“The government of Indonesia has assigned a financial punishment as the new way to press me to stop doing Papuan human right advocacy.” She said in a written statement which accepted by CNN Indonesia.com, Tuesday (11/8)
At this time, the society in Indonesia was quite shocked by Veronica Koman’s case. Quote above was one of the veronica’s statements about demand for scholarship refund by the Government of Indonesia through Institution of Education fund Management ( LPDP) to her. She has asked by the government to refund IDR 733 million that she used to study in Australia 2016 back then. According to her, the demand like this appeared because she is labeled as a provocateur for Papuan Human Right advocacy that she has been doing. Otherwise, according to LPDP, the demand for scholarship refunds has been made because Veronica is considered to have violated the agreement in one of them is an awardee must return to Indonesia after they finish their study to contribute to the national interest.This issue is ironic.
Through this case, began to appear some things that become questions for everyone. First, do awardees understand the agreement which they must fulfill? Second, does the LPDP has done the right step in the awardee selection. Quoting from Tempo.co (8/20), one of the awardees of LPDP named Siska said that many awardees who did not come back to Indonesia after they finish their study abroad. This case always happens due to LPDP doesn’t do factual verification toward the awardee. LPDP doesn’t review in depth related awardees activity after their graduation.
LPDP’s Policy is Not Assertive
In the end, Veronica’s case begins to open people ayes about of LPDP’S system. Whether the LPDP only focused on academic selection at the beginning of the selection process. Considering there are many awardees who have violated scholarship agreements for making contributions to national interest after graduation. Few of them work part-time while studying or choose not to come back to Indonesia due to working abroad after graduation. Whereas it is obvious what they are doing is not allowed by the scholarship organizers. The absence of strict rules governing awardee makes the LPDP goals through its scholarship program ineffective.
Quoting from Tempo.co (8/20). Currently, awardees tracing who have graduated only oblige academic reports and graduation, just a copy of certificate and thesis. The absence of accurate evaluation regarding the awardee’s responsibilities after graduation is a weakness of the LPDP program system itself. As a result, many awardees forget the agreement of scholarship. Not wonder anymore if the LPDP mission to prepare a future professional leader for Indonesia is only artificial.
Veronica Koman as a Learning
Public being curious, why only Veronica Koman who being spotlight? Its happening due to agreement violation committed by awardees is not a new phenomenon. Not only Veronica who being the spotlight but also the LPDP itself. Another big question is to appear, whether the demands put forward by the LPDP constitute political pressure? This because Veronica stumbled on several cases related to human rights advocacy that she did for the people of Papua. System repairing must be done to avoid public speculation and doubt toward the LPDP system. Several points must be considered. First, there must be proper selection not only on the academic side but also on the vision and mission of awardees related to their contributions to the nation. Second, there must be factual verification from the LPDP toward the awardee’s contribution after their graduation. Third, there must be an assertive policy toward the awardee who violates the agreement without favoritism. These points are very necessary so that the LPDP is not considered an education financing institution that is not credible and only reacts because of political issues.
How about Veronica Koman as an awardee? In my opinion, several points must be considered by Veronica and other awardees. First. When you choose as an awardee, make sure that you understand the agreement and consequences. This is because the awardee has been given the mandate that comes from people’s money to contribute to the country ethically. The integrity of the awardee is tested. There is understanding in positioning oneself on sensitive issues, and ethical issues in contributing to the country’s development must also be considered. Not as a restraint on democracy, but don’t forget the ethics and integrity of the awardee itself.
