Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia and the Open Government Partnership (OGP) civil society coalition held a discussion called “Hearing, but Not Listening: Who Really Gets Heard in Indonesia Today?” on 31 August 2026 in Menteng, Central Jakarta. The event was supported by the European Union and the Open Government Partnership.
The speakers were Alfian from Masyarakat Transparansi Aceh (MaTA), Charles Beraf (SVD Flores, East Nusa Tenggara), Hermawan from Gemawan West Kalimantan, Rinto Leonardo Siahaan from INFID, and Meliana Lumbantoruan from Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia. Agus Sarwono from Transparency International Indonesia (TII) led the discussion. The speakers talked about how open the government really is, how the government deals with environmental disasters, how the space for civil society is getting smaller, and how hard it still is for people to take part in making policies.
The forum was a chance for civil society to look honestly at whether the government is really living up to the idea of open government and public participation. With one environmental crisis after another and less and less room for people to speak freely, the speakers said there is a big gap between the official ways people can raise their voices and the government’s actual willingness to listen. The disasters in Aceh, West Kalimantan, and Flores all showed the same problems: slow response at the start, poor crisis planning, aid that didn’t reach everyone fairly, and very little official information that people could find and trust.
People Can Speak Up, but Are They Being Heard?
Hermawan from Gemawan West Kalimantan said that forest and land fires happen every year, and the weather agency, BMKG, can predict them using its data. But the local government still handles them the same old way. In 2026, West Kalimantan set aside only about IDR 1.2 billion to deal with these fires, and almost IDR 500 million of that was spent on official travel. Because of this, important prevention work, like keeping peatlands wet, taking care of water wells, and supporting village fire volunteers, often gets ignored.
Hermawan also said that at the village level, community planning meetings like Musdes and Musrenbang are still being held. But many of the ideas that people bring up get dropped further up the line, because there isn’t enough money and the main spending priorities are already decided by the central government. In the end, local participation doesn’t really lead to much.
Charles Beraf talked about the crisis that has been going on since the disaster on 15 August. Because there was so little official information, social media was flooded with false news. This caused panic, and many people had to save themselves on their own. Charles said there needs to be a disaster information hub, one central place where people can get information they can trust. He also said that because of the area’s geography, most of the aid went to the places with the worst damage, while villages in remote and mountain areas got help much later. This led to protests from local people.
Charles also warned about something called epistemic hegemony. This happens when the government keeps making one-sided decisions, and over time people start to see those decisions as normal and right. When that happens, people stop questioning things, even when their basic rights are at risk.
Alfian from MaTA Aceh said that rebuilding in the 18 affected districts and cities is going very slowly. From 25 to 27 August, people once again put up white flags to show how desperate they are and to push the government to declare the disasters in Sumatra and Aceh a national disaster. Basic roads and bridges are still not working. In some areas, people have to hold onto sling cables to cross rivers, and they are worried about the rainy season coming again from October to January 2027.
From the Right to Be Heard to Real Participation
Rinto Leonardo Siahaan from INFID said that Indonesia already has a legal basis for meaningful participation. Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 gives people three rights: the right to be heard, the right to be considered, and the right to get an explanation for the decisions that are made. But Rinto said that in real life, these rights often only exist on paper. Public complaint services like SP4N-LAPOR!, the Information Commission, and the Ombudsman don’t have a clear way to give feedback. People don’t know what happens to their reports, whether anything gets fixed, or whether anyone gets punished.
The situation is made worse by the shrinking space for civil society. Indonesia’s score for basic freedoms is low, only 42 out of 100, and it is rated as “obstructed.” Many people have been charged under unclear articles in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), and people who criticize the government are often intimidated. This makes civil society feel unsafe when they try to keep an eye on new laws and policies. The discussion also pointed out that environmental disasters and poor participation hurt vulnerable groups the most. Women, Indigenous peoples, children, and poor communities carry the heaviest load. When disasters cut off clean water and food, women in evacuation camps often have to deal with a double or even triple burden while taking care of their families.
Opening the Door Is Not Enough
Meliana from PWYP Indonesia said that open government is not about how many data websites or documents the government makes public. What matters most is whether people have a safe space to influence policies, whether the government responds well in a crisis, and whether the law protects the people who are hit the hardest. Real openness, she said, is not just about opening the door, but about making sure people have a seat at the table where decisions are made.
Agus Sarwono from TII said that the government needs to change the way it sees environmental crises. Disasters should not be seen only as economic numbers, lists of damaged property, or indicator scores. They should be treated as a crisis that threatens people’s independence and the nation itself, and that seriously damages communities.
In the end, the discussion made it clear that listening to people is not enough if what they say doesn’t affect any decisions. Open government needs more than places to give input and access to information. It needs safe spaces for people to take part, a government that takes responsibility for its actions, and clear ways to make sure people’s voices are actually considered in every decision that affects their lives.