Reconsidering Approaches to Combat Disinformation

Indonesia’s Proposed Anti-Disinformation Bill Raises Freedom of Expression Concerns

President Prabowo Subianto’s administration is facing mounting criticism over its proposed Anti-Disinformation and Foreign Propaganda Bill, which critics argue will further restrict freedom of expression in Indonesia. The controversial legislation, currently being fast-tracked into the 2026 National Legislation Program despite the program being finalized last September, stems directly from President Prabowo’s personal concerns.

The Ministry of Law has already drafted an academic paper that began circulating in mid-January 2026, raising alarms among civil liberties advocates who question the bill’s true intentions.

Critics point to Prabowo’s history of conflating legitimate criticism with disinformation. For over a decade, especially during presidential campaigns, the President has frequently labeled those who disagree with government policies as “foreign stooges” and dismissed criticism as “foreign-sponsored disinformation.” This tendency has led many to question whether the proposed legislation aims to protect Indonesian citizens or shield the President from public scrutiny.

While disinformation and propaganda represent genuine global concerns, approaches to addressing these issues vary significantly across countries. Nations with strong commitments to free expression, like the United Kingdom, target perpetrators rather than controlling content. Their legislation avoids direct regulation of social media or mass media content.

By contrast, countries such as Singapore and Russia have implemented information laws that effectively align public opinion with government positions. Experts note that such restrictive measures tend to be effective only in countries with both strong leadership and robust economies – neither of which Indonesia currently possesses.

Indonesia’s economic fragility and questions surrounding leadership strength suggest the proposed legislation could become a tool for government oppression rather than information protection. The vague definitions of “disinformation” and “propaganda” in the bill create additional concerns, as their interpretation would largely depend on government officials’ discretion.

“If the government views public criticism as disinformation and NGO advocacy as propaganda, this bill could be weaponized against citizens based solely on law enforcement officers’ interpretations,” explained a legal analyst familiar with the draft legislation.

Media experts suggest that the most effective approach to combating misinformation is actually to increase information flow rather than restrict it. By allowing public discourse and encouraging media verification processes, inaccurate information naturally gets corrected through collective scrutiny. Additionally, emerging technologies like artificial intelligence offer promising tools for rapid fact-checking.

Digital literacy represents another crucial component in fighting misinformation. Educational approaches, such as incorporating digital literacy into school curricula, would likely prove more effective than punitive legislation. Such initiatives would empower citizens to critically evaluate information sources and identify misleading content without government intervention.

Civil society organizations have begun mobilizing against the bill, arguing that existing legislation provides sufficient tools to address genuine cases of harmful misinformation. They warn that additional laws based on what they describe as paranoia will only serve to protect those in power while silencing legitimate dissent.

As debate over the legislation intensifies, the government faces mounting pressure to demonstrate that the bill serves the public interest rather than political expediency. Whether President Prabowo’s administration will respond to these concerns remains to be seen, but the outcome will significantly impact Indonesia’s democratic trajectory and commitment to freedom of expression.