Free Tuition at Public Universities: A Noble Promise, a Fiscal Test Awaits

President Prabowo Subianto has reaffirmed his commitment to waiving tuition at state universities (PTN) for all students in D3, D4, and S1 programs. The instruction was delivered at a limited meeting at the Palace, calling for the free tuition program to be prepared in stages while taking the country's fiscal capacity into account. For many families, this promise is like an oasis in a desert of ever-rising education costs.

Yet behind the euphoria lies a fundamental question: where will the funding come from? Preliminary calculations by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology (Kemdiktisaintek) indicate a need of around Rp 93.7 trillion per year to waive the single tuition fee (UKT) for 2.83 million students. That figure far exceeds the ministry's total budget ceiling for 2027 of only Rp 66.44 trillion. In other words, even if the entire ministry budget were redirected, a deficit of tens of trillions of rupiah would remain.

The President has mentioned corruption funds as a solution. Unfortunately, the actual deposits from the Attorney General's Office Asset Recovery Agency into state coffers cannot be relied upon. In 2024, deposits were recorded at Rp 1.439 trillion; they surged to Rp 19.654 trillion in 2025; then fell to Rp 4.947 trillion through September 2026. Even the highest figure is only about one-fifth of a single year's needs, and it does not yet cover religious higher education institutions. Seized money is like seasonal rain: it comes occasionally, depending on major cases that have already gained permanent legal force. This uncertainty makes a funding scheme based on corruption funds fiscally fragile.

The test of the state's sincerity does not stop at numbers. Three quiet things determine whether this policy will become a legacy or merely rhetoric. First, institutionalization: will this promise be enshrined in a binding legal framework, so that it does not depend on a regime or a momentary policy? Second, fairness of coverage: will the scheme reach all segments, including students at religious higher education institutions and in remote areas? Third, funding sustainability: does the government have a permanent revenue source, rather than merely relying on unpredictable seized money?

"Sincerity is not measured by how loud the voice is on the podium, but by whether the promise is institutionalized, whether its coverage is fair, and whether its funding is sustainable," wrote Mudhofir Abdullah, a lecturer and researcher, in his column in Kompas.

For investors and market players, this policy carries dual implications. On one hand, expanded access to higher education could strengthen the quality of human resources in the long term, ultimately driving productivity and economic competitiveness. On the other hand, fiscal uncertainty could trigger concerns about the budget deficit and macroeconomic stability. The government needs to convince the market that this program will not sacrifice fiscal discipline, for instance by designing a blended funding scheme involving the private sector, philanthropy, or an education endowment fund.

If managed well, free tuition could be a catalyst for social mobility and inclusive growth. However, without careful planning, it risks becoming a mounting fiscal burden and creating new inequities—for example, well-off students who should be paying instead enjoying the subsidy. The government must immediately detail the recipient selection mechanism, the amount of costs covered, and a permanent funding source. Without that, this noble promise will only become a test of sincerity that fails along the way.

The question now is: will the state be able to turn rhetoric into reality, or will we once again witness sweet promises that simply evaporate?