The issue of lawmakers’ salaries and allowances has long been a flashpoint in Indonesian politics. Since the post-reformasi era, benefits for members of the DPR have frequently drawn scrutiny, with critics arguing that they are disproportionate to the average income of citizens. Previous controversies included debates over official residence facilities in Kalibata, South Jakarta, as well as vehicle and travel allowances that were viewed as excessive. Each time new lawmakers are sworn in, discussions over their remuneration resurface, often sparking public anger over perceived insensitivity toward ordinary Indonesians’ struggles.

Part of the controversy stems from the fact that all salaries and allowances for DPR members are drawn from the state budget (APBN). This means that any increase in benefits directly competes with funding for public services such as education, healthcare, and subsidies. With Indonesia still grappling with inequality, its Gini ratio has hovered around 0.38 for the past five years, decisions over legislative perks are closely watched by civil society groups. Against this backdrop, the recent clarification from Adies Kadir has only reignited longstanding debates about the fairness and transparency of parliamentary compensation.

Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), Adies Kadir, moved quickly this week to clarify remarks that sparked a national outcry over alleged increases in lawmakers’ allowances. Speaking at the Parliamentary Complex in Senayan on August 20, 2025, Adies admitted that his earlier statement regarding rice and fuel allowances was inaccurate. He explained that both allowances remain unchanged: the rice allowance is still IDR 200,000 ($12.25) per month, a figure untouched since 2010, while the fuel allowance stands at IDR3mn per month.

Adies stressed that the only new addition is the housing allowance, which had been budgeted in the previous fiscal year. This change, he said, followed the repurposing of official residences by the State Secretariat, leaving parliamentarians without state-provided housing. “What exists is only the housing allowance that has been budgeted since last year,” he clarified, underscoring that there has been no increase in base salaries or other allowances. His move to correct the record aimed to prevent further public misunderstanding and controversy.

Viral backlash and public anger

Adies’s initial statement, suggesting rice allowances had risen to IDR12mn per month and fuel allowances to IDR7mn, immediately triggered outrage online. According to RRI, netizens lambasted the alleged perks as extravagant, especially after videos of lawmakers dancing during plenary sessions circulated on social media. Many Indonesians viewed the spectacle as tone-deaf, given the financial hardships they face daily.

The controversy deepened when reports revealed that housing allowances for parliament members were pegged at IDR50mn per month. As highlighted by VOI.id, the scheme is projected to cost the state budget IDR1.74 trillion over five years. Critics argued that the figure is staggering, especially when compared with the average teacher’s salary of IDR4mn per month. By this metric, the housing allowance budget equates to the annual salaries of 36,000 teachers, fuelling perceptions that lawmakers are prioritising their comfort over citizens’ welfare.

Civil society’s concerns

Civil society watchdogs have been among the loudest critics of the policy. Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher Seira Tamara told Kompas that the provision of housing allowances is not only financially excessive but also socially insensitive. She noted that at a time when the government is slashing health and education budgets under efficiency drives, allocating trillions of rupiah to parliamentarians’ housing is “very substantial” and “inappropriate.”

Seira also raised questions about accountability, warning that the absence of a monitoring mechanism could open the door to misuse. Since lawmakers are not required to justify how they spend the lump-sum allowance, she argued, there is no guarantee that the funds will actually go toward securing housing near Senayan. If the purpose is simply to ensure lawmakers live close to the parliament building, she added, then half of the allocated budget would already suffice.

Efficiency versus extravagance

The Secretary General of Seknas Fitra, Misbah Hasan, echoed these concerns, telling Kompas that the allowance scheme runs counter to the government’s stated goals of fiscal efficiency. He pointed out that the IDR1.74 trillion earmarked for housing could instead finance long-delayed programmes such as building three million decent homes for low-income families. “At a time when people queue for subsidised cooking oil and struggle with rent, the representatives of the people are instead requesting luxurious accommodations at the expense of the state,” Misbah said.

Misbah further warned that the scheme risks widening the social gap between elites and the broader population. Indonesia’s Gini ratio, a measure of inequality, has stagnated at around 0.38 over the past five years. By funnelling such a large sum into perks for legislators, he argued, the government risks fuelling public cynicism and undermining trust in democratic institutions. The perception that lawmakers are living in luxury while ordinary people face rising costs of living, he said, only adds to the sense of inequality.

ICW’s stronger allegations

Beyond the efficiency debate, some watchdogs suggested more troubling motives. ICW’s Advocacy Division Head, Egi Primayogha, told Kompas.com that the allowance could be tied to political financing. Multiplying 580 parliamentarians by IDR50mn for 60 months, he calculated, results in a staggering IDR1.74 trillion. “We strongly suspect that the housing allowance is only to increase political expenses to cover election costs, or to maintain patronage networks of the parliamentarians,” Egi said.

Egi further called for transparency in parliamentary finances. He urged lawmakers to disclose all budget allocations received during their term, including funds for recesses and regional visits. Without such disclosure, he warned, the housing allowance risks becoming another channel for waste and misuse of taxpayer money. For watchdog groups, the episode underscores the urgent need for reforms in how parliamentary benefits are determined and monitored.

A question of priorities

Supporters of the allowance argue that the figure was set in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and benchmarked against housing benefits for Jakarta’s Regional Representatives Council (DPRD). DPR Secretary General Indra Iskandar explained to Kompas.com that the Rp50 million figure was chosen as a standardised benchmark. However, because it is provided as a lump sum, members are not required to report how the money is spent, a practice that watchdogs say lacks transparency.

For critics, the episode highlights a broader go

The issue of lawmakers’ salaries and allowances has long been a flashpoint in Indonesian politics. Since the post-reformasi era, benefits for members of the DPR have frequently drawn scrutiny, with critics arguing that they are disproportionate to the average income of citizens. Previous controversies included debates over official residence facilities in Kalibata, South Jakarta, as well as vehicle and travel allowances that were viewed as excessive. Each time new lawmakers are sworn in, discussions over their remuneration resurface, often sparking public anger over perceived insensitivity toward ordinary Indonesians’ struggles.

Part of the controversy stems from the fact that all salaries and allowances for DPR members are drawn from the state budget (APBN). This means that any increase in benefits directly competes with funding for public services such as education, healthcare, and subsidies. With Indonesia still grappling with inequality, its Gini ratio has hovered around 0.38 for the past five years, decisions over legislative perks are closely watched by civil society groups. Against this backdrop, the recent clarification from Adies Kadir has only reignited longstanding debates about the fairness and transparency of parliamentary compensation.

Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI), Adies Kadir, moved quickly this week to clarify remarks that sparked a national outcry over alleged increases in lawmakers’ allowances. Speaking at the Parliamentary Complex in Senayan on August 20, 2025, Adies admitted that his earlier statement regarding rice and fuel allowances was inaccurate. He explained that both allowances remain unchanged: the rice allowance is still IDR 200,000 ($12.25) per month, a figure untouched since 2010, while the fuel allowance stands at IDR3mn per month.

Adies stressed that the only new addition is the housing allowance, which had been budgeted in the previous fiscal year. This change, he said, followed the repurposing of official residences by the State Secretariat, leaving parliamentarians without state-provided housing. “What exists is only the housing allowance that has been budgeted since last year,” he clarified, underscoring that there has been no increase in base salaries or other allowances. His move to correct the record aimed to prevent further public misunderstanding and controversy.

Viral backlash and public anger

Adies’s initial statement, suggesting rice allowances had risen to IDR12mn per month and fuel allowances to IDR7mn, immediately triggered outrage online. According to RRI, netizens lambasted the alleged perks as extravagant, especially after videos of lawmakers dancing during plenary sessions circulated on social media. Many Indonesians viewed the spectacle as tone-deaf, given the financial hardships they face daily.

The controversy deepened when reports revealed that housing allowances for parliament members were pegged at IDR50mn per month. As highlighted by VOI.id, the scheme is projected to cost the state budget IDR1.74 trillion over five years. Critics argued that the figure is staggering, especially when compared with the average teacher’s salary of IDR4mn per month. By this metric, the housing allowance budget equates to the annual salaries of 36,000 teachers, fuelling perceptions that lawmakers are prioritising their comfort over citizens’ welfare.

Civil society’s concerns

Civil society watchdogs have been among the loudest critics of the policy. Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) researcher Seira Tamara told Kompas that the provision of housing allowances is not only financially excessive but also socially insensitive. She noted that at a time when the government is slashing health and education budgets under efficiency drives, allocating trillions of rupiah to parliamentarians’ housing is “very substantial” and “inappropriate.”

Seira also raised questions about accountability, warning that the absence of a monitoring mechanism could open the door to misuse. Since lawmakers are not required to justify how they spend the lump-sum allowance, she argued, there is no guarantee that the funds will actually go toward securing housing near Senayan. If the purpose is simply to ensure lawmakers live close to the parliament building, she added, then half of the allocated budget would already suffice.

Efficiency versus extravagance

The Secretary General of Seknas Fitra, Misbah Hasan, echoed these concerns, telling Kompas that the allowance scheme runs counter to the government’s stated goals of fiscal efficiency. He pointed out that the IDR1.74 trillion earmarked for housing could instead finance long-delayed programmes such as building three million decent homes for low-income families. “At a time when people queue for subsidised cooking oil and struggle with rent, the representatives of the people are instead requesting luxurious accommodations at the expense of the state,” Misbah said.

Misbah further warned that the scheme risks widening the social gap between elites and the broader population. Indonesia’s Gini ratio, a measure of inequality, has stagnated at around 0.38 over the past five years. By funnelling such a large sum into perks for legislators, he argued, the government risks fuelling public cynicism and undermining trust in democratic institutions. The perception that lawmakers are living in luxury while ordinary people face rising costs of living, he said, only adds to the sense of inequality.

ICW’s stronger allegations

Beyond the efficiency debate, some watchdogs suggested more troubling motives. ICW’s Advocacy Division Head, Egi Primayogha, told Kompas.com that the allowance could be tied to political financing. Multiplying 580 parliamentarians by IDR50mn for 60 months, he calculated, results in a staggering IDR1.74 trillion. “We strongly suspect that the housing allowance is only to increase political expenses to cover election costs, or to maintain patronage networks of the parliamentarians,” Egi said.

Egi also called for a degree of transparency in parliamentary finances by urging current lawmakers to properly disclose all budget allocations received while serving in their posisition - including funds received for recesses and during regional visits. Without such disclosure, the housing allowance risks becoming another channel for waste and misuse of taxpayer money he warned. For watchdog groups, the episode underscores the urgent need for reforms in how parliamentary benefits are determined and monitored.

A question of priorities

Supporters of the allowance argue that the figure was set in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and benchmarked against housing benefits for Jakarta’s Regional Representatives Council (DPRD). DPR Secretary General Indra Iskandar explained to Kompas.com that the IDR50mn figure was chosen as a standardised benchmark. However, because it is provided as a lump sum, members are not required to report how the money is spent, a practice that watchdogs say lacks transparency.

For critics, the episode highlights a broader governance dilemma: whether scarce public funds should be allocated to lawmakers’ comfort or redirected toward urgent social needs. As inequality persists and trust in institutions remains fragile, spending billions on allowances risks exacerbating the rift between political elites and the citizens they represent. With VOI.id reporting that public protests are being planned outside the DPR building, the controversy is unlikely to dissipate anytime soon.