On March 23, 2025, the Badan Kepegawaian Negara (BKN) officially announced that three categories of honorary staff will not be allowed to participate in the second stage of the Pegawai Pemerintah dengan Perjanjian Kerja (PPPK) selection process, even though they had previously passed the administrative phase. This decision, announced under Pengumuman Nomor P-00188/SJ/B.II.1/KP.00.1/01/2025 has sparked significant conversation and speculation within the education sector.
Many are questioning the reasoning behind the cancellation, with concerns that these decisions could be driven more by budgetary fears than by genuine administrative issues. A significant worry arises: are we faced with a scenario that would lead the government to bankruptcy if all honorary personnel were granted PPPK status? Critics argue that the mass hiring of honorary staff would significantly increase the financial burden on the state. Yet, the narrative continues to evolve, suggesting that the problem lies not in a lack of funds, but in how the government prioritizes its budget.
As outlined in the APBN 2024, government employee expenditures already reached hundreds of trillions of Rupiah. Given this context, the suggestion that hiring these honorary employees could lead to national bankruptcy appears unfounded. The comparison between state revenue and expenditure suggests that while honorary staff remuneration would impact the budget, it would not drive the state into a fiscal crisis.
Moreover, the controversy continues as many honorary staff members are still waiting for their rightful status. While the government allocates large sums for infrastructure projects and energy subsidies, questions arise regarding why welfare for honorary staff remains on the back burner. Honorary staff, including teachers, have been significant contributors to the educational landscape and deserve recognition in national priorities.
In contemplating alternatives to the current hiring process, the article posits the option of gradual hiring methods based on categories such as years of service or geographical needs, potentially easing the burden on the state’s finances. This approach could prove to be a more fiscally responsible strategy while ensuring that those who deserve recognition are prioritized.
Furthermore, there are suggestions that the government could diminish its bureaucratic expenditures to help fund the transition of honorary staff to permanent positions. The evaluation of administrative staff levels and cutting back on inefficient bureaucratic roles could release budgetary resources for more fruitful uses, such as staff welfare.
Consideration should also be given to long-serving honorary teachers, who have contributed significantly for over ten years. They should receive special treatment in the PPPK selection process, allowing them to compete fairly without needing to vie against newer entrants who may lack their experience.
If full PPPK government contracts cannot be offered immediately, an interim solution could involve a contract system that guarantees decent wages and welfare, providing much-needed security to those who have previously labored under precarious conditions.
In summary, the government finds itself at a crossroads. Rather than facing bankruptcy due to honoring their commitments to staff welfare, it’s necessary to overhaul budget priorities and address bureaucratic inefficiencies. Ensuring fair treatment for honorary staff could revitalize the education sector by securing competent personnel who have long steadfastly supported public education.
