No Ban on ‘Pesta Babi’ Film Screening, Says Rights Minister

The Indonesian government has denied issuing any official directives to ban the documentary film Pesta Babi: Kolonialisme di Zaman Kita (Party of Pigs: Colonialism in Our Era), despite a series of forced closures and denied permissions for screenings across several regions.

Coordinating Minister for Legal, Human Rights, Immigration and Corrections Yusril Ihza Mahendra stated in a written release on Thursday, May 14, 2026, that the government has never instructed a ban on the work, which was created by Cypri Paju Dale and Dandhy Laksono.

While acknowledging that group screenings—particularly on university campuses—have been cancelled, Minister Yusril maintained these were not state-led actions, but rather the result of internal institutional procedures. “Not all campuses prohibit the screening of the documentary. At Mataram University and UIN Mataram in Lombok, the screenings were blocked solely due to administrative hurdles,” he stated.

The Minister pointed to successful screenings in Sukabumi and Bandung as evidence that there is no centralized command to stop the film. “Given this pattern, the cancellation of Pesta Babi screenings was not a directive from the government or law enforcement, which typically operate through a centralized command,” Yusril explained.

Minister Yusril described the film’s critique of National Strategic Projects (PSN) in South Papua as a legitimate form of expression, though he admitted the presentation is provocative. “The title itself is controversial. Pesta Babi: Kolonialisme di Zaman Kita appears provocative,” he remarked.

Despite the controversy, the Minister urged the public not to overreact to the title, suggesting it was designed to attract attention. He advocated for open discourse, stating, “Let the public watch it, then engage in discussion and debate. This is how the public becomes critical, allowing both pros and cons to occur.”

Yusril further suggested that the government could use the film’s critiques as a constructive tool, noting that the state “can learn from the film to evaluate whether there are steps in the field that require improvement.”

Despite the government’s denial of a formal ban, several events have been forcibly disbanded or blocked by local authorities and campus officials:

• Ternate, North Maluku: On Friday, May 8, 2026, personnel from the 1501/Ternate Military District Command shut down a screening and discussion. Lieutenant Colonel Jani Setiadi, the District Military Commander, cited social media complaints that viewed the film as inflammatory, stating, “This is not just my personal opinion. If you don’t believe it, I can show you how the public views it as provocative on social media.”
• Mataram, Lombok: Screenings were shut down at Mandalika University, UIN Mataram, and Mataram University. Sujita, Vice Rector III at Mataram University, stated on May 7, 2026, that the film was unsuitable for the campus environment, remarking, “This film is not fit for screening; it is better to watch football together.”
• Padjadjaran University (Unpad): A screening planned for Saturday, May 16, by the Postgraduate Student Association was denied. Inu Isnaeni Sidiq, Unpad Director of Student Affairs, told Tempo on May 14, 2026, that the decision was based on the Ascension of Jesus Christ holiday and collective leave, adding, “We requested it not be held during a public holiday and collective leave. Why? Because our staff also need a break.”

The 90-minute feature focuses on the sovereignty of indigenous residents in Papua, specifically within the regions of Mappi, Boven Digoel, and Merauke. The film illustrates the impact of National Strategic Projects and industrial land expansion, which have led to the loss of traditional food sources and customary forests.

Currently, the documentary is primarily accessed through community discussions and public screenings among citizen groups and on campuses.

The discrepancy between the Coordinating Minister’s assertions and the actions of local military and university officials highlights a tension between official state policy on expression and the practical application of “administrative” or “security” restrictions on the ground.

Moving forward, the situation could evolve in several ways:

• The government may use the film as a basis for evaluating field operations in South Papua, as suggested by Minister Yusril.
• Further attempts to screen the film on campuses may continue to face institutional resistance or be attributed to administrative hurdles.
• The debate over the film’s “provocative” nature may lead to increased public discussion regarding the balance between national strategic interests and indigenous land rights.