Greetings, readers.
This morning began with some rather interesting news for me.
A press conference by one of the nation's most influential officials — the Chairman of the National Economic Council, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan — kicked off this morning. The meeting followed his direct encounter with President Prabowo Subianto at Merdeka Palace on Tuesday, June 9, 2026. During their discussion, the GovTech (Government Technology) system was the central topic: President Prabowo's administration intends to establish GovTech as one of its most crucial pillars. "Why? Because all data will be properly collected, and no one will be able to evade it," Luhut stated.
Currently, approximately 80 percent of GovTech systems across ministries and agencies have been integrated. Furthermore, since June 1, 2026, data from eight key ministries and institutions have successfully connected within a single AI-based system. This is no ordinary technology project; it represents a grand ambition: Indonesia has the potential to become one of the first nations, with a population nearing 300 million, to comprehensively implement a government system founded on digitalization and AI.
Amidst all this, one recurring theme is the Digital Single ID. This AI-based system is designed to enhance the accuracy of social aid distribution and curb budget leakage. Subsidies will also undergo a scheme change — shifting from commodity-based support to direct beneficiary payments. The average social aid collected amounts to Rp5.4 million per person, and moving forward, all aid will be categorized and disbursed with the assistance of AI. The target is ambitious: full system implementation is anticipated to commence by the end of 2026, with trials currently active across 42 provinces, regencies, and cities.
As a person with a disability, I find this topic both intriguing and concerning.
The first question that comes to mind is: is this government-created system truly ready and accessible? Will this Digital Single ID be a system that is easy for everyone to use, or will it, in fact, usher in a new form of discrimination?
I have concrete reasons for asking this. The face verification system developed by the banking sector — initially designed to ensure customer security — has, in fact, complicated access for visually impaired individuals. It's not merely about taking a static facial photo, but also about performing facial movements that must follow application guidelines in real-time, and even more stringently: iris verification. For individuals who have been blind since birth and lack eyeballs, this system is entirely unusable. What's more concerning is the complete absence of alternative pathways. Consequently, this leads to tangible discrimination against customers with disabilities.
In the banking sector, perhaps this issue can still be "tolerated" — given the numerous choices of banks and other financial services available. Nevertheless, it remains a systemic flaw that requires rectification.
But what if similar problems arise within the government system?
IKD, or Digital Population Identity, which serves as the precursor to this Digital Single ID, already employs face recognition technology as its primary verification requirement. The registration process mandates users to physically attend a Dukcapil office, guided by officials. This implies that the system destined to become the foundation for distributing social aid, subsidies, and essential services to millions of citizens is already predicated on facial biometric mechanisms as its main entry point, with no alternative pathways provided.
To date, IKD has only been issued to 17 million Indonesian citizens — significantly short of the government's ambitious target to reach hundreds of millions of residents. Even within this 17 million figure, it remains unclear how many persons with disabilities have successfully registered, largely because disability data in Indonesia has long been highly fragmented and problematic.
This data fragmentation is no minor issue. Disability data at BPS (Statistics Indonesia) still relies on classification instruments outlined in Law No. 4 of 1997 concerning Persons with Disabilities — despite that law being obsolete and superseded by instruments based on Law No. 8 of 2016. Consequently, inaccurate data will lead to disability-related programs and policies missing their mark. This is precisely what will occur if the Digital Single ID is designed without first rectifying this fundamental problem.
Regarding scale: according to BPS data from 2024, over 17.8 million Indonesian citizens are persons with disabilities, with a labor force participation rate of merely 23.94 percent. The Coordinating Ministry for Human Development and Cultural Affairs (Kemenko PMK) even reports a larger figure — approximately 22.97 million individuals, or 8.5% of the total population. The substantial disparity between these two official government datasets alone sufficiently illustrates the fragility of our current disability data foundation. This is a large, vulnerable group that ought to be prioritized in system design, rather than being left behind because the system fails to account for their existence.
The government's digital system's readiness for inclusivity is already evident from its existing track record. Research into the IKD application itself revealed that public opinion was largely dominated by complaints concerning login accessibility and barcode verification issues during registration, highlighting a significant gap between the application's maturity and user expectations. This pertains to general users, let alone those with specific accessibility requirements.
This is a recurring pattern: systems are built, released, and only then are problems reported. Subsequently, they await rectification — if they are addressed at all.
If the Digital Single ID is not designed with principles of accessibility and inclusion from its inception, the same pattern will inevitably recur. The difference this time, however, is that the stakes are considerably higher: it's not merely about difficulties in accessing banking services, but the potential severance of access to social aid, healthcare facilities, economic rights, and all fundamental services that are the entitlement of every citizen.
Conversely, if this Digital Single ID is successfully developed with maturity and inclusivity, its potential is immense. The significant challenges long faced by the disability community could begin to be resolved one by one. Disability databases would be centrally and accurately collected — no longer fragmented or subject to overlapping claims between institutions. Needs, capabilities, and the specific types of assistance required could be precisely mapped, circumventing slow and multi-layered bureaucracy.
Aside from the long-term data security risks for the nation, the Digital Single ID holds the potential to be a genuine game changer for disability data and services in Indonesia.
And perhaps — this also warrants consideration — for disability organizations that have historically served solely as facilitators of social aid: these may be the final days before that role is assumed by AI.