IN a WhatsApp discussion over the protests in Indonesia, a friend commented that “the protests were initiated by the CIA” — a view I do not agree with.
I took that as a kind of “blame the US for all the violence in the world” rhetoric and quickly responded, “I believe that President Prabowo Subianto is a different leader from President Joko Widodo Jokowi”.
I guess those who will never be happy with President Donald Trump or the “forever anti-US group” would blame the US for anything bad happening in other parts of the world. That is a bit unfair, isn’t it?
There are reasons why I prefer to look at the protests in Indonesia from a local angle.
We can recall that the protests began in Jakarta on August 25, ignited by widespread frustration over a new housing allowance of approximately 50 million rupiah (US$3,000) per month granted to all 580 members of Parliament — nearly 10 times the local minimum wage.
This sparked outrage amid soaring living costs, unemployment and economic inequality. Why not and understandable so, when so many Indonesians are struggling while politicians are living it up on taxpayers’ money.
Then, tensions further escalated when a delivery driver, Affan Kurniawan, was fatally run over by a police vehicle during a protest in Jakarta, triggering nationwide fury and expanding protests.
These were very “local” issues and I honestly doubt that the US has a hand in initiating the violent protests when the “world’s policeman” has more pressing and difficult situations to handle around the world.
As to my comment that “Prabowo is different from Jokowi” — even if it’s a very intriguing “what if” scenario implying that the protests would not have taken place under Jokowi — I was referring with fond memories to the Jokowi years where the former president had built a reputation as a pragmatic leader with a populist touch.
Jokowi had maintained high approval ratings throughout much of his presidency. He was seen as closer to the common people, often portrayed as humble and accessible.
His style of governing, even when controversial policies were introduced, tended to involve more gradual rollout and efforts to soften public anger through dialogue or compromise.
Hence, I doubt the former president would have approved the excessive allowance for the nation’s legislators. He would probably have none of it.
If Jokowi were still in office, the protests in Indonesia might have taken a different form, or perhaps not erupted so violently at all. Indonesians wouldhave accorded their president due reverence and respect and would be more prepared to lend him a listening ear on sticky issues.
In contrast, Prabowo has adopted a far more top-down and militaristic approach. His austerity measures, sharp tax hikes and the controversial perks for lawmakers were rolled out quickly, triggering widespread anger.
His harder rhetoric — warning protesters about “treason” — may have further escalated tensions rather than calming them.
As a neighbour, Malaysians are naturally concerned about tensions and upheavals in Indonesia.
Unrest in Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s largest nation, inevitably carries ripple effects across the Straits of Malacca and beyond.
Economic ties alone explain part of this concern. Indonesia is one of Malaysia’s most important trading partners and many local companies are heavily invested in its markets.
The people-to-people links between the two nations deepen the anxiety. Millions of Indonesians live and work in Malaysia, while many Malaysians study, travel, or do business across the archipelago.
Any escalation of violence naturally raises fears for their safety and wellbeing. Furthermore, turmoil could trigger irregular migration pressures that Malaysia’s already stretched systems will have to manage.
Above all, Malaysians are watching Indonesia’s protests with a sense of both empathy and caution.
Issues like inequality, public frustration with elites and anger at poor governance are not foreign to our own society.
What is happening across the border serves as a timely reminder: governments in the region must remain attuned to the grievances of ordinary citizens.
At the time of writing, I’m glad to learn that President Prabowo has announced that Indonesian political parties have agreed to revoke a number of perks and privileges for parliamentarians, following protests and rioting across the country.
Indonesia’s unrest is a warning signal, one that Malaysia would be wise to heed.
In that connection, let me share a post from a Facebook friend, Dr Kamsiah Haider, who wrote:
“Lesson from Indonesia: We, Malaysians, as taxpayers should also start asking the government to put an end to this ‘buffet-style pension plan’.
“One person, one pension — pick the biggest one, not collect like Pokémon cards from state, federal, ministerial posts, and GLCs.
“And please, enough with the ‘inherit spouse pension while still happily cashing your own’ scheme. That’s not inheritance, that’s jackpot!
“True, unlike Indonesia, Malaysians aren’t hungry enough to take to the streets (our protests usually get distracted by teh tarik and nasi lemak). But don’t mistake our full stomachs for approval.
“We’re not okay with this pension gluttony — just polite enough to grumble from the kedai kopi instead of storming Putrajaya.”
In most cases, Dr Kamsiah would ask for my comment on her posts.
This is my response to her latest — “My friend, you have said it aloud for many Malaysians on the multiple pensions for our politicians. For me, certainly!”
• Francis Paul Siah is a veteran newspaper editor and currently heads the Movement for Change, Sarawak (MoCS). He can be reached at sirsiah@gmail.com.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
