Shofa Umrotul H. is a student in the Faculty of Law, Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia. She filed this dispatch from Malang.
At the end of April, Governor Dedi Mulyadi of Indonesia’s West Java province sparked national controversy after proposing a policy that would require men to undergo vasectomy to qualify for government-provided social aid. The proposal was publicly discussed in the context of addressing overpopulation and improving the effectiveness of social aid distribution (Bantuan Sosial). According to Mulyadi, “we must ensure aid only goes to families who truly plan their future,” suggesting that limiting reproduction would be a condition for receiving public welfare. The Governor’s proposal was widely covered in national media, drawing swift criticism from legal experts, lawmakers, and civil society organizations.
Just days after the statement, key members of Indonesia’s House of Representatives (DPR RI) publicly denounced the proposal, arguing that it is unethical, discriminatory, and likely unconstitutional. A member of House Commission VIII (which oversees matters related to religious, social, and women’s empowerment affairs) and member of House Commission IX (which oversees matters related to health, labor, and the demography) emphasized that family planning should be voluntary and based on informed consent, not coercion tied to economic vulnerability. While Pangeran Khairul Saleh, member of House Commission XIII (which oversees regulation reformation and human rights), criticized Mulyadi’s proposal, he believes that making vasectomy a condition for receiving social aid is flawed and violates human rights principles and citizens’ constitutional rights. In a written statement last week, Saleh stated that, “Private and permanent medical procedures should not be associated with social aids. This violates the principles of human rights and humanity.” The backlash has also extended to academics and human rights advocates, many of whom argue that the policy would violate human dignity, bodily autonomy, and Indonesia’s international obligations under human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
This controversy has emerged within a larger context of Indonesia’s long history of population control policies. In the 1970s and 1980s, the government implemented aggressive family planning programs, primarily targeting women, that were sometimes coercive in nature. Although the National Population and Family Planning Board (BKKBN) has since shifted to a rights-based approach, residual attitudes about state control over reproductive choices persist. In addition, Indonesia has recently faced economic pressure from an expanding population and unequal development across regions, particularly in provinces like West Java, which is the most populous in the country.
The proposed linkage between vasectomy and eligibility for social assistance raises serious constitutional and human rights concerns. Under Article 28G(1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI 1945), every person has the right to protection of their bodily integrity, personal security, and freedom from coercion. Conditioning the receipt of essential welfare services on sterilization, no matter how voluntary it may appear, challenges the core principle of autonomy and violates this constitutional guarantee. Additionally, the principle of equality before the law (Article 28D UUD NRI 1945) is jeopardized by a policy that targets vulnerable, low-income men in particular, subjecting them to a condition not imposed on other recipients of government support.
From a rights-based perspective, the proposal also runs counter to Indonesia’s international obligations. As a party to the ICCPR, Indonesia must ensure that all individuals are free from “inhuman or degrading treatment” as stipulated under the Article 7 ICCPR, and that no person is subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without free consent. Furthermore, the CEDAW explicitly upholds the right of couples to freely decide on the number and spacing of their children, without coercion.
While Governor Mulyadi has emphasized that vasectomy would be “voluntary,” his framing of it as a condition for welfare implicitly undermines that voluntariness. Coercion can be economic in nature—when people feel forced to choose between reproductive autonomy and survival, their freedom is compromised. This is why scholars from Universitas Gadjah Mada have stressed that the policy is not only coercive, but also discriminatory in both effect and intent.
From a policy standpoint, the proposal reflects a technocratic view of population control that risks reviving problematic practices of the Suharto “New Order” regime. During Suharto’s presidency, state-led family planning often relied on paternalistic and coercive methods. Although Indonesia has since moved toward a more rights-based and gender-equitable approach to reproductive health, Mulyadi’s proposal threatens to reverse this progress and send a chilling message about how the state perceives the reproductive rights of the poor.
I find the proposal deeply concerning, not only for its immediate implications, but also for what it suggests about the future trajectory of Indonesian governance. Welfare should be a tool of empowerment, not a lever for control. Policies that instrumentalize people’s bodies in the name of efficiency betray the very purpose of social assistance: to uphold dignity and improve life chances.
Ideally, the backlash from civil society, parliamentarians, and academic institutions will push the central government and BKKBN to issue clear guidance rejecting coercive practices in family planning. Human rights education for local officials, along with inclusive policy-making processes, should be prioritized to avoid such missteps in the future. Realistically, however, such controversial ideas may resurface under different guises, especially in a political climate that rewards strongman narratives and simplistic solutions to complex socioeconomic problems.
Dedi’s proposal does not wage war on poverty, but a war on the poor. So, the question is: will we stand by as reproductive autonomy becomes a bargaining chip for survival, or we will speak up for the poor?
