Kawal Ibam Website Technical Audit: PageSpeed Results and Tech Stack for the #KawalIbam Campaign Site (Ibrahim Arief)
An independent Google PageSpeed Insights audit of kawalibam.org, the website tied to the #KawalIbam campaign for Ibrahim Arief ("Ibam"), plus the technology stack a browser extension detects on it. Technical data only, which anyone can re-check. It is not a judgement on any person.
RAHMAT WIBOWO | 23 OCTOBER 2026
Why a technical audit of the Kawal Ibam website
Ibrahim Arief ("Ibam") was, at the time of the campaign, a technology executive at a state-owned education-technology subsidiary. He later became a defendant in the alleged Chromebook laptop procurement corruption case. Between September and November 2023 he ran a public self-defence campaign under the hashtag #KawalIbam.
My longer analysis of that campaign is an analysis of rhetoric, with logical fallacies checked claim by claim. Most of it is interpretation. This short piece is different. It covers one section of the report that is, as I wrote there, "technical and verifiable (not opinion)": what public tools report about the campaign website, kawalibam.org.
Two caveats before the numbers. First, the figures below describe a website, not the ability of any person connected to it. Second, I am a party to the wider dispute. I am the individual named in the "never-hire list" discussed in the full analysis, so I publish the raw captures and ask readers to run the tools themselves.
The PageSpeed Insights results
On 7 September 2026 I ran an independent Google PageSpeed Insights audit of kawalibam.org. It recorded these performance scores:
| Site | Mobile | Desktop |
|---|---|---|
| kawalibam.org | 81 / 100 | 77 / 100 |
| infraloka.co.id (comparison only) | 94 / 100 | 99 / 100 |
The audit also reported the Core Web Vitals assessment for kawalibam.org as "Failed". The cause was a Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) of 0.71.
CLS measures how much visible content jumps around while a page loads. A high value means the layout moves under the reader's eyes. The audit labelled the result "Failed" because of that figure.
The infraloka.co.id numbers sit in the table purely as a technical comparison. I ran the same audit on the same date, so the two columns can be read side by side. My own site is not an independent reference, and I do not present the comparison as an assessment of the skills of anyone involved with either site.
The captures
Exhibit L. kawalibam.org, mobile, 81/100, Core Web Vitals failed on CLS.
Exhibit M. kawalibam.org, desktop, 77/100.
Exhibit M2. infraloka.co.id, mobile, 94/100, technical comparison data.
Exhibit L2. infraloka.co.id, desktop, 99/100, technical comparison data.
The full report also keeps two further mobile captures of kawalibam.org from the same audit session. I have not repeated them here.
The detected tech stack
The same section includes a screenshot (exhibit vs-17) of the Wappalyzer browser extension open on kawalibam.org. The extension lists the technologies it detects on a page. In the capture I can read these entries:
- Analytics: Statsig 3.30.2 and Cloudflare Browser Insights
- JavaScript frameworks: React Router 7.10.0 and React
- Security: Cloudflare Turnstile
- CDN: Cloudflare
- Databases: PostgreSQL
- Advertising: Twitter Ads
- Development: Supabase
- Font scripts and UI frameworks: Lucide and Tailwind CSS
Wappalyzer detection on kawalibam.org, as captured in the report.
The report presents this capture as a record of what the extension detected. A detection tool shows what a page appears to use. It does not prove how the site was built or who built it, and I draw no conclusion from the list beyond that.
How to check these numbers yourself
I included every capture so that nothing here rests on my word.
- Open Google PageSpeed Insights and enter kawalibam.org.
- Compare the mobile and desktop performance scores and the Core Web Vitals assessment with the table above.
- Look at the CLS value in the diagnostics.
- Install Wappalyzer and open it on the site to compare the technology list.
Scores from automated tools move with time, server load and network conditions. A fresh run today may differ from my 7 September 2026 run, and a changed result does not make the earlier capture wrong. Both are snapshots.
Where this fits in the bigger analysis
The report keeps this section apart from its fallacy analysis on purpose. The fallacy analysis rests on my interpretation of public statements. The PageSpeed and Wappalyzer figures need no interpretation, because anyone can measure them. The report also records the campaign's wider footprint, such as the campaign poster (exhibit N) and the public documentation around it.
Read the full analysis
For the rhetoric itself, the claim-by-claim fallacy audit and the documented consequences, read the full Kawal Ibam fallacy audit. For the "never-hire list" and its logical flaws, read the Never Hire List analysis.
Limits and right of reply
- This is an analysis of public technical data, not a verdict on anyone's character, intent or competence.
- The presumption of innocence applies in full. Statements about Ibrahim Arief's court case reflect public reporting and may change through further legal remedies.
- I am a party to the wider dispute, so this is one side's account. Where I quote tools, I reproduce what they displayed.
- PageSpeed scores are a snapshot from 7 September 2026 and vary between runs.
- Ibrahim Arief, or anyone responsible for kawalibam.org, is welcome to respond, to correct any factual error, or to publish a fresh audit. I will update this post to reflect a substantiated correction.