Public Complaint No. 063/ADUAN/RW/09/2026: Ferry Irwandi and the "2026 Crisis" Content (English Edition)

Case record: Public Complaint No. 063/ADUAN/RW/09/2026, Ferry Irwandi

This post summarises the public complaint (Aduan Masyarakat) No. 063/ADUAN/RW/09/2026 that I dated 11 September 2026, addressed to the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Indonesian National Police (Bareskrim) and the Jakarta Regional Police (Polda Metro Jaya). It is my own complaint, not a police finding, court filing or judgment. It concerns a public figure's published analysis, and I do not assert that Mr. Ferry Irwandi has committed any offence. I have left out my personal identification and contact details.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how numbers were presented in a series of macroeconomic videos and derived content that Mr. Irwandi, a content creator with an audience in the millions, published in May 2026. The series argued that Indonesia was in, or heading toward, an acute economic crisis, covering a currency crisis, rapidly eroding foreign reserves, misleading GDP growth, debt sustainability and a chain running to a banking crisis and social unrest.

I was explicit at the start about what the complaint is not:

It is not an attempt to silence criticism. I wrote that criticism of government economic policy, including pessimistic or "crisis" analysis, is protected expression, and that I partly agree with his policy conclusion that fiscal and structural reform is needed.
It concerns the integrity of specific figures. The complaint questions whether certain facts and numbers were materially wrong, incomplete or exaggerated, and whether the author knew or should have suspected that.
An element is missing, and I said so. The offence in Art. 263(1) of the new Criminal Code requires that the content actually caused unrest, and there had been no physical unrest. I therefore relied on the "could cause unrest" provisions in Arts. 263(2) and 264, which still need assessment by investigators and experts.

The figures I questioned

Drawing on four counter-analysis documents that I wrote using a devil's-advocate method (and which describe themselves as methodological critique, not legal opinion), the complaint lists representations such as:

"The rupiah hit its weakest on record." Nominally true, but I argue that in real terms adjusted for inflation differences the weakening is nearer 6 to 8 percent than about 14.6 percent, that a large part reflects a stronger US dollar globally, and that a comparison with 1998 ignores very different conditions.
Foreign reserves "eroding". A fall from about US $156 billion to US$ 146.2 billion, which I note is a smaller rate of decline than in the 2013 taper tantrum and still well above common adequacy thresholds, with the content calling about 5.8 months of import cover adequate in one place and implying otherwise in another.
Exchange-rate pass-through and debt projections. Parameters I consider uncalibrated or set so that they produce a worse outcome, and a worst-case capital outflow figure of US $10 billion against a market consensus of about US$ 2 billion.
A causal chain to social unrest. Stated with each link hedged as "possible" but without a mechanism, and without discussing indicators such as bank non-performing loans and capital adequacy that I read as healthy.
A cost-effectiveness analysis of a free-meals programme. Savings and returns that I argue were overstated, with no sensitivity analysis.

My overall reading is that when data supported the crisis narrative the content used worst-case estimates, and when data contradicted it, it was not discussed. I called this selective use of evidence.

Observed effect

The content prompted a wave of anxious public discussion about a "2026 crisis" and a "collapsing rupiah". I acknowledge that nothing physical has happened, and I left the assessment of any risk of unrest to investigators and experts in economics, mass communication and policing.

Legal basis I relied on

It cites Art. 263(2) and Art. 264 of the new Criminal Code (spreading false, uncertain or exaggerated news that could cause unrest), and discusses Art. 28(3) and 28(1) of the ITE Law, with Art. 45A, including their limits. It adds Civil Code Arts. 1365 and 1366. Copies went to the Cyber Crime Directorate, the communications ministry and the Press Council, the last in case the content is treated as journalism.

Limits of this record

This is my account and my analysis; no authority has made a finding.
The complaint itself says that the "could cause unrest" and "suspected to be false" elements need expert assessment and that a difference of interpretation is not the same as a falsehood.
Economic forecasting involves judgement. My counter-analyses are my own, and Mr. Irwandi's figures may have explanations I have not seen.
I have not reproduced the evidence documents here; the four analyses are published separately on this blog.
I am not a lawyer or an economist by profession, and this post is not legal advice.

Right of reply and correction

Mr. Ferry Irwandi is invited to respond, correct, or add context. A substantive reply may be published alongside this article, edited only for privacy, safety and relevance. If reliable evidence shows any statement here is wrong, I will correct it and note the change.

#PublicComplaint #Macroeconomics #FreedomOfExpression #DataIntegrity #CaseRecord