Abdullah Faqih – Louis Vuitton, Bottega, Lady Dior, Hermes Lindy, Gucci Bamboo, Prada Monolith, and other luxury goods are not merely brands that we encounter in luxury malls or high-end shopping centres. They have come to represent elite status and an affluent lifestyle, particularly because they are often associated with celebrities and influencers.
When it comes to public officials and politicians, however, these luxury items become "political objects" that generate greater public scrutiny and curiosity.
This is very evident in the Indonesian context, where economic hardship and everyday struggles are experienced by many due to the weakening of the Indonesian rupiah and rising unemployment.
Wealthy officials are now closely scrutinised by people whose living conditions are vastly different from their own, especially given that these public officials are paid with taxpayers' money.
Consequently, a seemingly 'mundane' act – wearing a luxury brand – has sparked debates over class resentment and, in the age of social media, digital surveillance.
A good example is the Instagram account @cabinetcouture_idn, which was recently banned and is no longer available within Indonesian territory. It actively exposed the expensive lifestyles of public officials – including Meutya Hafid, the Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs (Komdigi).
The banning reveals politicians' anxiety about being watched by ordinary citizens and opens up a broader discussion about power, censorship, and the ways those in authority seek to manage public scrutiny.
Reversed surveillance
Concerns about digital surveillance by authorities to control public expression, often at the expense of freedom of expression, are mounting in Indonesia. While this trend of digital repression is hardly new, it has intensified under President Prabowo Subianto, whose military background has sparked fears of rising authoritarianism.
Digital freedom has become an important indicator of a country's democratic quality, given the growing role of digital technologies in facilitating democratic participation.
In Indonesia, Law 11 of 2008 on the Electronic Information and Transactions Law has long been seen as a draconian law has enabled state surveillance and restricted online freedom on the pretext of maintaining security.
However, digital surveillance is not the monopoly of the state or corporations. Digital technology also enables ordinary people to conduct their own surveillance.
Rather than operating through formal political institutions or state instruments, this form of surveillance emerges through mundane, everyday practices on social media platforms such as Instagram and X (formerly Twitter).
On social media, Internet users spread gossip, conduct citizen-led investigations, and post seemingly simple but politically consequential statements such as, "Look! The minister's wife is carrying a Lady Dior bag that costs IDR 60 million – almost 12 times Jakarta's minimum monthly wage – and that's just the bag, not including her other luxury items."
These observations may quickly lead to broader public scrutiny, highlighting how citizens – particularly the middle class – have become increasingly critical of the growing inequalities within Indonesian society.
In this context, ordinary citizens can become active participants in monitoring, documenting, and scrutinising those in power, raising important questions about the changing dynamics of visibility, accountability, and power in the digital age.
This is sousveillance, or "watching from below," a concept coined by Steve Mann to describe participatory surveillance carried out by ordinary people rather than traditional surveillance conducted from above. In this form of surveillance, citizens monitor those in positions of authority and hold them accountable.
Filthy rich officials
The practice of sousveillance can be seen not only in the recent case of Meutya Hafid carrying a Bottega Veneta Jodie Mini, reportedly worth around IDR 56 million, but also in numerous earlier moments, when politicians have come under public scrutiny for their luxurious lifestyles.
This includes public officials who engage in 'flexing' their wealth through branded products, such as Selvy Mandagi (a North Jakarta Public Works official), Reihana (Head of the Lampung Provincial Health Office), Andhi Pramono (Head of the Makassar Customs Office), and others.
These recurring episodes suggest that politicians should by now realise they could be objects of 'public surveillance', and so should be concerned about the consequences of displaying excessive wealth – particularly amid the country's current economic challenges.
After all, this is not new. In 2023, former president Joko Widodo (Jokowi) instructed civil servants and public officials to avoid lavish, hedonistic lifestyles following public criticism. Following the President's directive, ministries and government institutions introduced regulations promoting Pola Hidup Sederhana (a simple lifestyle).
Jokowi's instruction was a response to the case of Rafael Alun Trisambodo, a former tax official at the Ministry of Finance. The controversy began when Internet users discovered and later exposed the lavish lifestyle of his family.
His son, Mario Dendy Satriyo, received special attention. He openly showcased luxury vehicles and high-end consumption on his social media accounts, including a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, and a Toyota Land Cruiser.
The public outrage that followed prompted netizens to pressure the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to investigate Rafael's obscene wealth. The investigation uncovered unexplained assets, ultimately leading to his conviction and imprisonment on corruption charges.
These events appeared to have left an impression on Indonesia's public officials, for a while at least. No one wants to end up like Rafael, with displaying a lavish lifestyle triggering investigations (although some officials now seem to have forgotten this).
The case demonstrates that surveillance from below is a serious political force and cannot be dismissed as merely a mundane everyday practice without political consequences.
Ultimately, it sends a clear message: don't underestimate the public – they are watching you.
Blocking the messengers
This is about more than just luxury handbags, designer shoes, or expensive watches. It is about visibility and power in the digital age.
Social media has fundamentally transformed the relationship between citizens and political elites by enabling ordinary people to scrutinise, archive, and interpret the everyday lives of those in authority.
The banning of the Instagram account, @cabinetcouture_idn, therefore, raises an important democratic question: how far can civil society use digital technology to 'surveil' potentially corrupt politicians?
As digital technologies increasingly shape public life, the struggle is no longer only over freedom of expression, but also over freedom of observation. The future of democratic accountability may well depend on protecting both.