LPDP and the Test of Civic Integrity in the Global Era

Ahmad Tholabi Kharlie
(Professor at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)

The controversy surrounding an alumnus of the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) scholarship who openly expressed pride in his child’s foreign citizenship has sparked widespread public debate.

Strong reactions from the government and society indicate that this issue is not seen merely as a personal choice but as a moral matter touching on the relationship between the state and educated citizens who receive funding from public money.

In the APBNKITA press conference (February 23, 2026), Finance Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa emphasized that LPDP funds come from taxpayers’ money and state debt management, therefore carrying a very strong dimension of public responsibility.

Since the beginning, LPDP was designed as a strategic instrument of the state to develop superior human resources.

Funds sourced from public taxes and state fiscal management are essentially a long-term investment in the nation’s future through the education sector.

Since its launch in 2012, the program has funded tens of thousands of Indonesian students in various countries.

Therefore, being an LPDP scholarship recipient carries consequences beyond administrative aspects — namely, an ethical and symbolic mandate reflecting the state’s hope for the future intellectual generation.

A Moral National Contract

This case clearly reveals a tension between two perspectives on education: education as an individual right and education as a public trust.

In the liberal-individualistic paradigm, education is viewed as an instrument of personal social mobility. The state merely acts as a facilitator.

However, in the context of LPDP, education was never designed within a purely individualistic framework. It stands on a collective logic that the state finances recipients so that they will later contribute back to society.

This is where the core issue lies. What we are witnessing is a crisis of public morality among the educated class.

This crisis reflects the weakening of ethical awareness regarding the reciprocal relationship between individuals and the state, rather than merely a matter of formal legal violations.

When education is understood solely as a ticket for global mobility without awareness of national responsibility, what occurs is the denationalization of the meaning of education itself.

From the perspective of the sociology of education, this phenomenon can be read as a form of instrumentalization of education.

The meaning of education tends to shift from character formation and value orientation toward a more pragmatic function for personal welfare.

This shift is not new. Pierre Bourdieu in Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture (1977) warned that modern education systems tend to reproduce class interests and individual social mobility, rather than build collective responsibility.

As an academic and university administrator, I see that this issue cannot be resolved merely through administrative sanctions or stricter selection regulations.

The core problem lies in our educational ecosystem, which overly emphasizes technocratic competence, while the dimensions of national ethics and civic responsibility have not become mainstream in shaping young intellectuals.

Universities have often been trapped in the paradigm of producing global labor. Success indicators are measured by the number of graduates working abroad, international reputation, or academic achievements alone.

In fact, universities carry a broader mandate: to shape individuals who possess historical awareness, social commitment, and national responsibility.

LPDP is essentially a modern social contract between the state and intellectuals. The state invests educational capital, and recipients are expected to return the benefits through tangible contributions. This contract is not only legal but also moral.

John Dewey in Democracy and Education (1916) asserted that public education is the primary mechanism for sustaining democratic life, because it is through education that values of social responsibility are cultivated.

When this moral dimension is ignored, the relationship between the state and intellectuals becomes merely transactional.

A Crisis of Civic Ethics

In the tradition of Indonesian national thought, education has always been positioned as both liberation and service.

Ki Hadjar Dewantara, since the early 20th century, emphasized that education aims to form individuals who are independent yet cultured.

This independence fundamentally refers to responsible freedom — freedom accompanied by commitment to serve society.

In the context of globalization, it is unrealistic to demand that all graduates physically return to the homeland.

Global OECD data shows that the number of international students worldwide surpassed 6.4 million in 2022, confirming that global academic mobility is a structural phenomenon of the 21st century.

However, what matters far more is the orientation of contribution. Service does not always mean working domestically, but it must be reflected in a commitment to provide tangible benefits to the nation, whether through international networks, knowledge transfer, or policy contributions.

In this context, the necessary response is not merely symbolic nationalism but systematic steps to strengthen national ethics within the higher education system.

Martha Nussbaum (2010) emphasized that higher education that neglects the formation of empathy and civic responsibility will produce individuals who are technically intelligent but morally impoverished.

Universities need to incorporate civic ethics as an integral part of the curriculum, especially for students who receive public funding.

In addition, scholarship selection processes should develop more comprehensive integrity assessment instruments.

So far, selection has tended to focus on academic ability and leadership potential, while national value orientation is often measured normatively and formally.

In fact, national integrity lies in the consistency of attitude and deep moral orientation.

Furthermore, the state needs to build a public narrative that positions scholarship recipients as “moral ambassadors” of the nation, not merely program beneficiaries.

This narrative is important in fostering collective awareness that becoming an LPDP awardee is both an honor and a social mandate.

Ultimately, this case becomes a mirror for all of us: Has our education system succeeded in forming intellectuals who are not only intelligent but also socially empathetic and nationally committed?

If the answer is not yet, then this event should be read as a moment of reflection, not merely a temporary polemic.

LPDP is a symbol of the state’s trust in its intellectual generation. That trust can only be preserved if the educated class realizes that education also carries the dimension of public responsibility.

This article was published in Kompas on Tuesday, February 24, 2026.