Danantara: Big Dreams, Big Risks
The government has big ambitions. Its name is Danantara. It's a state investment management agency, expected to become a new giant like Temasek in Singapore. The State-Owned Enterprises Law, recently passed by the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) in early February 2025, officially established this agency.
Danantara is an abbreviation of Daya Anagata Nusantara. This agency was established with the aim of optimizing the management of state assets and accelerating national economic growth. President Prabowo Subianto hopes Danantara will become a primary vehicle for building Indonesia's economic resilience through strategic investments in various sectors, including infrastructure, energy, and technology.
The capital is significant: more than IDR 1,000 trillion. Yes, more than one quadrillion rupiah! This capital comes from state capital participation (PMN), remanaged SOE assets, and other investment sources. It also includes funds from efficiency gains. If managed well, Danantara could be an engine of economic growth. However, if mismanaged, it could become a dark chapter in history, similar to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal in Malaysia that rocked the world and sent former Malaysian Prime Minister Naijib Razak to prison.
Since its inception, Danantara has been mired in controversy. One such issue is its overlapping authority with the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises. The Indonesian Forum for Budget Transparency (FITRA) even suggested this could backfire. Who truly controls Danantara? Does the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises still have power, or does Danantara stand alone, like a kingdom within the state?
Unfortunately, the revised State-Owned Enterprise Law also brings a major change: SOE losses are no longer considered state losses. This means that if a state-owned enterprise goes bankrupt or its funds evaporate, the responsibility lies solely with the SOE itself. It cannot be categorized as a state loss. This is like removing the teeth of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) or law enforcement agencies in overseeing state finances within SOEs.
History has shown that state investment bodies can become dangerous traps if not closely monitored. Malaysia experienced this with the 1MDB scandal that implicated its former Prime Minister, Najib Razak. The modus operandi was similar: large funds, investments without strict oversight, and then a massive financial leak.
Could Danantara experience a similar fate? Given the vast amount of money being managed, transparency should be a key requirement. The problem is, the revision of the State-Owned Enterprises Law has actually opened up a gray area in oversight. This is what has made the public anxious.
Another issue that has sparked controversy is President Prabowo Subianto's proposal to appoint three former presidents as supervisors of Danantara: Megawati Soekarnoputri, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and Joko Widodo. It's an interesting move, but it also raises significant questions.
Is this a brilliant move to ensure independent oversight? Or is it simply an attempt to build political consensus so that Danantara can operate without harsh criticism from established elites?
On the one hand, this could boost public trust. On the other hand, it's difficult to ignore the political undertones surrounding it.
Danantara is a big dream. If managed well, it could become the backbone of the national economy. However, if controls are weak, it could become a time bomb that could explode, harming many people.
The only way forward is to ensure strict oversight, full transparency, and public involvement in every policy decision. Otherwise, we may be witnessing the birth of the biggest scandal in Indonesian history.
And that's not a dream, but a catastrophe.