TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Everything would have been fine if Education and Culture Minister Muhadjir Effendy had magnanimously accepted the decision by President Joko Widodo to revoke his ministry's regulation on five full school days.

By canceling the controversial rule, the president would appear responsive to the wishes of the public who were unhappy with the proposal for students to go to school five days a week for eight hours per day. Jokowi promised that he will issue a presidential decree correcting and improving the premature Education and Culture Ministerial Regulation No. 23/2017.

It turns out that Minister Muhadjir Effendy did not sit quietly and keep his opinions to himself. In a press conference, he reminded journalists of the cabinet meeting that discussed this matter at the beginning of February which was attended by the president and several ministers. Muhadjir said the ministerial regulation on school days would not have come from him without the knowledge of the president in that meeting. Because there was no reaction from the Palace following Muhadjir's revelation, it is only right that we ask questions about the quality of the cabinet meeting that formulated this regulation.

We believe the government decision for five days of schooling as opposed to six days at present which emerged from the cabinet meeting favors only the middle class, especially those living in larger cities. Eight hours at school would make students forget the negative aspects of their surroundings and concentrate on their studies. The notes from that cabinet meeting stated that two days off, rather than one day, also would give students a chance to travel and learn more about other places in Indonesia, together with their families.

Therefore, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion, given the arguments used as the basis for a regulation that would have major consequences on teaching and learning in our schools, that this is more about cities than villages. It is regrettable that the deliberation of this very important nationwide decision did not involve more representatives from various communities in Indonesia, rural and urban, central and regional. The routine of a village child or a religious school in the countryside is not the same as that of a city child.

Clearly the drawing up of this ministerial regulation did not consider the different circumstances of children, their parents or their surroundings. We believe it is important to raise this problem because the government has ignored the diverse needs of people in different circumstances when making this decision. We suggest the government should not act hastily when taking decisions related to the lives of 50 million students in Indonesia, then make rash corrections following a public outcry, before deciding the matter resolved.

The government's tendency to repeat these missteps, making hurried decisions only to reverse gear when controversy arises--sometimes even spinning it as successfully adhering to public aspiration--is worrying. It is difficult to distinguish a government compwithing to its people's wishes and one that simply has no clear vision on the road ahead. Matters could be worse if it is later proven the government changes its policy only to gain political support from those opposing Education and Culture Ministerial Regulation No. 23/2017. Let us hope that is a baseless concern.

Read the full story in this week’s edition of Tempo English Magazine