EduAsiaNews, Jakarta – A president can indeed misspeak, but a president’s misspeaking is different from that of an ordinary citizen. When a head of state mistakenly utters a word or a number, particularly in today’s digital media era, that mistake can be recorded, clipped, disseminated, parodied, and consumed by millions of people. Within the digital media ecosystem, even a mistake lasting only a few seconds can “live” longer than the speech from which it originated.
That is what happened when Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto delivered a speech at the Annual Session of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) and the Joint Session of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Regional Representative Council (DPD) on August 14, 2026.
When introducing Susanah, a resident of Bogor Regency and a beneficiary of a government program, the President had a “slip of the tongue” when he stated that the woman worked peeling onions for a wage of Rp700,000 (approximately USD 39.32) per kilogram. The extraordinary figure quickly became a topic of discussion and satire on social media.
Later, Head of the Government Communication Agency (Bakom), Muhammad Qodari, clarified that the figure in the speech script was actually Rp700 per kilogram, not Rp700,000 per kilogram. A statement from Susanah’s family also circulated on social media, clarifying that Susanah was not an onion peeler but a patchwork fabric seamstress who earned Rp700 per kilogram of stitched fabric.
Qodari also stated that the mistake was a slip of the tongue and a human error, particularly considering the length of the President’s speech. With this clarification, the issue became clear: it was not the data in the speech script that stated Rp700,000, but rather a mistake that occurred twice when the President delivered the figure.
In other words, Susanah is not an onion peeler and is not paid Rp700,000 per kilogram of onions.
This case is interesting not because the President’s mistake should be amplified, but because it highlights a more fundamental issue in contemporary political communication: the high cost of imprecision when a leader speaks within the digital ecosystem.
The case of Prabowo’s slip of the tongue is not the first instance of this kind. Previously, Prabowo made several other verbal slips, including in a speech on May 20, 2026, when he stated that teachers’ salaries would increase by nearly 300 percent, before later clarifying that he had meant judges’ salaries. Similarly, at the XVIII National Conference of the Indonesian Young Entrepreneurs Association (HIPMI) in Bandar Lampung on June 10, 2026, he made a calculation error by saying, “10 + 6 = 17.”
A Spontaneous Communication Style
Prabowo has a distinctive political communication style that is expressive, spontaneous, and often involves speaking off-script.
From the perspective of political communication, such a style is not necessarily negative. It can create an impression of authenticity, making leaders appear to speak as human beings rather than merely reading bureaucratic texts. In that sense, it can make them appear more relatable and human.
However, spontaneity also carries risks when it is not balanced by disciplined communication. The higher a person’s position within the power structure, the greater the consequences of their words.
A president can never speak entirely as a private individual. Every statement carries institutional weight. When the President cites figures concerning economic growth, poverty, food prices, the state budget, or public income, the public has reason to assume that such figures are based on government data, particularly when they are delivered in a state address.
Therefore, the issue is not about “normalizing” or “tolerating” the idea that a president can make mistakes because, after all, a president is also human. The issue is that the consequences of a president’s words can have significant impacts.
The Logic of Digital Media
The President’s slip of the tongue also demonstrates a major transformation in the way information is disseminated.
During the era of mass media dominance, presidential speeches generally passed through a “gatekeeping” mechanism. Journalists and editors selected the portions they considered important, checked their context, and then presented them to the public.
But what happens now?
Social media has fundamentally altered that process. A lengthy speech can now be transformed into a 20-second video on TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, Facebook, or X. Users do not necessarily need to know what the President said before or after the clip.
This is where what can be described as “context collapse” occurs: a message becomes detached from its original context and enters a new context shaped by social media users.
Moreover, platform algorithms operate according to the logic of the attention economy. Content that evokes shock, anger, humor, or controversy has a greater chance of generating engagement.
The statement that “onion peelers earn Rp700,000 per kilogram” went viral because of its extraordinary figure, which appeared to contradict everyday experience. As a result, a single sentence can overshadow thousands of words in an entire speech.
This is the paradox of digital political communication. The government may prepare a speech containing dozens of achievements in development, yet public attention may instead be captured by a single sentence that lasts only a few seconds.
Digital media has also transformed the position of the audience. The public is no longer merely a recipient of messages. At the same time, they have become producers and distributors of information.
They can cut videos, add titles, insert comments, create memes, produce remixes, and then redistribute the content. As a result, once a statement enters the digital network, the original communicator loses control over how the message circulates.
The President may have intended to say A. After passing through processes of selection, commentary, satire, and algorithmic distribution, however, the public may receive it as B, C, or even D.
Manuel Castells describes contemporary society as a “network society.” In a networked society, the flow of communication is no longer fully controlled by political institutions or mass media. Various actors within the network also influence how a message is produced, disseminated, and interpreted.
The President indeed possesses significant political power. However, the President does not have complete control over how every word will be interpreted on social media.
Controversial information can spread within minutes, while clarification requires a process of verification. This creates an asymmetry: millions of people may have seen the statement that the wage was Rp700,000 per kilogram, but not necessarily the same number of people read Qodari’s clarification that the correct figure was Rp700 per kilogram.
Similarly, there is no guarantee that the same number of people saw the clarification from Susanah’s family stating that she was not an onion peeler.
In misinformation studies, this phenomenon is known as the “continued influence effect,” in which incorrect information can continue to influence people’s perceptions even after a correction has been provided.
Corrections also face the logic of the attention economy. “Onion peelers are paid Rp700,000 per kilogram” is clearly more engaging as a headline and social media post than “Bakom clarifies that the actual figure is Rp700 per kilogram.”
The first piece of information contains an element of surprise. The second merely provides a correction. Algorithms do not always give both messages an equal opportunity to attract public attention.
That is why any inaccuracy conveyed by a public official carries multiplied risks in the digital environment.
The Issue of Credibility
When communication errors occur repeatedly, the problem can shift from mere misinformation to an issue of credibility.
Credibility is the primary asset of a political communicator. The public does not judge leaders solely by what they say, but also by whether they trust the person saying it.
One slip of the tongue certainly does not immediately erase credibility. However, the accumulation of mistakes can gradually shape public perceptions.
Moreover, the internet has a long memory. Old statements can be searched, clipped, compiled, and presented again to construct a new narrative.
Therefore, communication standards for political leaders in the digital era should actually be higher.
The solution is not to strip the President of his spontaneity. His spontaneous and expressive character can, in fact, become a strength in Prabowo’s communication because it creates an impression of authenticity and closeness with the public.
What is needed is a distinction between spontaneity and imprecision.
The President can be spontaneous when using humor, telling stories, or interacting with the public. However, numbers, statistics, names, economic data, and policy information require a different level of discipline.
Data must be verified and, as far as possible, presented in accordance with a thoroughly reviewed speech script.
The presidential communication team should also establish a “rapid correction” mechanism. When an error occurs, the correction needs to be issued as quickly as possible, in a simple and explicit manner, and through channels with broad reach.
The longer an information gap remains unfilled, the greater the likelihood that the space will be occupied by speculation.
Ultimately, the case of the misstatement involving Rp700,000 per kilogram is not merely a story about the wages of onion peelers. It offers a broader lesson about the changing relationship between power, information, and technology.
In the age of digital media, a president’s speech does not end when the microphone is turned off. It continues to live on as short videos, screenshots, memes, Reels, Shorts, comments, and digital archives.
Therefore, the faster information moves, the more carefully leaders must speak.
The shorter the public’s attention span becomes, the more precise the message must be.
And the more strongly algorithms determine what the public sees, the more important accuracy becomes for those who speak from positions of power.
(*)
