Jakarta, 31 August 2025: Indonesia is facing its most severe unrest in years after deadly protests forced President Prabowo Subianto into a rare concession: stripping back lavish perks for lawmakers. At least five people have been killed, including a young delivery rider crushed by a police vehicle and three others who perished when a regional parliament building in Makassar was set ablaze. The anger, initially triggered by a 50 million rupiah (about US$3,000) monthly housing allowance for MPs, has escalated into nationwide demonstrations, looting, and attacks on state property.
The reversal on perks, announced Sunday, was intended to defuse public outrage. Prabowo told the nation he would curb lawmakers’ overseas trips and cut back benefits “for the sake of national unity.” But he also warned that acts of arson, looting, and mob violence could amount to “treason” or even “terrorism.” The dual message—concession on one hand, hardline rhetoric on the other—has left observers asking whether Indonesia could edge closer to a shoot-on-sight policy.
For now, no such order exists. National police have only authorized rubber bullets if mobs attempt to storm police compounds, and the government insists it will act “firmly” within existing rules of engagement. Yet speculation persists because Indonesia has, in past crises, leaned on extraordinary measures. A president who campaigned on restoring order and national strength may eventually find pressure building to authorize more severe tactics if unrest spreads.
The economic costs are already stark. The Jakarta Composite Index slid 1.5% on Friday, while the rupiah weakened 0.8% against the U.S. dollar. Bank Indonesia intervened directly in currency and bond markets to stem further losses. Retailers shuttered early in Jakarta, Surabaya, and Bandung, while public transport routes were suspended amid security fears. Foreign investors, spooked by images of burning buildings and violent clashes, are reassessing exposure, with several banks warning that capital outflows could accelerate if turmoil continues.
A formal shoot-on-sight order would likely magnify these risks. Such a policy would raise alarms among international human rights groups, trigger diplomatic fallout, and deepen capital flight. Multinationals could reconsider expansion plans, and tourism—already under strain—would likely suffer a sharp downturn. Domestically, it could restore short-term control of the streets, but at the price of legitimacy, pushing Indonesia into a cycle of repression and resistance.
The government therefore stands on a knife’s edge. Prabowo’s U-turn suggests he recognizes the danger of ignoring public outrage, but his rhetoric shows he is unwilling to appear weak. The coming days will test whether Indonesia can calm unrest through reform and accountability—or whether the state will be tempted to embrace more drastic, even lethal, measures.
Editor View: The protests are already reshaping Indonesia’s political and economic landscape. A shoot-on-sight crackdown remains speculative, but the very fact it is being discussed underscores the fragility of the current moment. Should such an order be issued, the cost to Indonesia’s economy and international reputation would be immediate and profound.
