By: Muhammad Rayhan )*
President Prabowo Subianto’s steps in handling the polemic of administrative boundaries between Aceh and North Sumatra Provinces reflect the government’s commitment to creating certainty in regional governance. The government responded quickly and firmly to the polemic that emerged regarding the four islands in the border region, in order to maintain the state’s authority and certainty of public services. The President took over the resolution process directly so that administrative arrangements run clearly and do not have a long-term impact on public services or coordination between institutions.
Head of the Presidential Communications Office, Hasan Nasbi, emphasized that the authority to determine administrative areas lies entirely in the hands of the central government. This assertion strengthens the position that in the applicable government system, the division of administrative areas cannot be determined unilaterally by the regions. Administrative decisions need to be based on historical data, legal basis, and adjustments to developments in government at the local and national levels.
The President’s steps to immediately resolve this issue also give a strong signal that every administrative problem will be handled professionally and based on regulations. In this case, the government accommodates regional aspirations as long as they are in line with the law and national interests. Expression of opinions remains open, but the decision-making process remains within the applicable legal corridor. Communication space between regional heads is also prepared to support open and rational resolution.
The four islands that are the point of difference of opinion between Aceh and North Sumatra, namely Lipan Island, Panjang Island, Mangkir Ketek Island, and Mangkir Gadang Island, have been administratively designated as part of North Sumatra through the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 300.2.2-2138 of 2025. The government actively listens to and clarifies community aspirations to ensure transparency in the administrative arrangement process. This approach reflects the government’s accommodating attitude towards the constructive administrative clarification process.
The role of the central government is greatly needed so that there is no tug-of-war of authority that actually slows down the implementation of public policies in the field. When there are two regions that feel they have an administrative connection to a particular area, then decisions originating from the central authority can be the basis for aligning understanding and avoiding overlapping in the implementation of development programs and government services.
The approach used by the President also shows the importance of consistency in the management of national administrative areas. Regional boundaries are not just a matter of maps, but also related to the effectiveness of budgeting, regional regulatory arrangements, and cross-sector coordination. Therefore, the central government’s strategic decisions strengthen the technical implementation structure in the field so that development runs effectively and without obstacles.
The government also understands that administrative issues often touch on social dimensions and public perceptions. Therefore, dialogue and a communicative approach remain part of the process. Administrative decisions are made efficiently and in accordance with the national system, in order to ensure the orderly running of government. In this case, the President acts as the mandate holder to ensure that all processes run orderly and directed.
The President’s quick steps in responding to this issue are an example of responsive government management to cross-regional issues. When public aspirations require clarity, the presence of the country’s leader as a decision maker is a form of real responsibility. This also fosters trust that every problem that arises in the region will be directly addressed by the central authorities, not allowed to drag on.
The central government has involved ministries and technical institutions to ensure the legitimacy and accuracy of administrative decisions in the process of finalizing administrative boundaries, including related ministries and national mapping institutions, so that the decisions taken have accurate data legitimacy. Geospatial technology support and legal studies of governance will further strengthen the accuracy of decisions taken. Thus, the results produced are not only solution-oriented but can also be implemented in the long term.
In the framework of a government that is oriented towards legal certainty and administrative order, the presence of clear and firm decisions is greatly needed. The government has given a signal that there is no room for ambiguity in the arrangement of regional government work areas.
In the future, it is hoped that all regional heads can use this case as a lesson in managing differences of opinionin a measured manner and through official channels. The decision taken by the President is not the end of the dialogue, but rather the beginning of a more orderly administrative implementation. Communication between regions and the central government will continue as part of the national coordination system.
The President’s steps in handling this polemic show consistency towards governance based on rules and data. Each region has its own administrative challenges, and with targeted policies, each problem can be resolved professionally. Through this resolution, the government has shown that the state administrative system works to create order, certainty, and efficiency in running the wheels of government.
)* The author is a public policy observer
