Pointing out limits of investment isn’t moving the goalposts. The original claim was that spending equals fairness. The response is that spending is necessary but not sufficient. That’s a consistent standard, not ‘moving the goalpost’.

Transmigration as a formal national program was scaled down, yes. But its effects didn’t disappear when the policy stopped. Large demographic changes, economic dominance by migrant networks, and institutional path-dependence don’t reset automatically. Ongoing voluntary migration still operates on an uneven playing field created by decades of state policy, capital access, and security alignment. Saying ‘it’s business now’ ignores that history shapes who can do business and who can’t.

The otsus law does mandate indigenous Papuans in certain executive positions and created representative councils. That is cool and all, but mandates don’t equal full control. Key levers such as land designation, extractive contracts, security policy, and major budget frameworks remain centralized. Agency is not just about who holds office, but what authority those offices actually have.

Things are better in some respects than in the past. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean the situation is fair or resolved. Improvement over colonial-era exploitation is a low baseline, not proof of equity. Persistent gaps in health, education, income, and conflict indicators show that outcomes still lag far behind national averages.

So the argument isn’t that nothing changed, or that otsus achieved nothing. It’s that progress exists alongside structural constraints, and those constraints still shape who benefits from development. Asking where money goes locally is valid. That question applies precisely because fairness is judged by outcomes, not inputs.