If Nadiem Is Guilty, Then Why Isn’t Google?

The 10-year prison sentence handed to former Indonesian education minister has ignited fresh debate. A journalist, Tom Wright, in one of his X post argues that the case raises questions extending far beyond one courtroom.

According to Wright, the verdict did not only target Nadiem. It also drew Google into the spotlight by referencing allegations that the company’s earlier investment in GoJek was linked to the government’s Chromebook procurement program. Nadiem has denied wrongdoing, while Wright argues prosecutors failed to publicly present evidence proving that connection.

Tom leaves one obvious question: why has Google remained silent?

For years, Google publicly backed Nadiem as one of Southeast Asia’s leading entrepreneurs. Now, Wright argues, one of its most prominent former partners has been convicted in a case that also places the company’s name under scrutiny, yet the tech giant has offered no public response.

Beyond Google, Wright believes the ruling could have broader consequences for Indonesia’s investment climate. He argues that if companies fear legitimate business relationships could later become the subject of corruption allegations, they may become more hesitant to work with government institutions or participate in public projects.

He also warned that the case could discourage reform-minded public officials from making major policy or procurement decisions, fearing they could face legal consequences years later. While supporters of Nadiem say he was attempting to reform one of Indonesia’s most challenging ministries, critics maintain the court reached the correct decision.

Wright contends that, regardless of where people stand, the case has become a test of legal certainty, investor confidence, and Indonesia’s reputation on the global stage.

Google has not publicly commented on Wright’s criticism or addressed the allegations referenced during the proceedings. Indonesia has worked hard to build its reputation as one of Asia’s most attractive investment destinations. Cases like this inevitably draw international attention, making transparency and public confidence in the legal process more important than ever.

Whether this verdict strengthens trust or raises new doubts may ultimately depend on what happens next, and on whether the questions surrounding the case receive clear, convincing answers.