The International Journal of the History of Sport

ISSN: 0952-3367 (Print) 1743-9035 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fhsp20

Governmental Roles in Indonesian Sport Policy:

From Past to Present

Amung Ma’mun

To cite this article: Amung Ma’mun (2019) Governmental Roles in Indonesian Sport Policy:
From Past to Present, The International Journal of the History of Sport, 36:4-5, 388-406, DOI:
10.1080/09523367.2019.1618837

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2019.1618837

Published online: 23 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 154

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fhsp20
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT
2019, VOL. 36, NOS. 4–5, 388–406
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2019.1618837

Governmental Roles in Indonesian Sport Policy: From

Past to Present
Amung Ma’mun
School of Postgraduate Studies, Faculty of Sport and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
A democratic national system involves a process by which Democracy; national
national leadership is recruited. National leadership has significant leadership; sports policy
authority over the formulation of governmental policies, including development in Indonesia;
governmental roles;
those concerned with sports development. Current and historical historical and actual
Indonesian sports policy development illustrates and enables the perspectives
evaluation of how the democratic process generates national
leadership. Indonesian leadership history is divided into the three
following orders: (1) The Old Order (1945–1967) (led by President
Soekarno), (2) the New Order (1967–1998) (led by President
Soeharto), and (3) the Reform Order (1998–present) (led by five
presidents, as follows: Habibie, Gus Dur, Megawati, SBY, and Joko
Widodo). An assessment of relevant historical facts indicates that
the government plays a perennial and strategic role in sports pol-
icy development. This study performed an analysis of Indonesian
sports legislation and determined that the government supports
increased control over local decision-making.

The Indonesian nation is a constitutional democracy based on both Pancasila and the
1945 Constitution. In 2017, the Indonesian population reached more than 250
million. The 2010 census indicated a population of 237,641,326, with a growth rate of
1.38 per year.
A democratic political system produces elected national leadership. National
leadership has significant authority over the launching of policies and thus must
decide which policies are most important. Academic research on democratic political
systems has revealed that successful leadership prioritizes policy development because
it becomes a means to achieve outlined objectives.1 However, policy formulation is
often dependent on political advice from senior civil servants or confined by inclusive
policy networks. It is thus advisable to choose innovative policies on a collaborative
basis.2 Leadership success is more likely to be achieved through superior and
properly executed policies, indicating that policies with particular identities are
directly related to public policy.3

CONTACT Amung Ma’mun amung@upi.edu School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Pendidikan

Indonesia, Jl. Dr Setiabudhi 229, Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 389

Table 1. National leadership and sports policy issues.

No. National leadership Sports policy issues
1. Old Order Era (1945–1967)  Nation and character building
 Asian Games IV 1962 held in Jakarta for international
political diplomacy
2. New Order Era (1967–1998)  Soekarno’s sport policy continued with some adjustments to the
national development planning system, as written in the National
Guidelines (Garis-garis Besar Haluan Negara – GBHN).
 In 1984, Soeharto succeeded in extending sport policy based on
the vision of Indonesian development as a whole, through the
determination of sports activity hours.29
 A policy of socializing sports and sporting societies was
announced. Friday was defined as the Day of Sport for civil
servants across Indonesia (in accordance with UNESCO’s 1978
recommendation on the ‘sports for all’ movement).
3. Reform Era (1998–present)  Sports development was stagnant.
 In 2005, the Law on the National Sport System was established,
but progress in sports development has not yet been obtained
(except for the badminton coaching system).
 During the five-year political system, candidates offered a concept
of sports development in every election cycle.
 Campaign material is sourced from the National Long-Term
Development Plan, which adapts to the actual issue of nationality
in all fields deemed to require the attention of the candidate.30
 The vision and mission of the elected candidate are the main
references in formulating the National Mid-Term Development
Plan (five-years).
 The role of government in formulating sports policies is carefully
analysed as part of public policy, so that the structure of sporting
governance becomes clear and measurable over time.31
 In this era, sports activities are governed by the Ministry of Youth
and Sports, while sports education is the responsibility of the
Ministry of National Education, the Ministry of Research, and
Technology and Higher Education.

This article constitutes an overview of the relationship between democracy and

national sports policy leadership in Indonesia from both an historical and actual
perspective (Table 1).
This issue will be discussed in a later section (Figure 1).

Democracy, Public Service, and Sports Policy Linkages in Indonesia

Indonesia has been an independent nation since 1945, at which time government
officials fundamentally outlined national ideals as stated in the Indonesian 1945
Constitution Preamble. The Preamble instructs protection over the entire nation and
Indonesian people, in addition to promoting common prosperity, improving national
quality of life, and conducting a world order based on independence, eternal peace,
and social justice.4 These ideals have become the platform of the Indonesian
nation state.
Indonesia’s national ideals regarding the values and meaning of sport, in
accordance with relevant field experts are shown in Table 2.
As indicated in Table 2, sport is appropriately positioned in democratic countries.
Good democracy must involve superior public policy that is developed within an
appropriate context and through a proper process. The outward forms of democracy
and public policy are public services based on principles of good governance. A
390 A. MA’MUN

Figure 1. Democratic process flow to featured policy options. Developed from Rian Nugroho.43

government presence is therefore crucial to providing inclusive opportunities for

citizens to gain access to various activities, including sport.
Research was conducted to process primary historical data in an attempt to answer
the theoretical question posed earlier, which is, ‘What is the government’s role in
Indonesian sports policy?’ In this study, data were collected from original
government records, newspaper articles, and other sources describing Indonesian
sports history and policy from 1948 to the present. This process involved
investigation, examination, interpretation, and analysis of past events, with the intent
of discovering helpful generalizations to understand both the past and present, which
are beneficial in predicting and anticipating future Indonesian sports policy
developments. Complex data were then simplified for display in explanatory tables.
The data were then elaborated upon before findings were determined and
conclusions drawn.

Indonesian Sports History and Policy

Understanding Indonesian sports policy development is facilitated through
examination of its historical trajectory, including policies, administrations, governance
practices, and development of sports within the community. Indonesian youths
established Ikatan Sport Indonesia (Indonesian Sport Association) (ISI) in 1938 amid
concerns about the discriminatory use of sports facilities. ISI was subsequently
federated to consist of the Perserikatan Sepak Bola Indonesia (Indonesian Football
Association) (PSSI), Perserikatan Lawn Tenis Indonesia (Indonesian Lawn Tennis
Association) (PELTI), and Perserikatan Bola Keranjang Seluruh Indonesia (Indonesian
Football Basketball Association) (PBKSI). ISI was the continuation of an Indonesian
sports organization known as Sportbond, which sought to give agency to all persons
without access to a legitimate organization by communicating with the Asian
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 391

Table 2. Linkage of national ideals to the values and meanings of sport.

No. National ideals
1. Protecting the whole nation and all
Indonesian people (unity
and entity)
2. Promoting general welfare (building
quality of life in an advanced,
affluent, and prosperous society)
3. Educating national life (there is a
strong desire for the state to
contain quality human resources),
can be obtained through education.
4. Joining the world order based on
independence, eternal peace, and
social justice: Indonesia becomes a
country that expects an orderly,
safe, and peaceful world.
Values and meanings of sport
Sports activities provide health benefits, bring people together,
strengthen community life, and provide a mechanism
of unity.32
Sport has become an activity that shapes a healthy life and
well-trained physical body. A wholesome society leads to
strong social capital, the capacity to withstand the pressures
of life, a pioneer spirit, and heroism, all of which are the
expected human and societal profile.33
Apart from the health benefits, sporting activities lead to the
achievement of performance goals expected by higher
education institutions.34 Sports and physical activity can
make useful contributions to educational attainment.35
Sports organized by schools play an important role in
students’ academic and social experiences.36 Sport is also an
arena that can be directed to sharpen the understanding of
knowledge in the form of critical, tactical, and strategic
thinking.37 Sports activities become the primary means to
improve quality of life while affecting psychosocial and
emotional aspects.38 Physical education and sports
conducted by teachers and trainers can hone minds, morals,
and personalities, and develop the character needed to face
the challenges of life in society.39 Sports activity itself is
physically useful to improving fitness and can decrease body
fat.40 Sports can sharpen the cultivation of social attitudes,
such as respect, cooperation, discipline, fairness, respect for
human rights and dignity, and others.41
The UN developed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
which were instituted from 2000 to 2015. They have now
been transformed into Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) for 2015 to 2030. Among the SDGs, the concept of
Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) has been proposed
for dissemination to all countries. Governments with
international support, NGOs, multinational companies, other
non-state actors, and a number of stakeholders have sought
to mobilize sport in various ways to improve the health
quality, gender justice, poverty alleviation, education,
community, and other social welfare concerns.42

Olympic Committee. ISI hosted an annual activity called Sportweek, which was
designed to provide unity and fraternity to the local sports community (Sportweek
emphasized the value of heroism). These events enabled athletes to display their
Indonesian national identity through a variety of sports performances. These were
also considered anti-colonialist activities. ISI thus used Sportweek as an instrument of
unity for common struggle.5
Persatuan Olahraga Indonesia (PORI) was established in 1946 as a milestone in the
history of government attention to sport. PORI was designed to enable Indonesian
participation at the 1948 Summer Olympics in London, but event organizers rejected
Indonesian athletes because their abilities did not meet Olympic standards, and Indonesia
had not officially become a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In
addition to the general aim of representing the country through sport, PORI was also
expected to have a socio-political impact. That is, Indonesians wished their country to be
recognized as a world state according to their August 17, 1945 assertion of independence.
However, this was not accomplished. Indonesians were admitted to participate in the
Olympics unless they did so under the authority of their East Dutch Indies passports, and
392 A. MA’MUN

Table 3. Year, province, city, game number, and description/champion of PON games.
Description
No. Year Province organizer City Sports/Game number 1st/2nd/3rd place
1. 1948 West Java Solo 9/42 Solo/Yogya/Kediri
2. 1951 DKI Jakarta Jakarta 18/65 West Java/Jakarta/East Java
3. 1953 North Sumatera Medan 16/68 West Java/Jakarta/East Java
4. 1957 Makassar Makassar 18/72 Jakarta/East Java/Central Java
5. 1961 West Java Bandung 20/136 West Java/Jakarta/East Java
6. 1965 – – – N/A
7. 1969 East Java Surabaya 13/248 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
8. 1973 Jakarta Jakarta 15/311 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
9. 1977 Jakarta Jakarta 31/314 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
10. 1981 Jakarta Jakarta 32/350 East Java/Jakarta/West Java
11. 1985 Jakarta Jakarta 32/375 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
12. 1989 Jakarta Jakarta 33/420 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
13. 1993 Jakarta Jakarta 35/470 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
14. 1996 Jakarta Jakarta 35/502 Jakarta/West Java/East Java
15. 2000 East Java Surabaya 38/550 East Java/Jakarta/West Java
16. 2004 South Sumatera Palembang 41/607 Jakarta/East Java/West Java
17. 2008 East Kalimantan Samarinda 43/749 East Java/Jakarta/West Java
18. 2012 Riau Pekanbaru 43/600 Jakarta/West Java/East Java
19. 2016 West Java Bandung 44/761 West Java/Jakarta/East Java
20. 2020 Papua Jayapura – Has not been put into action
Description: (1) Processed based on data from various national and regional newspapers; (2) Column 5 includes data
from the total sports competed in and the number of matches (e.g. athletic sports competitions (matches are 100
metres, 200 metres, the high jump, and others)).

Indonesia firmly denied attendance under this provision. This incident is an example
of a sporting event providing an arena of political legitimacy through international
relations and high diplomacy.6
However, PORI continued operating its own events, with the exception of a 1965
interruption due to insurgencies that led to a coup attempt by the Communist Party
of Indonesia. The Pekan Olahraga Nasional (National Games) (PON) was
implemented in 1948. The nineteenth PON occurred in 2016, while the twentieth is
currently planned for the Papua province in 2020. A general description and history
of PON games is available in Table 3.
The PON is the culmination of sport performance and coaching in the host region
(province). This is in accordance with Law No. 3 of 2005 on the National Sport
System article 43 and Government Regulation Number 16 of 2007 article 10, under
which the aims of PON are as follows: (1) Maintain unity and national unity, (2)
acquire some potential athletes, and (3) improve sports achievements.7 Along with
the history, legislation, and provincial sports coaching processes, PON has been
integrated into the Indonesian national sports policy agenda. The fundamental
intrinsic value of PON’s creation must therefore remain part of the Indonesian
national identity. Thus, the goals of PON can be achieved by adhering to basic
historical values.
The implementation of PON varied under the leadership of Soekarno. There was
a three-year interlude between the first and second PON games (i.e. 1948 to 1951).
The third occurred two years later in 1953, while the fourth and fifth took place in
1957 and 1961, respectively. As mentioned earlier, the games were not held in 1965
due to the failed 30 September attempt by the Communist Party of Indonesia to
seize power.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 393

Table 4. List of NSOs/NSAs by classification up to 2017.

NSO classification
No.
Olympic Sport Asian/SEA National Functional
1. Softball/Baseball Billiards Tarung Drajat Sport Health
2. Basketball Bowling Drum Band Paralympics
3. Volleyball Chess Liong KORPRI
4. Badminton Bridge Sport Dance BAPOMI
5. Golf Sepak Takraw Motorcycle Riding BAPOPSI
6. Swimming Squash Roller Skating PERWOSI
7. Soccer Karate Netball SIWO
8. Tennis Kempo – –
9. Ping Pong Silat (Martial Arts) – –
10. Fencing Wushu – –
11. Wrestling Aero Sport – –
12. Judo Horse Riding – –
13. Taekwondo Boat Sailing – –
14. Boxing Body Building –
15. Athletics Weightlifting – –
16. Weightlifting Rock-climbing – –
17. Paddling Diving – –
18. Shooting Water Skiing – –
19. Bike Racing Handball – –
20. Archery – – –
21. Gymnastics – – –
Description: Data were derived from the National Sport Organization, as registered with the Indonesian National
Sports Committee (Komite Olahraga Nasional Indonesia – KONI) and the International Sports Committee (Komite
Olahraga Internasional – KOI), which have become part of PON (National Games) activities.

The PON games only took place five times under President Soekarno’s leadership
but were held eight times without interruption under the leadership of President
Soeharto. The seventh instance was held in 1969, while the fourteenth occurred in
1996. With the exception of the interlude between the thirteenth and fourteenth,
which lasted three years to adapt to the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, the PON
thus took place every four years under President Soeharto.
The PON were implemented five times during the reform era and are slated to
reach a sixth in 2020 in Papua (Table 3).
NSOs and NSAs were originally listed as ISI members but later evolved into a very
limited PORI that, as mentioned earlier, only included PSSI football (this followed
the example of the Nederlanch Indische Voetbal Unie (NIVU) of the Netherlands),
PBKSI basketball, and PELTI tennis. The number of NSOs and NSAs has continued
to grow over the years, reaching 52 as of 2017. A variety of other such organizations
existed during the colonial era, including boxing and swimming organizations that
later became the Persatuan Tinju Indonesia (Association of Boxing Indonesia)
(PERTINA) and Persatuan Renang Seluruh Indonesia (Indonesian Pool Association)
(PRSI). Information on the development of both colonial and post-colonial NSOs and
NSAs is available in Table 4. Sports classifications of those competing in the Olympic
Games, Asian Games/SEA Games, the PON, and other functional organizations are
also available.
The PON games have continued to grow in regard to both number of sports and
matches, increasing from nine sports and 42 matches to 44 sports and 761 matches
since its inception. Such sustained development indicates that the PON games have
394 A. MA’MUN

become national multi-event sports gatherings that are popular in all Indonesian
provinces, thus becoming part of the Indonesian national identity. This is in
accordance with the results of historical studies on PON from 1951 and 1953, which
asserted that the PON games were seen as interactions between many of the forces
shaping Indonesian society during the immediate post-colonial period, including
those related to ethnicity, gender, regionality, and the tension between local tradition
and global modernity.8 The PON games provided a forum in which the imagined
Indonesian national community could be realized, at least in part. These events
illustrated the contributions of sport to establishing a modern Indonesian society and
suggested that the study of sport in Indonesia should be taken more seriously by
students of the nation’s social history.9 On the other hand, the increasing number of
games means that PON events are less nuanced competition systems that are now
more similar to the Olympic Games. This is because the number of non-Olympic
games continues to grow. Future PON governance thus requires scrutiny to prevent
the spirit of the organization from shifting further from the stated historical intent.
The PON games have become an Indonesian national asset by developing into a set
of activities that can initiate progressive national social policies. This indicates that
organized sport has been a significant element in Indonesian history since at least the
early 20th century. The first overtly Indonesian nationalist sporting associations were
established as early as the 1930s, including football, tennis, and korfball associations.
The organization that would eventually become the Indonesian Olympic Committee
was founded just weeks after the Indonesian proclamation of independence in 1945.
The country’s first National Games were staged in Solo, Central Java in September
1948. At that time, Indonesia was in the middle of its struggle to gain independence
from the Dutch. The games thus provided a forum in which the imagined Indonesian
national community could be realized, at least in part. These events illustrated the
contribution of sport to establishing a modern Indonesian society and suggested that
the study of sport in Indonesia should be taken more seriously by students of the
nation’s social history.10
Indonesian membership in the IOC was temporarily lifted as a result of hosting
the fourth Asian Games in 1962, for which visas were not granted to Israeli or
Taiwanese contingents. Indonesia reacted very strongly to the IOC’s decision.
Furthermore, Indonesia systematically compiled strategic plans to organize a sporting
event identical to the Olympic Games in Jakarta in 1963 under the name ‘Games of
the New Emerging Forces’ (GANEFO). GANEFO proved to be a smart move on the
international political stage. The GANEFO sports complex was built with Soviet help
to host the Asian Games IV. The cost was irrelevant to a country in which inflation
was rampant and the money in circulation had increased by tens of billions on a
yearly basis. Foreign exchange expenses were taken over (or at least partially
eliminated) by Communist China. Despite low costs and high political dividends for
Indonesia and the less-developed and socialist countries, Indonesia showed successful
leadership against the long-established Western Olympic tradition. This was an
indirect confrontation with the United States in which Indonesia proved its ability to
organize international competitions. As an instrument of political warfare, GANEFO
was seen as a success. Through a simple gimmick designed at a sports meeting,
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 395

Indonesia was able to project an image that was beneficial to young people from
many countries. GANEFO’s timing was very profitable; Indonesia’s foreign policy
projects of the time indicated that the nation was potentially aggressive and
unfriendly. By holding GANEFO, Indonesia ultimately not only challenged the
Olympics, but even managed to confront IOC authority. Although the IOC lifted its
suspension on Indonesia as a country, two of the most powerful international sports
federations (i.e. Athletics and Pool) refused to withdraw suspensions from Indonesian
athletes who had taken part in the Olympiad. This occurred on June 26, 1964, seven
months after GANEFO was held in Jakarta. Having drafted its delegation to the
Olympics, Indonesia ignored the fact that some of its athletes were disqualified.
Instructions from Jakarta ordered that all members of the Indonesian team were to
attend the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, although Indonesian athletes and officials
eventually returned home in November 1964. President Soekarno participated with
the Olympic team on the first anniversary of GANEFO I. He stated the following:
‘Go to hell with the I.O.C. We, the New Emerging Forces have a new sports group
– GANEFO’.11
The first GANEFO was initiated by Indonesia. The games were encouraged by
political motives to revive the spirit of the Asian-African Conference in Bandung
(1955). This followed efforts by Latin American and other socialist countries to
destroy the hegemony of Western nations as ‘established forces’ to achieve a ‘new
order’ in an international environment where countries were free from exploitation.
However, GANEFO was only held once due to political problems in both Indonesia
and the People’s Republic of China, which was a major supporter of Asian-African
and Latin American countries.12
President Soeharto came to power in 1968. His efforts were considered successful
in making important diplomatic steps to convince the IOC to restore active
Indonesian participation in international sports activities. Soekarno’s previous policies
on the 1962 Asian Games and GANEFO 1963 created a 1963 confrontation over the
formation of Malaysia.13 Soeharto prevented further confrontation by establishing the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967, which was designed to
achieve regional reconciliation with Indonesia. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Brunei
participated in the South East Asia (SEA) Games in 1977. Indonesia hosted the SEA
Games for the first time in 1979.
Along with the launch of UNESCO’s ‘sports for all’ movement in 1978, Indonesia
implemented an important sports development movement by launching a national
programme to socialize sporting activities and cultivate interaction in the wider
community. The declaration of national sports day was conducted on September 9,
1984 through Presidential Decree No. 17. The movement to socialize sports and
cultivate the community extended throughout the country. Public mandatory sports
programmes were implemented for civil servants on Fridays. These employees
performed gymnastics and other sports before daily routine work. The wider
community then imitated the programme. The movement was designed to achieve
full development of the Indonesian people (i.e. harmony of physical, spiritual, and
social aspects), all of whom were assumed to begin participating in the process in an
effort to achieve national accord.14
396 A. MA’MUN

The National Leadership Vision and Sports Policy in Indonesia

From a nationalist perspective, leadership is an integral part of any country. In a
democratic country, the highest leadership position (e.g. the president) is obtained
through a long process in which the candidate instils belief in the people he leads.
Before further explaining the visions, missions, and strategies of sports policy
leaders, a discussion on the relevance of democracy, leadership, and superior policy
formulation in relation to the sports field is appropriate (Figure 1).
This raises the question, ‘How have Indonesian leaders historically included sport
as a leading policy target?’

A Sports Development Vision in the Era of Old Order Leadership

Soekarno used sports as an instrument of development during the era of Old Order
leadership. Sport was used to form the character and national identity of Indonesia.
It was even thought of as an arena in which to strengthen the country’s views, to
maintain a presence on the international stage. With Soviet help, Indonesia thus
constructed Gelora Bung Karno Stadium. The sports development vision under Old
Order leadership was one of nationalism and, from a contextual perspective, it was
very basic. Reaching the clear, deep, and vast vision of nation and character building
in the context of sports development was perceived as the formation of Indonesian
human beings to be superior in terms of physical, mental, and social qualities; moral
ethics, personality, integrity, and character; and fair, peaceful, and commendable
behaviour. It also showed great love and strong pride, which could be relied upon
and exemplified as the Indonesian nationality.15 Sport and physical activity played
important roles in developing qualities of the self and integrating the national spirit.
Sports development was therefore seen as an effort to strengthen the Indonesian
nation’s presence on the international stage. The link between sports and nationalism
has become the legacy of the Chinese nation’s history, since during this period sport
became an important part of the strategies of Chinese nationalists, politicians, and
educationalists, to achieve national salvation and revival in the 1912–1949 period.
Sports contributed to the formation of national awareness among the Chinese so that
the unity of the newly established nation state was consolidated, which became an
important part of political and meaningful national strategy for the nationalism
education of the Chinese people in achieving national safety and revival.16
However, behind the officially defined vision and strategy, sports tended to be
elitist because of the relatively small circle of competing athletes. Most Indonesians
were limited to watching sports on stages such as the Asian Games and GANEFO.
These events were used to strengthen nationalist spirit and character. However, this
was not immediately realized in the sense of improving quality of life.
Soekarno also employed nation- and character-building tactics to instil a sense of
progress, although there were other difficulties, especially those related to the
economy. Sport can be used as an instrument to build optimism in the construction
of a modern society with strong political legitimacy.17
As a reflection of the future, a British sports policy shift surfaced in 2008 ahead of
the 2012 London Olympics. Sports policies designed to improve quality of life were
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 397

put aside to support the intrinsic purposes of sport. This raised concerns over many
potential problems, including those dealing with budget inequalities between sports
for educational and health purposes as opposed to those intended for the sake of
sport itself. It was thus recommended that sports policy be repaired immediately.18

Sports Development Vision in the Era of New Order Leadership

President Soeharto launched a national development vision to shape Indonesian
quality of life as a whole. The quality of Indonesian people was interpreted through
expectations for achievement in every movement of national development in all
sectors, including the field of sports. In the context of sports development,
Indonesian human quality was seen from the perspective of all potential elements of
the human self within, including mind, body, spirit, and social integrity. The New
Order vision of development was relatively basic because it was formulated within the
Guidelines of State Policy (GBHN). The initial plan was developed through a vast
collection of opinions from persons of various skills. The result was then taken to the
People’s Consultative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia (MPR-RI) and
established as a basic long-term GBHN policy (i.e. a 25-year projection). President
Soeharto developed a sports policy motto to socialize sports and encourage the
community to exercise called memasyarakatkan olahraga dan mengolahragakan
masyarakat (making sport a habit and promoting sport in society), regulated based
on a Presidential Decree. This motto was intended for all Indonesian people and
stipulated an hour of sport each Friday for all civil servants. The announcement
coincided with National Sports Day on September 9, 1984. Thus, the sports
development vision of this era involved improving the overall quality of life for
Indonesian people, without neglecting coaching and sports development as a form of
participation in the multi-event SEA Games, which were held every two years.
President Soekarno’s grand design involved Indonesia becoming a dominant
Southeast Asian force comparable to Communist China. Western military and
economic influences were to be eliminated. Soekarno’s policy was designed to make
Western powers uncomfortable. Indonesia’s resistance to the new pro-Western
Malaysian nation was not just an isolated expression of unreasonable anger. Instead,
it was part of a design to destroy all remaining Western influences, first in Indonesia
and then throughout Southeast Asia.19
President Soeharto’s sports policies became very important in making ASEAN part
of a political platform, both in terms of rebuilding friendship among ASEAN
countries and sporting achievement itself. Indonesian sports had improved
dramatically since the nation became a participant in the SEA Games in 1977. In fact,
Indonesia became the overall champion. Indonesia dominated from 1977 to 1997,
becoming champion nine times. Three of these times occurred with Indonesia as
the host.
The sports coaching system only focussed on preparing for the SEA Games, the
Asian Games, and the Olympics. Although performance had not been very
prominent for the Asian Games and Olympic Games classes (except for badminton
achievements), Indonesia remained at the top of ASEAN countries. In the New Order
398 A. MA’MUN

era, sports achievements in the ASEAN region were still considered a matter of
community pride. Indonesian badminton thus became a point of national pride based
on the country’s outstanding performance.
The Indonesian badminton coaching system was considered advanced because it
was in accordance with the theory of Foundation, Talent, Elite, and Mastery (FTEM),
which is a sports-coaching levelling system.20The process is coordinated through each
association, according to Indonesia Badminton Association (PBSI) rules at the
provincial level, and is then spread out among several districts and cities. The
training process is handled by certified trainers. A roster of scheduled games is
maintained throughout the year. There are large associations, including Jaya Raya in
Jakarta; Mutiara and SGS Bandung in West Java; Djarum Kudus in Central Java; and
Suryanaga Kediri in East Java. These teams recruit talented players to receive
scholarships. A high-level coaching system is implemented throughout the year in
Cipayung, Jakarta. Such coaching is designed to prepare Indonesian players for
multi-event matches, including the Olympic Games, Asian Games, SEA Games, the
Thomas Cup, the Uber, and the Sudirman Cup, in addition to single event matches
such as the All England Open, Indonesia Open, China Super Series, and several
European championships. Training facilities are supported by both government
and private sector sponsorship. Such support aids both the talent and national
training camps. For these reasons, the Indonesian badminton coaching system is
considered advanced.
Indonesia has thus dominated the sport of badminton, achieving international
acclaim at events such as the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, when badminton
first competed. Alan Budi Kusuma and Susi Susanti had particular achievements in
Indonesian men’s and women’s singles badminton, respectively. Indonesian athletes
also impressed at the Thomas, Uber, and Sudirman Cups, and in other individual
badminton championships. These achievements still stand out. The Indonesia
national badminton coaching system has been considered the best in the world,
especially because Indonesian athletes were able to compete with other powerful
countries. Other competing countries continued to improve (e.g. Japan, India,
Thailand, China, Korea, and Denmark) as a result of increased attention to
Indonesian sports science. Indonesian badminton achievements were as follows: Alan
Budi Kusuma and Susi Susanti won Olympic medals in 2004 in Athens (Taufik
Hidayat also competed); Ricky Subagja and Rexy Mainaky won the men’s doubles
championship in Atlanta in 1996; Tony Gunawan and Chandra Wijaya won in 2000
in Sydney; Markis Kido and Hendra Setiawan won in 2008 at Beijing; and Tantowi
Yahya and Liliana Natsir won the mixed doubles in 2016 in Brazil. While the
Thomas, Uber, and Sudirman Cups are still considered some of the most prestigious
in the world, the level of competition grew as China, Japan, Denmark, and Korea
became prominent. Indonesia’s achievements at the Thomas Cup may be their most
impressive, as they became first champion thirteen times (Denmark and Malaysia
follow with nine times each). However, Indonesia’s achievements were not as
significant at the Uber Cup, where they only won the championship three times (they
placed second seven times). The leading nation at the Uber Cup is China, with
fourteen championships. Indonesia only obtained the Sudirman Cup once in 1989.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 399

The PBSI thus reached its height under General Try Soetrisno, when Indonesia won
Olympic gold medals on behalf of Alan Budi Kusuma and Susi Susanti. A total of
three medals were won by Indonesian men’s singles players (Ardy B. Wiranata won a
silver, while Hermawan Susanto won a bronze).
The national badminton training centre was established with the construction of
GOR Cipayung in East Jakarta. Many prominent players rose through this system,
including Liem Swie King, Icuk Sugiarto, Christian Hadinata, Kartono/Heryanto.
They were in charge of operations, while Hermawan Susanto, Ardy B. Wiranata,
Ricky Subagdja, Rexy Mainaky, Candra Wijaya, and Sigit Budiarto became popular
through the system.21
President Soeharto inherited control of what were considered desirable Indonesian
achievements from President Soekarno in the Old Order era. Compared to developed
countries, however, overall Indonesian sports policies were still far from proper,
whether within the scope of educational, recreational, or elite sports. This would
become an important target of future development.

Sports Development Vision under Reform Era Leadership

Since the Reform Era began in 1998, Indonesian leaders have been unable to
rediscover a vision of Indonesian sports development similar to those established
under previous leadership. Five presidents have presided over the Reform Era, as
follows: (1) B.J. Habibie focussed attention on the issue of legitimizing national
leadership through direct, public, free, anonymous, honest, fair, democratic, and
transparent elections, according to the reform mandate. National leadership
therefore did not focus on new developmental efforts, including in sports. (2)
Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) led the country for just one year; he was
impeached during a special MPR-RI session. Sports development was focussed on
diverting sports governance to the Directorate General of Sport Ministry of
National Education from the Ministry of Youth and Sports. (3) Megawati served as
vice-president under Abdurrahman before becoming the third president during this
era. Sports development was more focussed on continuing the leadership efforts
established under Gus Dur to avoid disruption, in addition to running sports
programmes under the Directorate General of Sport of the Ministry of National
Education. (4) Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) did not succeed in establishing a
new sports development vision. Top achievements were only obtained in multi-
event SEA Games once, when Indonesia hosted them in 2011 in Jakarta and
Palembang. However, Law no. 3 of 2005 concerning the National Sport System was
realized as a foundation during this period. This law can be viewed as a major
accomplishment that simply requires further attention, particularly concerning the
development of comprehensive sports policies. (5) Joko Widodo (Jokowi) continues
the previous sports policy, in the sense that there is nothing new. There are still
many laws on the National Sports System that require work. At the time of this
article’s writing, the government is organizing the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta,
West Java, Banten, and Palembang, Indonesia and coaching Indonesian contingents
to win the top 10 gold medals.
400 A. MA’MUN

Table 5. National leadership era and sports policy vision.

Era President Vision Goals Legal basis
Old Order Soekarno Nation- and Establish Nationalism Presidential Decree
(1945–1966) Character-building and National
± 21 years Character
New Order Soeharto All Indonesian People Establish Quality of all Presidential Decree
(1966–1998) Indonesian People
± 32 years
Reform Era Habibie, Gus A new vision was There was no updated Presidential Decision
(1998–2004) Dur, Megawati not formulated goal or vision for Institutions
2005–present SBY and Jokowi A prosperous, Realizing competitive National Sports System
democratic, and sports Act No. 3/2005
impartial Indonesia
Description: Derived based on an analysis of the results of various national development planning documents

The sports coaching system as defined in article 17 of the National Sports System
Act (No.3/2005) should include the scope of educational, recreational, and elite
sports. Sports education is physical education. Sports subjects are thus available in
formal education institutions from the elementary school level up to high school.
They are also available to university students as extracurricular activities. To enhance
sports achievements, education can be established in units, including those at the
club level, in training centres, and through sports training efforts coordinated by local
governments and schools. Events scheduled throughout the year will result in
sustained competition. Sports recreation should concern the development of
community studios and sports clubs in accordance with government policy. Elite
sports should be based on the development of associations and competitions at both
the regional and national levels, which will result in increased economic value.
However, these three scopes of sport are not priorities supported by any policies
outlined for the five-year or 20-year development periods. For example, the
development of a sports school, as mandated by Article 25 paragraph six of the
National Sports System Law has not been designed, either by the central government
as part of the 20-year long-term development planning, or by the provincial and
district governments in the five-year medium-term development planning, although
the government structure has broad autonomy during the national leadership period.
Tables 5 and 6 present how the Indonesian sports development vision and legal
foundation have corresponded to national leadership changes (i.e. those of the Old
Order (Soekarno: 1945–1966), the New Order (Soeharto: 1966–1998), and the Reform
Era (Habibie, Gus Dur, Megawati, SBY, and Jokowi: 1998–present).
The vision and mission of each era reveal foundational weaknesses, especially in
terms of sports policy development strategies related to the scope of sport (i.e. the
educational, recreational, and elite). These should be noted during further
development of Indonesian sports policy (Table 7).

Actual Conditions, System Models, and Sports Policy Issues in Indonesia

Law No. 3 of 2005 concerning the National Sport System outlines that Indonesian
sports policies are to be based on joint initiatives and mutual encouragement between
government and society in the sense that their roles should be balanced. Geoff
Cooke’s sports building structure model is therefore being adopted. This model
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 401

Table 6. National leadership era and sports policy strategy.

Era Impact Instrument Involvement Infrastructure
Old Order The identity of the Department/Ministry Club/Elitist, non-systemic GBK Senayan Jakarta
(1945–1966) national self of Sport
± 21 years is surging
New Order Sport is widespread Minister of Youth The public is invited to There are developments
(1966–1998) in society and Sports exercise (Sport Hour) in some areas, even in
± 32 years limited numbers
Reform Era Institutional sports Directorate General of Sports activities are Nationwide development,
(1998–now) are restructured Sports at the adjusted, according to along with the
Ministry of the invitation plan. The National Games policy,
National Education arrangement of sports is held outside Jakarta.
activities is adjusted to
the plan.
>19 years Sports culture and Ministry of Youth The widespread Nationwide development,
achievements and Sports community of the along with the
are expected. sports/coaching and National Games policy,
development system is held outside Jakarta.
is initiated
Description: Derived based on an analysis of the results of various national development planning documents

Table 7. Weaknesses in Indonesian sports policy development.

Sports scope
Era Educational Recreational Elite Description
Old Order Not considered a Only invited to The coaching and Focus on sports
(1945–1966) strategic issue perceive elite development coaching in the
± 21 years because it was not sports activities system had not political area
populist in the as a movement been developed,
political realm. with the exception
of preparations for
the 1962
Asian Games.
New Order Not considered a Becomes an important There is no standard There is a focus on
(1966–1998) strategic issue issue with the goal concept except for sports coaching in
± 32 years despite following of fitness only multi-event the community, but
the public tendency preparation. it is still
unstructured.
Reform Era Considered an Not an important The development of Focus on sports
(1998– important issue, issue, although the elite sports occurs coaching in the
present) although new as draft concept began without a clear area of education
policy material to be formulated policy direction
>19 years The reverse – not Policy direction The development of All three become the
considered an and policy elite sports is far focus, although the
important issue, implementation from what was direction of policy
although character strategy are far expected, even still out of the
education is inflated from the proper though legal proper
structure references are legal references
already clear

consists of four levels (i.e. the first level involves family and schooling (foundation
and participation); the second level involves performance (coaching prospective
athletes) and public recreation; the third level involves excellence (training and
developing great athletes); and the fourth level involves the elite, and can be
compared to a penthouse full of medal-winning athletes).22 This is in accordance
with the National Sport System, which states that the scope of sports development
consists of educational, recreational, and elite sports. However, no significant progress
has been achieved in the context of sport as a means of education in the broad sense,
402 A. MA’MUN

Table 8. Budget allocation of the Ministry of Youth and Sports (2015–2018).

Budget amount based on budget year (000) in IDR
No Budgeting field 2015 2016 2017 2018
1. Youth
a. Youth empowerment – – 135,000,000 211,381,000
b. Youth development – – 319,000,000 186,600,000
2. Sports – – – –
Youth and sports empowerment 1,346,207,200 1,931,161,173 – –
a. Civilization/Socialization – – 430,000,000 421,494,000
b. Achievement improvement 1,361,972,200 1,071,344,173 1,962,000,000 3,917,000,000
3. Support/secretariat 256,929,276 262,372,968 292,000,000 300,009,000
Others 69,004,600 37,376,394 201,000,000 –
Asian Games Organizing Committee – – 1,500,000,000 1,790,000,000
Asian Games Athlete Development – – 140,000,000 735,006,000
Amount 3,034,113,276 3,302,254,708 4,778,000,000 5,037,540,061
Amount in US $ 216,722,376 235,875,337 341,285,714 359,824,290
Total State Budget (000) 2,039,500,000 2,095,700,000 2,133,200,000 2,204,400,000
Percentage (sport) 0.00129 0.001289 0.002046 0.00210
Description: (1) Data were derived from planning documents, activity accountability reports, newspapers, and the
Ministry of Youth and Sports and Ministry of Finance websites; (2) State Budget: State Revenue and
Expenditure Budget.

as a vehicle for recreation and improved quality of life,23 or the development of elite
athletes who win the highest honours while representing the nation in international
competitions.24 Although the budget is limited, the government hopes that public
participation in sports will grow.
Table 8 outlines the budget of the Ministry of Youth and Sports for the fiscal years
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
As seen in Table 8, the budget value increased by about IDR 68 billion from 2015
to 2016, but the percentage of available budget decreased as a whole (i.e. from
0.00129 to 0.001289). The budget increased sharply from 2016 to 2017 (i.e. to IDR
1,621,745,292,000; an increase of 0.000738%), due to implementation of the 2018
Asian Games. It continued to increase from 2017 to 2018 (i.e. by IDR
315,559,061; 0.00007768%).
Below is a summary of how sports policy has been designed to achieve progress in
relation to Law No. 3 of 2005, particularly Articles 17, 25, 26, and 27, which concern
the development of educational, recreational, and elite sports (Table 9).
Educational sports policies are aimed at quality of life and facilitating the
development of both interest and talent in sports. Recreational sports are intended as
leisure activities designed to instil physical activity as part of the culture. On the
other hand, elite sports are designed to gain international recognition.
Standardization of this development system should reflect that of developed
countries, both regionally and globally. Sports policy should reflect progress in
standardization, implementation, activity expansion, and development. Existing
programmes should be standardized to exceed minimums. Activity expansion should
increase the number of programmes that can be measured according to standardized
achievements, such as the number of schools organizing extracurricular activities,
sports activity units, sports classes, and community sports clubs that adequately reach
the community. These pioneering efforts should be driven by the government to
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 403

Table 9. Sports policy for progress acquisition.

No. Scope of sports and program priorities Policy issue Funding
A. Sports Education –
1. Physical Education and Sport Implementation Ministry of National Education
Standardization
2. Extracurricular Sports Activities Expansion Ministry of National Education
3. Sports Activities Units (clubs) Activities Expansion Ministry of National Education
4. Sport Class Activities Expansion Ministry of National Education
5. Student Development and Training Implementation Ministry of Youth and Sports and
Centre (PPLP) Standardization Ministry of National Education
6. Student Development and Training Activities Expansion Ministry for Research, Technology
Centre (PPLM) and Higher Education and Ministry
of Youth and Sports
7. School Athlete Development Ministry of National Education
and Ministry of Youth and Sports
8. Competition System –
a. Annual interregional student Implementation Ministry of National Education
championships Standardization
b. Competition between units of Activities Expansion Ministry of National Education
sports activities (clubs) throughout
the year
B. Sports Recreation – –
1. Sports Clubs in the Community Development Ministry of Youth and Sports
2. Studio Development Ministry of Youth and Sports
3. Sports Festival Activities Expansion Ministry of Youth and Sports
C. Sports Elite – –
1. Elite Sports Club Development Ministry of Youth and Sports
2. Inter-Club Competition (year-round) Activities Expansion
a. Local Activities Expansion Ministry of Youth and Sports
b. National Activities Expansion Ministry of Youth and Sports
c. International (Industry) Activities Expansion Ministry of Youth and Sports
3. Inter-Provincial National Implementation Ministry of Youth and Sports
Championships (annual) Standardization
4. Training Centre Development Development Ministry of Youth and Sports
D. Others –
1. Higher Education Sports Development Ministry for Research, Technology
and Higher Education
2. Sports Research Centre Development Ministry of Youth and Sports
Description: Developed based on the concept of coaching and sports development stated in Law No. 3/2005 on the
National Sport System

pursue maximum progress. For example, sports schools should be developed in

various regions (i.e. in both provincial and district cities, according to government
structure). The Indonesian budgeting system is designed so that budgets are prepared
by relevant ministries (i.e. the Ministry of Education and Culture; Ministry of
Research, Technology and Higher Education; Ministry of Youth and Sports, and
regional governments). These ministries can work together through strong planning
that unifies central and local government policies around Indonesian visions,
missions, goals, objectives, policy directions, and programme priorities. This
corresponds to the great sports policy concept that prioritizes structural factors in
explaining policy outputs and outcomes. This concept emphasizes, for example, the
significance of the institutional relationship between government and sports
organizations, administrative arrangements, the allocation of functions between
central and local governments, and whether particular government functions are
statutory or discretionary. It is assumed that administrative arrangements and the
impacts of particular policies are linked.25
404 A. MA’MUN

Policies should correspond to these conditions if community interests strengthen.

The sports policy conditions presented in Table 9 still require deep analysis,
especially to understand which areas require advocacy to ensure that policyholders
are informed at the macro level. Policy continuity can influence a political
community, although the community can also produce inertia and inhibit policy
change. In issue networks, groups in positions of relative weakness acquire legitimacy
and resources through conformity to powerful interests.26
As a comparison, the operational legitimacy of the Australian government’s policy
on sports governance is aimed at ensuring that government funds are well utilized by
the NSO to support government sports policy initiatives in the promotion and
development of elite sports and sports for the wider community; NSO governance
itself should also improve.27 In France, the success of national participation in
international competitions has attracted attention. This is particularly apparent in
establishing the role of the state in encouraging elite athletic performance, coaching,
and public participation. A key factor of this policy is its preference for state and
national sports federations, particularly those related to educational systems and
governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and funding arrangements related
to the adoption of the socialist government decentralization laws launched in 1983.28

Assessing Indonesian Sport Policies

Indonesian sports policies have historically corresponded to the actual views and
conditions supported by government leaders. Indonesian government leadership
involves power and policy gained through democratic participation. In a broad sense,
sports policy is a developmental sector that is integral to the development of national
policy itself. Democratic national leadership is the result of a political system that has
become a major force in developing Indonesian sports policy.
Based on practical examples from other countries, it is recommended that
provinces use their autonomy to establish more sports schools through government
funding, sponsorships, and private foundations. They may even combine sports
sponsorships using contributions from both foundations and the government.
To overcome its low exploitation of such opportunities, it is advisable that the
Indonesian government face challenges by developing a paradigm shift with respect
to its sports policies.

Notes
1. Riant Nugroho, Public Policy, Policy Dynamics, Policy Analysis, Policy Management
(Jakarta: PT Elex Media Komputindo, 2011).
2. Jacob Torfing and Christopher Ansell, ‘Strengthening Political Leadership and Policy
Innovation Through the Expansion of Collaborative Forms of Governance’, Public
Management Review 19, no. 1 (2017): 37–54.
3. Daniel B
eland, ‘Identity, Politics, and Public Policy’, Critical Policy Studies 11, no. 1
(2017): 1–18.
4. Amandement UUD’45 Perubahan Pertama s/d Keempat dalam Satu Naskah (Amendment
to the 1945 Constitution) (Jakarta: PT. Pustaka Yustisia, 2007).
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SPORT 405

5. Data were taken from the Perpustakaan KONI Pusat [Central Indonesia National Sports
Committee], (2010).
6. Victor D. Cha, ‘A Theory of Sport and Politics’, The International Journal of The History
of Sport 26, no. 11 (2009): 1581–610.
7. Data were taken from the Ministry of Youth and Sports, (2010).
8. Colin Brown, ‘Sport, Modernity and Nation Building: The Indonesian National Games of
1951 and 1953’, Bijdragen tot de taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde 164, no. 4 (2008): 431–49.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ewa T. Pauker, ‘Ganefo I: Sport and Politics in Djakarta’, Asian Survey 5, no. 4
(1965): 171–85.
12. R. Lutan and F. Hong, ‘The Politicization of Sport: GANEFO–A Case Study’, Sport in
Society 8, no. 3 (2005): 425–39.
13. Greg Poulgrain, The Genesis of Konfrontasi: Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia, 1945–1965
(Petaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2014).
14. Amung Ma’mun, Strategi Implementasi Pembangunan Keolahragaan 2015-2019 dalam
Perspektif Kepemimpinan Berkelanjutan [Strategy of 2015–2019 sports development
implementation in sustainable leadership perspective] (Jakarta: Kementerian Pemuda dan
Olahraga, 2014)
15. Nugroho, Public Policy.
16. Amung Mamun. Kepemimpinan dan Kebijakan Pembangunan Olahraga [Leadership and
sport development policy] (Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2011).
17. Lu Zhouxiang, ‘Sport, Nationalism and the Building of the Modern Chinese Nation State
(1912–49)’, The International Journal of the History of Sport 28, no. 7 (2011): 1030–54.
18. Mike Collins, ‘“Sport for Good” to “Sport for Sport’s sake” – Not a Good Move for
Sports Development in England?’ International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2, no.
3 (2010): 367–79.
19. Denis Warner, ‘Sukarno’s Grand Design’, Challenge 12, no. 2 (1963): 23–6.
20. Titus Kurniadi, Emas di Barcelona emas di hatiku [Gold in Barcelona, gold in my heart]
(Jakarta: PT. Tunas Jaya Lestari, 1993).
21. Ichsan Husayfi, Peran Persatuan Bulutangkis Seluruh Indonesia pada masa kepemimpin
Try Sutrisno dalam mengembangkan prestasi bulutangkis Indonesia (1985–1993) [The role
of the Badminton Association of Indonesia in the development of Indonesia’s badminton
achievements during the period of Try Sutrisno (1985–1993)] (PhD diss.: Faculty of
Culture, University of Indonesia, 2014).
22. Kevin Hylton and Peter Bramham, Sports Development: Policy, Process and Practice
(London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2010)
23. Liliana Dacica, ‘The Formative Role of Physical Education and Sports’, Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences 180 (2014): 1242–7; Dean Dudley and others. ‘Critical
Considerations for Physical Literacy Policy in Public Health, Recreation, Sport, and
Education Agencies’, Journal Quest 69 no. 4 (2017): 436–52; Shea M. Balish, ‘Democracy
Predicts Sport and Recreation Membership: Insights from 52 Countries’, Journal of
Epidemiology and Global Health 7, no. 1 (2016): 21–8.
24. Natalie Koch, ‘Sport and Soft Authoritarian Nation-Building’, Political Geography 32
(2013): 42–51.
25. Barrie Houlihan, Sport Policy and Politics: A Comparative Analysis (London:
Routledge, 1997).
26. Neil King, Sport Policy and Governance: Local Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2009).
27. Russell Hoye and Matthew Nicholson, ‘Social Capital and Sport Policies in Australia’,
Public Management Review 11, no. 4 (2009): 441–60.
28. Philip Dine, ‘Sport and the State in Contemporary Sport and the State in Contemporary
France: From la Charte des Sports to Decentralisation’, Modern & Contemporary France
6, no. 3 (2014): 37–41.
406 A. MA’MUN

29. Data were taken from the Ministry of State Secretary, Keputusan Presiden Republik
Indonesia [Presidential Decree of the Republic of Indonesia], Law No. 17/1984.
30. Data were taken from the Ministry of State Secretary, Law No. 17/2007.
31. Cem Tinaz, Douglas Michele Turco, and Paul Salisbury, ‘Sport Policy in Turkey’,
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 6, no. 3 (2014): 533–45.
32. Paddy Dolan and John Connolly, ‘Sport, Unity and Conflict: An Enduring Social
Dynamic’, European Journal for Sport and Society 13, no. 3 (2016): 189–96.
33. Rudolf Stichweh, ‘Sport as a Function System in World Society’, European Journal for
Sport and Society 10, no. 2 (2013): 87–100; James Santomier, ‘The Sport-Stress
Connection’, Theory into Practice 22, no. 1 (2016): 57–63; Cristina Baciu and Alin Baciu,
‘Quality of Life and Students’ Socialization Through Sport’, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences 209 (2015): 78–83; Ian Wellard, ‘Body-Reflexive Pleasures: Exploring
Bodily Experiences Within the Context of Sport and Physical Activity Body-Reflexive
Pleasures’, Sport, Education and Society 17, no. 1 (2015): 37–41; Hoye and Nicholson,
‘Social Capital and Sport Policies in Australia’.
34. Fernando Mu~ on, Maria J. Sanchez-Bueno, and Antonio Vos-Saz, ‘The Influence
noz-Bull

of Sports Participation on Academic Performance Among Students in Higher Education’,
Sport Management Review 20, no. 4 (2016): 365–78.
35. Richard Bailey, ‘Sport, Physical Activity and Educational Achievement – Towards an
Explanatory Model’, Sport in Society (2016), 1–21.
36. Martin Van Boekel and others, ‘Effects of Participation in School Sports on Academic
and Social Functioning’, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 46 (2016): 31–40.
37. Charlotte Humphries, ‘Critical Thinking in Physical Education’, A Journal for Physical
and Sport Educators 27, no. 5 (2014): 18–21.
38. Iulian-Doru Tudor and Maria Tudor, ‘Leisure Sports Activities Impact on Adults
Personal Development and Quality of Life’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 84
(2013): 1090–4.
39. Frans Oddner, ‘The Character of Sport and the Sport of Character’, Sport in Society 13,
no. 2 (2010): 171–85.
40. Rohan M. Telford and others, ‘The Influence of Sport Club Participation on Physical
Activity, Fitness and Body Fat During Childhood and Adolescence: The LOOK
Longitudinal Study’, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 19, no. 5 (2015): 400–6.
41. Emanuele Isidori and Mirca Benetton, ‘Sport as Education: Between Dignity and Human
Rights’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 197 (2015): 686–93.
42. Megan Chawansky and others, ‘Innovations in Sport for Development and Peace
Research, Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 2, no. 1 (2017): 1–6
43. Nugroho, Public Policy.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on Contributor
Amung Ma’mun is the Head of the Sport Education Program, School of Postgraduate Studies,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, and previously worked as the Head of the Youth and Sports
Affairs Office of West Java Province.