Indonesia’s Parliament and the Perils of Poor Communication

Indonesia’s latest political storm is not just about money. It is about communication, how leaders explain decisions, how they acknowledge anger, and how their silence can inflame crises. The uproar over lawmakers’ Rp50 million monthly housing allowance shows that in politics, public communication matters as much as policy.

The Message Behind the Allowance

On paper, parliament could argue the allowance was a logistical expense. In reality, it landed as a symbol of privilege. At a time when many workers earn around Rp3 million per month, the figure looked outrageous. Numbers are never just numbers in politics, they are messages. And the message Indonesians heard was: our comfort matters more than your struggle. Had lawmakers introduced the allowance with transparency and empathy, the reaction might have been different. Instead, the House Speaker defended it as “reasonable” given Jakarta’s housing prices. Reasonable for whom? For political elites, perhaps, but not for teachers taking on side jobs, drivers delivering food late at night, or families tightening their belts as costs rise.

When Words Deepen Anger

The response exposed a deeper failure. Instead of calming outrage, leaders spoke like accountants. They offered technical justifications when the public wanted acknowledgment of hardship. In the arena of public opinion, defensiveness sounds like arrogance. It is a basic principle of political communication: people need to feel heard. When anger meets indifference, protests are inevitable. The protests against the legislative body quickly escalated. Tear gas filled the air, barricades burned, and “Runtuhkan DPR” chants echoed through Jakarta. Then tragedy struck: Affan Kurniawan, a 21-year-old delivery rider, was run over by a police vehicle. His story crystallized the crisis. Here, parliament has a chance to show empathy and regain some legitimacy. A collective statement of condolence, a presence at Affan’s funeral, or even a gesture of solidarity could have made a difference. Instead, lawmakers stayed largely silent, limited to saying griefs via social media. The President and police voiced regret, but parliament’s absence sent a louder message: your grief is not our concern.

The Perils of Poor Communication

This crisis demonstrates how communication failures multiply. First, a poorly framed policy. Then, tone-deaf defenses. Finally, silence in the face of tragedy. Each step widened the gap between rulers and ruled. The protests are about more than allowances. They are about trust. Citizens want leaders who not only govern competently but also speak with empathy and humility. When lawmakers fail to do this, every allowance looks corrupt, every justification sounds hollow, and every silence feels like betrayal. Parliament’s challenge now is not just political or economic. It is communicative. If lawmakers want to repair their credibility, three steps are essential:

• Transparency first.
  No more hidden perks or surprise allowances. Major decisions should be explained openly and debated publicly.
• Empathy in tone.
  Messages for the public must be paired with human recognition: “We understand your hardship.”
• Presence in crisis.
  When tragedy strikes, silence is unacceptable. Leaders must show up, speak plainly, and share in the nation’s grief.