Reflection on Public Outrage in Indonesia: The Urgent Need for Risk Communication Among Officials

Have you ever heard of a married couple divorcing simply because of a dirty glass? In one viral case, a husband furiously declared divorce his wife via whatsApp, sparking public disbelief. How could a legally binding relationship collapse over such a trivial matter?

From the husband’s perspective, however, the dirty glass was not the true cause. It was merely a trigger, the final straw of long-acumulated marital problems.

A risk may appear trivial to one party, yet explosive to another. During the recent debate, on the 12% PPn (Value added tax) increase, a social media influencer who is clearly wealthy dismissed it by saying, “it is just 1% adjustment.” But such remarks quickly invited cyberbullying and reputational damage from Indonesian netizens, who have experienced and felt economic challenges recently. A seemingly small number that looks insignificant to policymakers can ignite public outrage.

Conversely, a large number can sometimes feel ordinary. Motorcycle accidents are the leading cause of traffic fatalities in Indonesia, far higher than airplane crashes. Statistically, riding a motorbike in crowded traffic is much riskier than flying in an aircraft subject to rigorous international safety standards. Yet, why are so many people more afraid of airplanes than motorcycles? The reason is clear, plane crashes receive massive media coverage and leave behind profound feelings of loss.

Risk, it turns out, not merely about statistics but also about the public's perception. It cannot be understood through numbers, it must also account for feelings and people’s emotion. This is why Peter Sandman, in his framework on risk communication, defined risk with a simple formula.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage

Risk, in essence, is a combination of tangible danger (hazard) and the emotional reaction (outrage) of those affected

For citizens, watching members of parliament dance on social media cannot be understood as an expression of joy; it becomes a symbol of insult, especially for 700.000 contract teachers who struggle with precarious livelihoods.

For the public, proposals to provide housing allowances for lawmakers are not just policy debates; they are seen as symbols of injustice, particularly when 9.9 million Indonesians still do not own a home.

The tragic case of Affan Kurniawan, an online motorbike driver run over by a security personnel vehicle, cannot be explained away as a mere technical mishap or isolated incident. To the hundreds of millions watching, it represents a recurring pattern of brutality and abuse of power.

Large-scale demonstrations erupting across the country are not simply spontaneous acts of vandalism; they are the accumulated result of unheard voices and prolonged absence of justice. (Please not that this does not mean condoning violence)

Hazards or tangible danger, can be measured with numbers. Outrage, however, can only be felt through public emotion. Lawmakers have repeatedly failed, not only to control the spread of facts, but also to read public sensitivity. And when offensive words like “stupid” or “useless” remarks from lawmakers, they demonstrate a complete failure to respond effectively to their constituents.

Looking ahead, the greatest challenge in this crisis is no longer just how to contain demonstrations, but how to rebuild public trust in the aftermath. Lawmakers and Government must urgently learn and adopt communication strategies that calm citizens and reduce panic, rather than showing defensive, empathy-free responses that only fuel further outrage.

References:

• Sandman, P. (1987). Risk = Hazard + Outrage: A Formula for Effective Risk Communication.

• Suara.com (2024). YOLO Ine Criticized for Underestimating the 12% VAT Increase.

• MetroTV News (2024). Motorcycles Are the Leading Cause of Traffic Accidents in Indonesia.

• Katadata (2023). Number of Contract Teachers in Indonesia (700,000).

• Tempo (2025). Over 50 Million Indonesians Still Do Not Own a Home.