R (not the real name) never imagine that the protest he came to see in August 2025 brought him/her to the detention cell. Two months earlier, he graduated from Vocational High School. The future was open in front of him. He did not have any experience as an activist, let alone to be part of an organisation who organised the protest. That day, R wanted to see what happened. He went to Jakarta with two friends. He brought his mobile phone to take a video of the protest.

That simple decision changed into a long experience he never imagined. R was arrested and brought to the Jakarta Police Headquarter. On the way and at the police headquarter, he said that he experienced violence. That experience brought him face-to-face with the legal process and gave him life experience of how a person witnessing a protest could become a suspect. "I just graduated from my school two months prior the August 2025 protest. I was just watching and making a video recording," said R in a documentary film “More Pressure More Confident to Fight” produced by Koreksi.org as seen by all staff at Yayasan YAPHI at Anawim Hall on Friday (11/9).

R’s story was one of the testimonies after the August 2025 protest. The protest spread to a number of areas, and led to debates about the people’s demands. There were also stories about arrests, violence, examination, detention, and legal process against protesters and people standing and witnessing around the protest area. The film opened the story from a closer perspective. It was not simply about the number of arrests, but about humans behind the number.

R remembered how he was taken on a motorcycle. On the journey to the Police Office, he was beaten. He suffered wounds from treatment at the Police Office. Violence, according to witness testimonies in the film, did not stop on the street.

In the examination room and detention cell, prisoners faced equally dire situation. There were testimonies of people who suffered wounds on the hands to the head that necessitated stiches.

T was one of the prisoners experiencing similar brutality. T said that he was arrested by the officers when he was standing near the protest location. On the way to the Police Office, violence happened again. "I was dragged to the Police Office. Along the way from Semanggi Toll to the Police Office, I experienced violence," said T. For T, that experience did not only result in physical wounds. The arrest continued for months and made life outside come to a stop. T’s work was affected. His loans increased. His family also felt the brunt.

Uncertainty gave him additional burden. He did not know when he would be free and how his life would be after the arrest. "I was depressed and stressed. We were there not knowing when we could get out, no certainty whatsoever, no clarity. All was grey. When would I be free?" he asked.

Likewise, R also recounted the pressure he felt during examination. He was forced to acknowledge a crime he never committed, including throwing stones and caused destruction. He refused the charges. R said that he only saw the protest. His friends who were detained with him also experienced violence in order to get their confession.

In one examination, R questioned how a stoned given to him could be the proof that he threw the stone. Tension increased as the investigators put pressures on him to sign the Police Investigation report.

The night wore on. Legal aid arrived after the long investigation. Tired, R finally signed the document. That experience made him realise that the issue did not stop with arrest. The legal process after the arrest was critical part of the investigation. They were moved to the detention cells with people on other criminal charges. R remembered one narrow cell where many people were detained.

T also told similar story. He said that he was under conditions that made him increasingly depressed. One issue was about basic needs during detention. He said that he was in a detention room for hours without water, despite his constant plea. For people who lived a normal life, that experience left a long-term stress.

Families also Became Victims of the Process

Balqis explained that the legal aid team heard may stories of families of detainees. They not only had to seek legal aid, but also tried to understand the legal process their family members faced. Family members of the detainees then realised that they faced similar circumstances. They shared information on visit schedules, legal aid and the needs of detainees. Fear also grew in the families.

Balqis believed that young people had to be important part of democracy. People should not assume that young people were groups to be steered or suppressed. They had their own voices and experience. The problem was that the widening participation space was not complemented by the State’s ability to manage criticism democratically. Protests were spaces for participation. Social media was another space for participation. All such spaces had to have the same protection.

Stigma was another issue. People who had been detained after protests were continually viewed as "criminals," even after they were out of detention. Data presented in the film showed the large scale of the problem. The Advocacy for Democracy Team or Tim Advokasi untuk Demokrasi (TAUD) documented hundreds of arrests in Jakarta during protests. A number of activists faced criminal charges and were accused of playing a role in instigating the protests.

Khariq Anhar was one amongst those who faced legal process. He faced accusation based on Information and Electronic Transaction Law. One accusation was about an upload in social media which to him was a form of criticism of one political statement. Khariq refused involvement in network which the Police said was behind the protest. He said that the issue showed how activities in digital space could be the basis for a legal process faced by an individual.

Delpedro Marhaen from Lokataru saw the issue as part of a bigger problem. He argued that the State had to reveal facts objectively when protests and riots happened. Large-scale arrests did not answer the question of who was responsible for given incident. "The key issue was the absence of serious measure by the State to reveal facts objective since the beginning," he said. He argued that there was a tendency to build a scenario to place certain people as key actors. The process was problematic when it was built through investigation marked by pressures.

KontraS and a number of civil society organisations set up fact finding commission. The commission consisted of Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia), Legal Aid Institute in Jakarta (Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Jakarta), Amnesty International Indonesia, LBH Pers, SAFEnet, AJI, and a number of researchers. The commission was set up because civil society deemed that the State was too slow in revealing the human rights violations and the violence committed during the protest in August 2025.

Dimas Bagus from KontraS revealed a number of findings on arbitrary arrests. Most people arrested were not participants of the protest. Another finding was about violation of legal procedure, confiscation of freedom, torture and obstacles to access to legal aid.

For Dimas, the issue was not only related to the August 2025 protest. There was a pattern that had to be scrutinised which related to a longer history. He saw the similarity with a number of past incidents, including the Malari 1974 and the May 1998 riot. Such similarity was evident when one observed the mobilisation pattern, escalation of the situation, and the Police actions that worsened the situation. The August 2025 incident had to be viewed more critically.

Criticism of the way the State dealt with protest also led the speaker to the discussion about the Police institution. Arif Maulana from YLBHI explained that the Police position was very strategic in the criminal court system. The Police had the authority to conduct investigation, to execute use of force. The vast authority necessitated critical supervision mechanism. "In the criminal court system, the Police has very strategic position," said Arif.

Arif argued that the vast authority had to be exercised in conjunction to transparency and accountability. People needed means of testing whether arrests, detention, and designating suspect were consistent with the law and human rights standard. The issue was that internal and external supervision towards the Police was weak.

That situation opened the space for impunity. Violence not addressed comprehensively risked to recur. Police reform was one of the recommendations by fact finding team.

Dimas argued that police reform currently proceeding was not good enough to answer such questions. The State needed to show a true intent to reveal facts, to demand accountability from perpetrators of violence, and to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The issue was critical as August 2025 protest did not come out of the vacuum.

Waves of protests were reflection of accumulated people’s dissatisfaction towards issues related to government policies and socio-economic conditions. For citizens, the impacts of State policies were evident in day-to-day life, from employment, basic needs prices, unemployment and public services. Political awareness then grew out of such experience.

People felt they had the right to express criticisms because they were part of the State. They paid taxes, worked, lived with a variety of issues and had expectations of the government.

When criticisms were answered with criminalisation, there were chilling effects. People started to rethink when they wanted to speak. They were afraid to protest. They were afraid to write. Even journalists working to find and present facts could face pressures.

For UGM academic, Prof. Amalinda Savirani, the anxiety which emerged in protest could not be separated from community experience when they dealt with government policies. The impacts were evident in daily life, from prices of basic needs to supply of goods in the market.

For ordinary citizens, the issue was not simply about numbers in government reports. The impacts were present in the daily life of their family and themselves. Economic promises were not fully fulfilled, problems of unemployment, and target for employment opportunity not met added to the anxiety. "The effects for ordinary citizens were real," said Amalinda.

Accumulated anxiety then gave rise to political awareness. They started to question policies they thought were not helping people live day-to-day life. That awareness emerged from people’s position as tax payers with rights to know how the State exercised its authority and used public resources.

To Amalinda, communities could see the impacts of political decisions directly in their life. The issue was not simply about who were in power, but also how that power was exercised and how capable was the government in responding to people’s needs.

For that reason, waves of August 2025 protests were seen in broader context. Public anger did not appear suddenly. There were experience, anxiety, and structural issues that piled up before people finally rose in public spaces. (Ast)