[Part 3]There was an intriguing moment when President Prabowo visited the flood-affected areas in Sumatra, in late November to early December 2025. When the Regent of Southeast Aceh suddenly declared, “May President Prabowo become president for life!”, Prabowo responded with impeccable calm: a shake of the head and a raised hand—a clear, understated signal of “no, thank you.” Without any theatrics or exaggerated gestures, that simple movement conveyed his message: “I appreciate it, but absolutely not.”Such a stance deserves genuine appreciation, for in the face of the temptations of power, many leaders might be easily swayed by praise or exaggerated adulation. Yet Prabowo’s decision to decline—quietly and without spectacle—demonstrated that he (at least in that moment) recognised that public office is not about eternal glory, nor about pleasing supporters or cultivating admiration, but rather about concrete duties: aiding victims, managing the state, and honouring the constitution.And within the context of Indonesian democracy, rejecting the notion of a “president for life” stands as an affirmation that power must remain cyclical—so that accountability endures, leadership can regenerate, and the democratic spirit continues to thrive.The President's actions always set the tone for the entire government's response during a crisis. Public assessment of President Prabowo's handling of the recent Sumatra floods presents a mixed, but generally politically defended, picture.On the one hand, his supporters and elements within the government's narrative have highlighted his direct engagement and rapid mobilisation of state resources. The President undertook a timely visit to the affected regions, including Tapanuli Tengah, Aceh, and West Sumatra, demonstrating that the state was indeed present and attentive to the disaster. This swift action and physical presence in the field were heavily promoted by his political allies as proof of responsive leadership and a strong commitment to the people's welfare, with a focus on ensuring the speedy delivery of urgent aid like fuel (BBM) and the immediate restoration of critical infrastructure such as electricity and roads. He also explicitly mobilised the heads of state-owned enterprises, like the Directors of PLN and Pertamina, to accelerate the restoration of services.On the other hand, the public's critique and that of some non-governmental activists focused primarily on the status of the disaster and the official statements regarding its cause. The most significant point of public contention was the President's assessment that the disaster did not need to be escalated to a National Disaster Status, arguing that the situation was already under control with existing regional resources, the well-established Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) and the Armed Forces (TNI) being sufficient. This stance was immediately met with online criticism, where some netizens and social media activists felt that the refusal to elevate the status showed a lack of comprehensive seriousness toward the scale of the tragedy and its deep underlying causes, such as alleged unregulated logging. They argued that declaring a national disaster would unlock more financial resources and a higher level of cross-sectoral coordination necessary for a complex, multi-regional catastrophe.Therefore, the public assessment is polarised: while his actions of visiting and giving direct orders were seen by many as demonstrating 'State Presence' and 'Quick Response', his decision to keep the disaster status at a regional level generated significant controversy and disappointment among those who felt that the government was prioritising image management and downplaying the environmental root causes rather than allocating the maximum resources for recovery and prevention.There also exist some discussions concerning the perceived 'image-building' or 'public relations stunts' of politicians that circulate widely on Indonesian social media. One notable figure who has faced significant public criticism regarding his actions in the field is Zulkifli Hasan, the Coordinating Minister for Food. His activities, such as his gesture of carrying a small sack of rice and personally assisting in cleaning up mud at a disaster location, were widely scrutinised by users across various digital platforms, with many suggesting these were carefully staged acts aimed solely at pencitraan, or improving his public image, rather than being genuine governmental policy actions for disaster management.
There is a public assessment of former Minister of Environment and Forestry, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, and the current Minister of Forestry, Raja Juli Antoni. Siti Nurbaya Bakar (Former Minister of Environment and Forestry)'s accountability for the Sumatra disaster is framed by the public and environmental organisations as one of systemic policy failure over her long tenure, rather than specific actions during the crisis.Siti Nurbaya faced continuous, widespread criticism during her time in office for statements and policies that critics believed prioritised large-scale development over environmental conservation. Her controversial public statement that "massive development... should not stop... in the name of deforestation" made her the face of a government narrative that seemed to justify forest destruction for infrastructure and economic growth.For environmental groups, her image is tied to the institutionalisation of deforestation and the weakening of ecological protections, which they argue directly created the conditions (loss of water absorption capacity in the uplands) that turned heavy rain into a catastrophic flood in Sumatra.Moreover, she, along with the current Minister, has been the subject of demands from groups like the Koalisi Kawal Merah Putih (KKMP) to be investigated by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for alleged involvement in a bribery case related to forest area management, which further fuels public suspicion regarding the ethical governance of the nation's forests.Raja Juli Antoni has faced intense and immediate public backlash for his handling and commentary following the Sumatra disaster. The most severe and widely condemned blunder was his use of the phrase "good momentum" to describe the deadly floods and landslides in Sumatra, arguing that it was a 'good momentum' for policy evaluation. This statement was immediately and widely condemned by netizens, politicians, and public figures as insensitive and lacking empathy towards the hundreds of victims who lost their lives or homes.His public image was further damaged by a viral photo showing him playing dominoes with a former suspect in an illegal logging case. Critics swiftly labelled this a fatal ethical misstep, arguing that it compromised the integrity of the Minister responsible for cracking down on forest crimes, especially when illegal logging was heavily suspected as the root cause of the floods.Although he correctly acknowledged the disaster as a sign of fundamental failures in environmental management, the public focus remains on his clumsy communication and the need for concrete action against the powerful forces driving deforestation, rather than his rhetoric. The House of Representatives (DPR) even called for him to be summoned to discuss the massive logs found in the floodwaters.In essence, Siti Nurbaya's public condemnation is for the policy foundation that created the problem, whereas Raja Juli Antoni's is for his tactless statements and questionable associations while managing the immediate crisis.The public holds Bahlil Lahadalia, the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) is responsible for the regulation and oversight of the mining industry. Given that much of the environmental damage in the headwaters of Sumatra's rivers is linked to extractive industries, including mining, critics demand accountability for whether his ministry adequately supervised these activities. They question if the ministry failed to anticipate the consequences of mining activities in ecologically sensitive areas, especially in the face of known extreme weather patterns.
These three ministers are held accountable by various public elements not for the immediate disaster response, but for the policy failures and administrative negligence over land-use permits and environmental protection that critics assert turned a severe rainfall event into a large-scale ecological disaster.
Back again to our main topic.
Work on environmental ethics typically examines the moral relationship between human beings and the rest of the natural world. It seeks to expand the moral community beyond just humans, raising questions like: Do animals, plants, and ecosystems have intrinsic value? Should they be valued only for what they offer us, or also for their own sake? Such a work would likely survey different philosophical approaches—from human‑centred (anthropocentric) ethics to more life‑centred or ecosystem‑centred worldviews.
According to Environmental Ethics by Marcus Wright (2022, Bibliotex), in environmental philosophy, environmental ethics is an established field of practical philosophy, which reconstructs the essential types of argumentation that can be made for protecting natural entities and the sustainable use of natural resources. The main competing paradigms are anthropocentrism, physiocentrism (also called ecocentrism), and theocentrism. Environmental ethics exerts influence across a wide range of disciplines, including environmental law, environmental sociology, ecotheology, ecological economics, ecology, and environmental geography.Anthropocentrism, which considers human interests as primary—thereby often seeing nature and non‑human life primarily in instrumental terms, as means for human benefit. Biocentrism, which attributes intrinsic value to all living beings, not just humans, under this view, all living organisms matter morally simply by virtue of being alive. Ecocentrism (or holistic/ecological ethics), which considers ecosystems—with their interdependent species, nonliving components, and ecological processes—as morally significant as wholes, not just as a collection of individual beings.Marcus Wright seeks to challenge the prevailing human-centred worldview by arguing that nature possesses intrinsic value beyond its utility to humankind. It emphasises that ethical responsibility must extend to ecosystems, species, and future generations, rather than being confined to immediate human interests. Wright explores philosophical traditions that underpin environmental thought, from deep ecology to ecofeminism, and critiques the exploitative tendencies of industrial society. He insists that environmental ethics is not merely an abstract philosophy but a practical framework for guiding policy, technology, and everyday choices. Ultimately, the book conveys that the survival of humanity is inseparable from the flourishing of the natural world, and that genuine justice requires recognising the moral standing of non-human life.Wright argues that traditional ethics, rooted in human welfare and social contracts, fails to account for the moral significance of non-human entities. He explores how industrial progress and consumer culture have normalised the exploitation of nature, framing it as a resource rather than a community of living systems. Wright introduces key philosophical debates—such as whether value is intrinsic to nature or merely assigned by human perception—and highlights the urgency of rethinking our ethical frameworks in light of ecological crises. Wright establishes environmental ethics as a necessary corrective, urging readers to expand their moral imagination beyond human boundaries. Where conventional ethics has largely confined itself to human relationships, rights, and duties, environmental ethics insists on widening the circle of moral concern to include non-human life and ecological systems. This correction challenges the assumption that nature is merely a backdrop or a warehouse of resources, and instead frames it as a community of beings with intrinsic value. Wright argues that such a shift is essential because it reorients human responsibility away from domination and exploitation towards stewardship, reciprocity, and respect. By doing so, environmental ethics provides a counterbalance to the industrial and consumerist worldview, reminding us that justice and sustainability cannot be achieved without recognising the moral standing of the natural world.According to Wright, the advance of industrialisation and the rise of consumer culture have gradually normalised the exploitation of nature by embedding it into everyday life and economic systems. Industrial progress is celebrated as a symbol of human achievement, yet it is built upon the relentless extraction of resources, the transformation of landscapes, and the commodification of living systems. Consumer culture reinforces this pattern by teaching individuals to equate well-being with material acquisition, thereby masking the ecological costs behind the glamour of convenience and abundance. Over time, these practices have become so deeply woven into social norms and economic structures that the exploitation of the environment appears natural, inevitable, and even desirable. Wright insists that this normalisation is precisely what must be challenged, for it blinds society to the moral significance of ecological degradation and perpetuates a worldview in which nature is reduced to a warehouse of goods rather than a community of life.Wright explains that environmental ethics and animal ethics are closely related but not identical: environmental ethics focuses on the moral value of ecosystems, species, and the natural world as a whole, while animal ethics concentrates on the moral standing and welfare of individual sentient creatures. Animal ethics, as described here, is the philosophical view that animals deserve ethical consideration because of their capacity to suffer, feel, and live meaningful lives, and thus should not be reduced to mere resources for human use.Wright situates animal ethics as a vital companion to environmental ethics, though the two disciplines diverge in emphasis. Environmental ethics is holistic, concerned with the preservation of biodiversity, ecological systems, and the integrity of nature as a collective entity. Animal ethics, by contrast, is individualistic, centring moral concern on the rights and welfare of sentient beings. Environmental ethics may sometimes justify actions that harm individual animals for the sake of ecosystem balance, but animal ethics insists that each creature’s suffering and well-being must be taken seriously. Wright portrays this tension not as a contradiction but as a necessary dialogue: environmental ethics broadens our moral imagination to include the whole of nature, while animal ethics ensures that individual lives are not overlooked. Together, they form a more complete ethical framework, reminding us that justice must encompass both the flourishing of ecosystems and the dignity of individual animals.Imagine a grand assembly hall where the rainforest, dressed in emerald robes, takes the podium as the chairperson. Beside it sits a scruffy street cat, representing the voice of individual animals. The rainforest speaks of balance, biodiversity, and the collective survival of ecosystems, while the cat interrupts with sharp wit, reminding everyone that justice is meaningless if the suffering of individuals is ignored. The meeting quickly becomes a parody of human politics: the rainforest proposes sweeping policies to protect rivers and forests, while the cat demands food, shelter, and dignity for every creature. Together, they expose the absurdity of a worldview that celebrates industrial progress yet forgets the moral standing of both ecosystems and sentient beings. The poster’s slogan reads: “No Justice Without Leaves and Whiskers.”
Marcus Wright’s Environmental Ethics portrays the relationship between environmental ethics and animal ethics as one of cause and consequence, rather than simple parallelism. He explains that when we begin to take environmental ethics seriously—acknowledging the intrinsic value of ecosystems and the moral significance of the natural world—it inevitably reshapes how we think about individual animals. Environmental ethics provides the broader framework: it insists that the destruction of habitats, pollution, and ecological imbalance are moral wrongs because they undermine the integrity of nature itself. The consequence of this recognition is that animal ethics emerges as a necessary extension, since the degradation of ecosystems directly harms the lives of sentient creatures who depend upon them. Conversely, Wright argues that animal ethics, by insisting on the dignity and welfare of individual beings, often leads us back to environmental ethics, because protecting animals cannot be achieved without safeguarding the habitats and ecological systems in which they live. Thus, the two are causally intertwined: environmental ethics generates the conditions for animal ethics to be meaningful, while animal ethics reinforces the urgency of environmental ethics by grounding it in the lived suffering and flourishing of individual creatures.
[Part 1]
