Do as I say, not as I do. Two months after taking office, President Prabowo Subianto ordered a 50 percent cut on official overseas travel budgets. The measure, the administration claimed, would save the state coffers roughly Rp15 trillion.

However, over the past year and a half of his administration, the President has logged more than 50 overseas trips. This staggering frequency has raised questions about the consistency of the fiscal austerity he so loudly championed.

The issue is not just the number of times a president has traveled abroad. In today's interconnected world, active diplomacy is no doubt important. The question is, does the travel frequency align with the spirit of efficiency the government has been campaigning for and yield tangible benefits for the public?

The cost of presidential overseas travel is by no means small. Estimates suggest that a single trip can burn through tens of billions of rupiah for aircraft operations, accommodation, logistics, security, and protocol. Given the high frequency, the total expenses shouldered by the state cannot be considered trivial.

The staggering costs may not be an issue if their benefits can be proven convincingly. The problem is the success of these trips cannot be fully measured yet. The government claims that these visits have brought in thousands of trillion rupiah worth of investment. However, the public has the right to know how much of it is really new investment, how much is just the continuation of old investment, and how much is ultimately realized. In healthy governance, claiming success solely is not enough, but such claims must also be verifiable.

Public criticism towards the President's frequent travels abroad cannot be separated from the domestic economic condition. The rupiah is under pressure, the capital market is volatile, foreign capital outflows are mounting, and the country's debt burden continues to rise. All of this makes the public increasingly sensitive about the use of state resources that have not brought in measurable benefits.

Cabinet Secretary Teddy Indra Wijaya's statement that presidential budget overruns are being personally borne by the President himself actually opens a new issue. Rather than putting the matter to rest, his explanation triggers more fundamental questions regarding good governance.

In a modern country, state activities must be funded by the state, documented by the state, and accounted for via state mechanisms. When official state activities are privately funded, the boundaries between public office and personal interests become blurred. The oversight mechanism over the state budget use is also weakened. Meanwhile, the public has the right to know which expenses are covered by the state, or by personal funds, as well as how the accountability mechanism works.

The measure of a leadership is not in the leader's ability to fund state activities, rather his ability to set priorities and maintain consistency between his words and actions. The success of a president's overseas trip is not determined by the number of countries he has visited, but by their demonstrated benefits to the public and accompanying accountability.

– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine

Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2107743/appeals-to-tighten-spending-while-on-wasteful-travel-spre