menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Indonesia’s Disinformation Bill and the Politics of ‘Foreign Propaganda’

16 0
13.04.2026

ASEAN Beat | Politics | Southeast Asia

Indonesia’s Disinformation Bill and the Politics of ‘Foreign Propaganda’

In its bid to clamp down on fake news, President Prabowo’s administration is arming itself with some concerning powers.

Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto delivers a speech to announce the launch of the Danantara sovereign investment fund in Jakarta, Indonesia, February 25, 2025.

In the midst of global concerns over artificial intelligence, information manipulation, and the massive spread of fake news, the Indonesian government has begun pushing a bill aimed at countering disinformation and foreign propaganda. This bill, first publicly confirmed by Coordinating Minister for Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra on January 13, is positioned as an instrument to protect the national information space, maintain public order, and strengthen national resilience. However, the most fundamental issue with this draft is not merely the threat of false information it seeks to address, but rather what kind of state power is being built in the name of responding to that threat.

The intention to expand these powers has been evident from the way this bill has been promoted and framed from the beginning. Discussions on this bill have not appeared in the 2025–2029 National Legislation Program or the 2026 Priority Legislation Program, even though regulations in the digital space are already covered by a number of other instruments, including the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, the Press Law, the Broadcasting Law, and Presidential Regulation No. 32 of 2024 concerning the responsibility of digital platforms. Even within this already crowded legal landscape, a new academic paper prepared as part of the bill’s drafting process calls for a new instrument that it claims is necessary to address threats described as systemic, organized, and cross-border. That move would give the state a stronger legal basis to increase the regulation of the digital information space.

The problem is that such an expansion of authority becomes dangerous when it is not accompanied by clear definitions of what constitutes disinformation and foreign propaganda. In the practice of regulating the digital space, these terms are never entirely neutral because they always leave room for broad interpretation. The primary risk is not merely the danger of misapplication, but the shift in the legal function of these regulatory instruments from tools for countering threats to tools for proscribing public expression deemed disruptive to the political interests of those in power. When the boundaries between false information, criticism, and political expression are not strictly defined, even legitimate voices can easily be positioned as threats.

These concerns become even more relevant when viewed within a broader political context. In recent times, public criticism and demonstrations have often been met with suspicions that they are being exploited by foreign interests or driven by parties that do not align with the Indonesian government’s agenda. This shifts criticism from the realm of freedom of expression to that of a threat to the state. When such a perspective is then supported by flexible regulations regarding “foreign propaganda,” the risk of abuse becomes far more tangible.

The Philippine experience offers a concrete illustration of how political labeling can evolve into a structured pattern. “Red-tagging” refers to the practice of labeling individuals or organizations as communists, rebel sympathizers, or parties linked to terrorism, and then framing them as threats to national security. The targets of this practice extend far beyond armed groups. Activists, journalists, students, labor unions, environmental advocates, indigenous groups, and civil society organizations have all been included among the targets. After persisting for over five decades, the practice of red-tagging in the Philippines was finally declared by the Philippine Supreme Court to be an act that threatens the rights to........

© The Diplomat