a domestic level remains continuously contested. Whether it be through a new criminal code taking effect or the restriction of expression by rights advocates, domestic controversies that frequently arise become reference points on Prabowo’s true motive. With a newfound spotlight by the public, Indonesia’s domestic human rights practices become a glimpse of whether its international role and credibility in the Human Rights Council may be perceived as truly authentic—or merely an act.

Following the shift in a new leadership approach, recent events shedding a light toward Donald Trump’s Board of Peace and Indonesia’s decision to engage with his multinational stabilization force for Gaza further triggers more alarms towards the public in understanding Prabowo’s decision. One may argue that his means of support reflect a neorealist approach and compromise with the only power state capable of moving the needle towards enforcing a peace deal, given the United States’ position to constantly divert substantive change towards affairs in the middle east. However, widespread scrutiny continues to grow as Indonesia’s decades-long effort to strengthen its philosophical foundations of diplomacy and position itself as a mediator clashes with the president’s newfound strategic decision. Drawing the nation towards a politically sensitive human rights dilemma that leads to both constitutional and moral tension. 

With that being said, in our current political reality where countries attempt to use state power to cooperate in advancing multilateralism all while maintaining their own future stability, one’s collective security and shared beliefs with others become a long-standing interest for middle-power states like Indonesia. Furthermore, taking consideration of Prabowo’s realist approach and Indonesia’s speculated motive in the Human Rights Council, it becomes increasingly vital to carefully navigate the country’s position as a stable, influential player. Prabowo’s foundation of strategies for Indonesia both offers opportunities and risks for the credibility of human rights protection, particularly amidst managing its domestic commitments alongside the nation’s newfound significant presence on international forums. Ultimately, the president’s credibility and commitment to ensuring a prosperous future for Indonesia lies in the ability to finding a medium between maintaining peace and moral alignment; if Indonesia will be able to simultaneously preserve its attempt of survival in such cutthroat political environment all while as abiding to moral foundations pioneered by the UN Charters.

---

Isabelle Teresa Lensun is a 1st year International Relations student at Tokyo International University. She currently serves as the Head of Academics Division at PPI Korda Kanto.