Tag: Indonesia

  • ASEAN Summit: Beyond Borders and Hopes for Fair Inclusivity

    ASEAN Summit: Beyond Borders and Hopes for Fair Inclusivity

    In a time when the global order is increasingly shaped by rivalry, protectionism, and digital divides, the ASEAN Summit stands as one of the few platforms where developing nations gather not merely to defend their interests but to design their shared future. The 46th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, is more than a diplomatic meeting. The summit is a reminder that Southeast Asia’s collective voice matters. It symbolizes how unity among developing nations can transcend historical boundaries, nurture inclusivity, and build a fairer regional community.

    ASEAN was never conceived as a power bloc but as a bridge between economies, between cultures, and between stages of development. Unlike many international forums dominated by major powers, ASEAN’s strength lies in its diversity. Ten countries, and to be eleven with Timor-Leste, bring unique histories, religions, and governance models under a single umbrella. This diversity, often seen as a challenge, has become ASEAN’s greatest asset. The diversity shows that peace and cooperation among developing states are not only possible but productive.

    For Southeast Asia, the concept of fair inclusivity goes beyond economics. It touches on the right of each nation, large or small, to have a voice in shaping the regional agenda. The inclusion of Timor-Leste in 2025 embodies this principle. As the region’s youngest and smallest state, its admission reflects ASEAN’s moral commitment to solidarity and development over mere strategic convenience. Inclusivity, in this context, is not charity; it is the foundation of sustainable peace and collective progress.

    The summit’s theme, Inclusivity and Sustainability, reflects the dual challenge of the 21st century: growth that benefits all and development that endures. ASEAN economies, although varied in size and structure, share similar aspirations, including modernization, digital readiness, and equitable prosperity. By fostering a shared regional identity, ASEAN helps member states collectively resist the widening global inequality gap that leaves developing nations perpetually behind.

    Strategically, ASEAN sits at one of the most vital crossroads in the world, between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, between East and West, between tradition and innovation. Its geography makes it an essential hub for trade, logistics, and supply chain resilience. But more importantly, its moral geography, its position as a neutral, peace-oriented bloc, makes it a rare model of cooperation in a fragmented world. ASEAN’s balancing act between global powers offers lessons on how small and medium states can retain agency in international affairs.

    The economic dimension of the ASEAN Summit cannot be overlooked. With a combined population exceeding 680 million and a GDP surpassing US$4.3 trillion, ASEAN is projected to become the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2030. Yet its real power lies not in its statistics but in its philosophy: growth through cooperation rather than domination. Initiatives like the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement represent steps toward that vision.

    However, inclusivity must be tested in practice, not just declared in speeches. The region’s disparities in income, digital access, and institutional capacity remain stark. Some nations are global manufacturing hubs, while others struggle with poverty and instability. The ASEAN Summit, therefore, serves as a platform for mutual learning, where successful models of governance, education, and technology can be shared and adapted across borders. The collective aim is not uniformity but shared advancement.

    Beyond economics, ASEAN carries a profound social responsibility. The region’s young population, half under the age of 35, faces an uncertain global future marked by automation and climate disruption. By prioritizing human capital, technical education, and sustainable industries, ASEAN can chart a development path that empowers its youth while respecting local identities. This approach reflects an emerging paradigm: development rooted in culture, ethics, and community.

    In addressing challenges such as the Myanmar crisis or transboundary haze pollution, ASEAN’s diplomacy emphasizes consensus and dialogue. Though sometimes criticized for its slow pace, this model prioritizes stability over coercion. It recognizes that transformation in developing societies must come through gradual institutional building, not external pressure. The ASEAN Way, based on mutual respect and non-interference, may seem cautious, but it preserves trust in a region historically scarred by colonial divisions.

    The spirit of beyond borders is not merely geographical. It signifies the psychological shift from narrow nationalism to regional empathy. When ASEAN leaders speak of connectivity, they mean more than roads or fiber cables; they speak of people’s hearts, students, workers, and entrepreneurs, linking across the archipelago and the peninsula, across faiths and languages. Every summit reaffirms that the prosperity of one nation enhances the stability of all.

    The digital economy has become ASEAN’s new frontier. With initiatives on smart cities, fintech regulation, and cross-border data flow, the region is transforming from a production zone into an innovation space. Yet digital transformation must be inclusive, bridging the rural-urban gap and empowering MSMEs. The summit discussions reflect this awareness, as leaders increasingly view technology not as an elite tool but as a public good.

    Sustainability is another pillar of the 2025 agenda. From green energy transitions to climate-resilient agriculture, ASEAN’s environmental initiatives signify a growing consciousness of collective responsibility. Developing nations, often the first to suffer climate impacts, now position themselves as proactive actors in global sustainability. The region’s renewable energy potential, from geothermal in Indonesia to solar in Malaysia, offers both economic and ecological hope.

    Beyond its institutional role, ASEAN represents a moral experiment in how developing nations can govern themselves through shared ethics. It challenges the notion that progress must follow Western models. Instead, it offers a civilizational narrative rooted in Asian values, respect, harmony, and community-driven development. These values give ASEAN’s inclusivity not just an economic but also a cultural legitimacy.

    As global politics tilt toward polarization, ASEAN’s quiet diplomacy provides an alternative vision of coexistence. Its ability to engage both the United States and China without becoming a pawn illustrates the value of collective neutrality. The bloc’s centrality in regional dialogues, from the East Asia Summit to ASEAN+3, ensures that Southeast Asian perspectives remain integral to the global agenda.

    Ultimately, the ASEAN Summit is a mirror of the region’s aspirations: a fairer, more balanced future where every nation, regardless of size, contributes to the mosaic of progress. Beyond borders means daring to imagine a community not confined by geography but bound by shared destiny. For Southeast Asia and other developing regions, ASEAN’s story is not merely just about survival. It is about the dignity of shaping one’s own future in a world too often defined by others.

  • The New Era of Garuda-Danantara Partnership

    The New Era of Garuda-Danantara Partnership

    In a defining moment for Indonesia’s economic trajectory, the government has initiated the Garuda–Danantara investment, a strategic move designed to reignite the nation’s industrial economy post-covid revival through government link company (GLC/BUMN). Representing resilience and national pride, the Garuda–Danantara partnership integrates the strength of state-owned enterprises, investment body, and investors frameworks under one unified vision: to transform Indonesia into a modern, competitive, and sustainable industrial powerhouse.

    President Prabowo Subianto’s administration has positioned the Danantara initiative as a central pillar of its bold vision to transform the economy and long-term growth strategy. The plan emphasizes BUMN management approach, revitalization, and innovation as the drivers of national economy progress. Beyond accelerating investment expansion, it seeks to restore Indonesia’s economic sovereignty after years of structural dependence on investment and capital crisis.

    Functioning as a hybrid national investment model, Danantara operates under a coordinated structure, part state-led, part market-driven, enabling capital to flow efficiently into productive and emerging industries such as defense, manufacturing, renewable energy, logistics, and digital infrastructure. Danantara-BUMN framework represents “a new investment ecosystem, not merely a funding scheme.”

    Through this national investment body, the government aims to promote strategic autonomy by accelerating domestic productivity of key industrial economic systems. This approach supports Indonesia’s ambition to reduce the BUMN deficit, boost productivity, and strengthen domestic value creation across priority sectors.

    Amid the national optimism, Garuda Indonesia, the country’s flagship airlinem remains a critical test case for the success of the Danantara investment framework. After years of financial turbulence and negative equity exceeding Rp20 trillion, Garuda’s recovery has been a matter of national concern. The company, once a proud symbol of Indonesian excellence, has been constrained by high debt servicing costs, limited cash flow, and rising operational expenses following the pandemic downturn.

    Under the new framework, Danantara investment stepped in as a strategic investor, injecting Rp30 trillion into Garuda through a private capital participation scheme equivalent increase to approximately 93.5 percent ownership . This infusion effectively transforms Garuda’s balance sheet, turning its equity position from negative to positive territory for the first time in nearly a decade. The restructuring ensures that Garuda not only stabilizes financially but also regains access to credit facilities and international partnerships critical for global operations.

    This investment marks more than a financial turnaround; it represents a renewal of national confidence in Garuda’s role as Indonesia’s aviation ambassador. With its excellent service quality, strong safety record, and global brand recognition, Garuda Indonesia is once again positioned for sustainable growth. The Danantara investment thus stands as a decisive and forward-looking move, aligning financial health with national strategic interests and reaffirming the government’s commitment to revitalizing vital state enterprises.

    Economic observers and business associations have expressed optimism that this initiative will shift Indonesia’s economic narrative, from reliance on resource extraction to high-value industrial economic production. The IHSG’s market recent turbulence shocks in early October underscores renewed market antusiam on Garuda stock which still on FCA (Full Call Auction) list. Furthermore, this initiative are worth to appraise.

    Ultimately, Garuda–Danantara stands as more than an investment initiative, it is a national economy transformation framework. With unified leadership, coherent planning, and disciplined execution, it can become the cornerstone of Indonesia’s long-term journey toward inclusive, resilient, and sustainable prosperity.

  • Sumud Flotilla and the Diplomacy of the Society

    Sumud Flotilla and the Diplomacy of the Society

    The Global Sumud Flotilla has emerged as one of the strongest symbols of the new wave of “society diplomacy” in today’s deadlocked world of global deadlock on Palestinian genocide. When global governments remain trapped in rigid power plays, civil societies across continents have chosen to act directly. Activists, humanitarians, and ordinary people sailed towards Gaza, not only to deliver aid but to demonstrate that conscience must not remain silent. This journey is not just about supplies; it is a peace voyage meant to awaken the world to the urgency of the humanitarian crisis.

    At the heart of this initiative lies the world’s diplomatic paralysis, which is somehow complicated to see as a humanitarian crisis. On one side, Arab and Muslim countries continue to call for a ceasefire and the end of occupation, yet their voices are often fragmented by regional and national agendas, focusing more on security calculations. On the other side, Israel and the United States persist in negotiations shaped by their strategic self-interest, control, and domination alliances rather than on genuine humanitarian concerns. This imbalance has turned international diplomacy into a theatre of power, where human suffering is sidelined once more by the same ethical crisis among leaders and superpowers.

    In such a setting, humanity is the greatest casualty. For the people of Gaza, daily life under blockade and bombardment represents the harshest form of collective punishment. Israel’s narrative of defense cannot justify the deprivation of food, medicine, water, and electricity to millions of civilians. International law is clear: collective punishment is prohibited. What is taking place is not defense but the systematic erosion of human dignity, carried out in full view of a hesitant global community, something that a long time ago vanished and is rising once more today in high-tech civilization.

    This is why societal diplomacy becomes so crucial. The flotilla was not organized by governments or states, but by networks of NGOs, humanitarian coalitions, social actors, and committed volunteers. It is society, not the state, that has raised its hand to say “enough.” Through this initiative, ordinary people are proving that the moral responsibility for peace does not rest solely with political elites. It also belongs to communities of conscience who cannot watch injustice unfold without action.

    Yet, instead of welcoming this effort, Israel intercepted the ships, arrested the activists, and criminalized their mission. Participants were branded as security threats or even linked to terrorism. Such a reaction exposes the deep insecurity of an occupying power that fears solidarity as much as resistance. If bringing food, medicine, and compassion is called terrorism, then the moral compass of that civilization has truly lost its direction.

    The response of the United States also reveals the contradictions of modern diplomacy. While the US speaks of humanitarian corridors and peace negotiations, it simultaneously shields Israel from accountability. By framing the flotilla as a “provocation” rather than a humanitarian call, Israel once again objects to the universal principles of kindness and human rights. This selective diplomacy highlights the bankruptcy of a system that still operates through colonial logics of domination.

    Even if the humanitarian aid carried by the flotilla has not yet reached Gaza’s refugees, the moral intention behind it has already resonated across the world. The determination of hundreds of activists from dozens of countries has sparked global conversations, drawing attention to the blockade and occupation. Their voyage has turned into a story of courage, solidarity, and moral clarity. It shows that when governments remain silent and try to do kind diplomacy, civil society can become the loudest voice for justice.

    The Sumud Flotilla has already achieved its destination. It has awakened the conscience of millions, redefined what diplomacy can mean, and strengthened the global call for freedom and justice. It has been shown that diplomacy is not the monopoly of states; it is also the practice of people who act in solidarity with one another. This is the true power of society diplomacy, an act of conscience that refuses to be silenced.

    Society diplomacy, therefore, offers a new pathway when official diplomacy collapses. It demonstrates that in moments of political deadlock, ordinary people can step in to lead moral and humanitarian agendas. The Sumud Flotilla is not merely symbolic; it represents a living example of how global communities can organize transnational action to put pressure on power structures, to reshape public opinion, and to bring dignity back into the discourse of international relations.

    The broader lesson is that colonialism, in all its forms, must be erased from the modern world, as stated in many national declarations and statutes. The Palestinian struggle is not an isolated case; it is a mirror reflecting unfinished struggles of decolonization and human rights. As long as the occupation continues, the credibility of global governance remains in question. The flotilla reminds us that colonial structures are not relics of the past but present realities that demand collective resistance.

  • Prabowo’s Ideological Social Program and Engineering-Wise

    Prabowo’s Ideological Social Program and Engineering-Wise

    As President Prabowo approaches his first year in office, we see that he is perhaps the only Indonesian president in the Reformasi era who has directly implemented the fundamental programs based on the Asta Cita political promises in less than a year. Prabowo’s flagship programs include free nutritious meals (MBG), the Red and White Village Cooperatives program, 19 million jobs, 3 million houses for the people, and agrarian reform, which involves expanding access to land for the people.

    The acceleration of these Asta Cita-based programs has certainly not been without obstacles. The creation of quality jobs has been hampered by the global economic slowdown and budget austerity policies, which have hampered economic growth. The MBG program has been hampered by cases of food poisoning affecting 5,194 receivers, including schoolchildren, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers. Cooperative programs, public housing, and others have been hampered by bureaucratic preparedness and ministers who do not understand Prabowo’s ideological programs.

    Not to mention the stance of academics and activists, such as the Aliansi Ekonom Indonesia dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia , who reject Prabowo’s social programs, such as the MBG (Indonesian Development Goals) and Cooperatives, as populist and anti-democratic. The label of Prabowo’s social programs as populist and anti-democratic by academics and activists, most of whom are economists, legal practitioners, and doctors, is actually interesting, because populism is essentially a political style that emphasizes siding with the people (populares) and is the opposite of elitism, which emphasizes the exclusivity and privileges of the elite.

    By labeling Prabowo a populist, does this alliance of economists, legal practitioners, and doctors represent the interests of elites who are disturbed by Prabowo’s social programs, which are actually ideological? If they prioritize the interests of the elite status quo, how can they consider themselves to be upholding democracy?

    Populism is an Ideological and Democratic Attitude!

    Despite experiencing pejorative influence, populism, as a political style that emphasizes siding with the plight of the common people, is born from an ideological stance. The founding of the Republic of Indonesia, based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, had the ideological goal of realizing social justice for all people. This means that if the government, as the state administrator, wishes to implement social programs, the benefits of justice must be felt by all citizens as a substantial manifestation of democracy.

    Contrast this with the policies of the 27 years of Reformasi, which were designed by elitist and pragmatic economists. Their formula for dealing with crises has always been deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, specifically for the poor. However, according to the Statistics Bureau (BPS), Indonesia’s social structure is dominated by 66.35 % middle class and is moving towards the middle class.

    So, for economists, deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies are like magic mantras for all situations, both crisis and normal, like Pak Pung Oil, which is effective for all kinds of sickness!

    Pragmatic policies are indeed a kind of religion for mainstream economists. We certainly remember how mainstream economists like Dr. Sjahrir, Dr. Sri Mulyani, and Dr. Sri Adiningsih agreed to remove the principle of kinship from the fourth amendment to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, arguing that this principle was the cause of corruption, collusion, and nepotism during the New Order era.

    Instead of refining the principle of kinship with more ideological principles such as democratic equality and brotherhood, Ciil and Duo Sri instead sought to incorporate the principle of efficiency as the foundation of our country’s economy. Efficiency is, of course, a principle that encompasses the agenda of deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, including liberalization and privatization, the neolib mantra of the Washington Consensus from multilateral institutions like the World Bank, WTO, and IMF.

    Prabowo, who repeatedly stated in his Gerindra Party declaration and election campaign that he wanted to restore Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution to its original form, would certainly not align with the elitist-pragmatic economists who carry this neolib mantra. And neoliberal mantra chanters will always label their ideological opponents as anti-democratic, even though it has been repeatedly emphasized that Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution is an effort to improve democracy in the areas of economic development and social welfare, not just politics.

    The Urgency of an Engineering-Wise Attitude

    In building his government, Prabowo’s choice to rely on academics and practitioners with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, and agriculture (STEM) signifies a paradigm shift from a conservative-pragmatic, cautious policy to a progressive-ideological, engineering-wise approach. Government portfolios covering the health, nutrition, higher education, and financial sectors are held by figures with engineering-wise thinking.

    Therefore, in the petition, in the articles published by Aliansi Ekonom dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia, you won’t find academics or activists with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, or agriculture. An engineering-wise perspective almost always synergizes with the perspectives of politicians with military backgrounds like Prabowo, especially since military science is essentially science and engineering for the purposes of war.

    The engineering-wise perspective is a unique approach to implementing state policy. First, engineering-wise views all problems, whether simple or complex, whether regular, complex, random, or irregular, as things that can be structured, patterned, and analyzed using mathematical formulations, and can be explained in human language that is easily understood by the public.

    Second, engineering-wise views every problem as having a solution, constraints that can be engineered, and limitations or boundaries that cannot be violated. Therefore, every engineer is essentially a disciplined problem solver, and the constraints and limitations encountered in life are actually answers to the universe, which, based on God’s Law, will always strive to find equilibrium, like connecting vessels in a physics and chemistry laboratory.

    Third, engineering wisdom always considers building sustainable systems. An engineering-wise person will never just solve short-term problems, but also long-term and sustainable solutions for the future.

    An engineering-wise perspective is most appropriate for development in a democracy that allows for differences in political views and attitudes. Consider President Habibie, a politician with a background in aircraft engineering. He was able to use the principles of aerodynamics and aeronautics to implement economic policies, which helped economic growth rise from minus 13 percent to minus 4 percent, and the dollar exchange rate to the rupiah dropped from 16,000 to 6,700.

    But look at what the neolib economists of the Ciil and Sri camps did? They continued to criticize Dr.-Ing Habibie’s abilities even as he successfully rescued the nation’s economy from the monetary crisis. Public distrust grew stronger, until Habibie’s accountability report was ultimately rejected by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), and he was not willing to be nominated for reelection as President of the Republic of Indonesia.

    Conclusion

    The Prabowo administration should be able to resolve the problems it faces in implementing its ideological social policies with an engineering-wise perspective. We see figures with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering becoming important officials in Prabowo’s regime. Politicians in Prabowo’s inner circle, Gerindra, generally have backgrounds in mathematics and engineering, such as Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Prof. Dr. Ir. Sufmi Dasco Ahmad (Electrical Engineering), Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi (Forestry), Minister of Foreign Affairs Sugiono (Computer Engineering), Deputy Minister of Agriculture Sudaryono (Mechanical Engineering), and Pertamina President Director Simon Aloysius Mantiri (Marine Engineering).

    Six ministers and one agency head are professionals, academics, and bureaucrats with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB): Minister of Finance Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa (Electrical Engineering), Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin (Physics), Minister of Public Works Dody Hanggodo (Petroleum Engineering), Minister of Higher Education Brian Yuliarto (Engineering Physics), Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sakti Wahyu Trenggono (Industrial Engineering), Minister of Manpower Yassierli (Industrial Engineering), and Head of the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) Amalia Adininggar Widyasanti (Chemical Engineering). Minister/Head of Bappenas Rachmat Pambudy is a livestock engineer, and Head of the National Development Planning Agency (BGN) Dadan Hindayana is an agricultural engineer from Bogor Agricultural University (IPB).

    As a Cabinet dominated by politicians and professionals with an engineering-minded approach, the scientists and engineers in the Prabowo regime are certainly capable of structuring and finding solutions to existing problems, obstacles, and limitations, and developing these ideological policies into long-term programs. And of course, scientists and engineers can address the increasingly evolving dynamics of democracy in society. After all, Prabowo’s ideological social programs can only be sustainable if they are trusted by the public, right?

    Let us embrace the changing tide of the times, from a conservative-pragmatic era that favored chanting the mantras of the neoliberal elite to development with ideological nuances, even tending towards socialism. We must face a few difficulties to realize the shared happiness of the Indonesian nation. Let us face these difficulties with science and technology.

  • Palestinian State Recognition: A Shift in International Diplomatic

    Palestinian State Recognition: A Shift in International Diplomatic

    This week, the diplomatic map of the Middle East shifted as several nations, including major Western powers, formally recognized the State of Palestine. What was once considered a distant or symbolic gesture has suddenly become a defining move in international diplomacy. The announcements came not in isolation, but in the heart of New York at the United Nations forum, where the debate over Palestinian statehood has been reignited with renewed urgency.

    The symbolism of the moment was powerful. After decades of stalled negotiations, speeches, and resolutions, the recognition of Palestine was no longer limited to countries in the Global South or the Arab world. It now included European states long seen as staunch allies of Israel, as well as countries like Canada and Australia, whose foreign policies had previously aligned with Washington. Each recognition was framed as a moral necessity and a political tool to salvage the two-state solution.

    At the UN forum, two unlikely partners, which are France and Saudi Arabia, stepped into the spotlight as conveners of a summit that would redefine the tone of the global conversation. France, with its historical influence in Europe and the Mediterranean, and Saudi Arabia, with its religious authority and regional weight, formed a joint board to guide deliberations. Their cooperation was both symbolic and strategic, bridging Western diplomacy with Arab leadership in a way rarely seen before.

    France’s decision to formally recognize Palestine sent shockwaves across Europe. For Paris, the move was not only a response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza but also a statement that endless deferrals of Palestinian sovereignty had eroded the credibility of international law. France framed recognition as a diplomatic necessity, an alternative to perpetual conflict and a challenge to the idea that only violence could shape the future of the region. Besides, there is public pressure and demonstrations around the country on the Palestinian crisis.

    Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s representative emphasized that occupation, displacement, and ongoing aggression cannot be normalized. Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud called on the international community to reaffirm its commitments to international law, to protect civilians, and to demand that any future Palestinian governance be free of militarization and extremism. By supporting recognition within a UN framework, Saudi Arabia sought to place the Palestinian issue back into legitimate diplomatic channels, while signaling that a militaristic approach must not dictate the fate of the entire Palestinian.

    European diplomacy, in particular, has played a decisive role in pushing recognition forward. Countries such as Portugal, Belgium, Andorra, Malta, and Luxembourg, alongside France in recognizing Palestine, each linking their decision with demands for governance reforms in the Palestinian Authority, exclusion of non-civilian armed groups from official power, and assurances of democratic accountability. The recognition wave was explicitly tied to the idea that only legitimate political institutions could disarm Hamas and weaken its grip on Palestinian politics. Nevertheless, we will see how the Palestinian people and their political factions work together to build a constructive situation.

    Spain also did not mince words. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez spoke at the meeting, saying that a two-state solution is impossible “when the population of one of those two states is the victim of a genocide.” Sanchez invoked human dignity, international law, and reason as foundations for the urgency of state recognition. Meanwhile, Italy’s PM Giorgia Meloni conditioned recognition on concrete steps: full release of Israeli hostages and exclusion of Hamas from governance. Her speech caused controversy when some argued it placed too much emphasis on one side, but others acknowledged it reflected a diplomatic realism being embraced by more nations.

    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese delivered a speech that stretched beyond moral arguments to personal grief and humanitarian urgency. He cited the death of an Australian aid worker, Zomi Frankcom, and expounded on the widespread suffering in Gaza, framing recognition not only as symbolic support but as a means to protect civilians and push for a ceasefire and proper governance. Albania’s push was that recognition must come hand in hand with action: demilitarization of governance, elections, and an end to hostilities.

    Turkey has been among the most vocal nations from both Asia and the Muslim-majority world in support of Palestinian state recognition. President Erdogan declared the recent recognitions, particularly by UN Security Council members, as “historic,” stressing that they must accelerate the implementation of a two-state solution. He urged that all states adopt the 1967 borders and recognize East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. Erdogan also condemned the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, calling Israel’s actions a massacre, and insisted that a ceasefire, humanitarian access, and withdrawal of forces were necessary conditions for peace.

    From Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa used the UN forum to renew his country’s commitment to a two-state solution, demanding that a contiguous Palestinian state be established based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital. He accused Israel of “disproportionate punishment” of Palestinians and called on all countries that recognized Palestine to be applauded for their moral courage.

    Indonesia added a distinctive voice to the debate, with President Prabowo Subianto delivering a bold yet balanced statement at the UN. While firmly supporting Palestinian statehood, Prabowo underscored that peace could not be achieved without recognizing the security of both nations, Palestine and Israel alike. His remarks sparked controversy in some circles, as critics saw them as too conciliatory toward Israel, but many diplomats praised his speech for breaking through entrenched rhetoric. The balanced tone was widely appreciated in the world forum as a sign that reconciliation is possible if both sides’ dignity and safety are guaranteed.

    This European, African, and Asian engagement reframed recognition not as a reward but as a pathway to responsibility. By pushing for the establishment of a recognized Palestinian government free from military factions, while also acknowledging Israel’s right to security, many leaders signaled that diplomacy could create a viable middle ground. Recognition thus became both carrot and stick: it granted Palestine diplomatic standing, while setting clear expectations that governance must be civilian, accountable, and independent of armed factions.

    As the week closed, what remained was not just a shift in the diplomatic arithmetic but also in the global imagination of peace. For the first time in years, the recognition of Palestine was being discussed as an urgent necessity rather than a distant ideal. This week’s developments also signaled that international diplomacy is entering a new phase, one where nations are reminded of their shared responsibility to support each other in providing peace, security, and justice around the world. The debate on Palestine thus became more than a regional concern; it transformed into a real test of whether the global order can rise to the challenge of resolving conflicts through principled cooperation rather than perpetual division.

  • A Failed Political Escalation in Indonesia, When Elites Try to Take Advantage of Peaceful Demonstrations

    A Failed Political Escalation in Indonesia, When Elites Try to Take Advantage of Peaceful Demonstrations

    The wave of demonstrations that erupted in Indonesia in recent weeks reflects deep public frustration toward inequality, corruption, and the privileges enjoyed by political elites. What began as a peaceful movement demanding accountability, particularly regarding lawmakers’ allowances and the erosion of public trust, was meant to highlight systemic injustice. Yet, in the midst of this legitimate civic outcry, certain elites and local actors attempted to hijack the protests, turning them into political tools for their own advantage. This maneuver, however, backfired, creating what can be seen as a failed political escalation that ultimately weakened the credibility of those involved.

    At the core of this escalation lies the dangerous opportunism of local political brokers, who often see unrest as a chance to delegitimize opponents or strengthen bargaining positions within the state apparatus. Rather than channeling the protests into constructive reforms, they instead amplified tensions, hoping to gain visibility or extract concessions. Such actions reflect a common pattern in Indonesian politics, where mass mobilization is not only an expression of grievances but also a stage for elite competition and maneuvering. In this case, the attempt to politicize the movement undermined the authentic voices of students, workers, and civil society groups.

    The escalation also exposed how fragile the boundary is between legitimate dissent and manipulated chaos. Local actors, which some linked to rival factions within parliament or regional power structures, encouraged confrontational tactics and spread inflammatory narratives. Their aim was not justice or reform but to destabilize the government and open opportunities for negotiation or influence. By doing so, they placed the nation’s stability at risk, treating demonstrations not as a democratic right but as a bargaining chip in the game of power.

    However, the people on the ground proved more discerning than the elites anticipated. Student groups, delivery workers, and women’s alliances refused to let their agenda be diluted by hidden political motives. They continually emphasized that their demands were about structural reform—ending unjust privileges, curbing corruption, and improving welfare. By keeping their focus clear, these groups exposed the opportunism of the political elites, thereby preventing the escalation from spiraling into a national political crisis. This resilience demonstrates the maturity of Indonesian civil society in guarding its movement from being co-opted.

    The failed escalation also underscores a broader lesson about nationhood. Indonesia’s democracy is still fragile, with institutional weaknesses and ongoing elite capture of the state. Yet, when elites overstep, often using peaceful demonstrations as pawns in their political game, they reveal their detachment from the real aspirations of the people. Such miscalculations not only erode their legitimacy but also reinforce public cynicism toward political institutions. The danger lies in how repeated attempts of this nature can exhaust the energy of civic movements, leaving society vulnerable to authoritarian impulses.

    Nationhood, in its true essence, requires a shared responsibility to preserve peace and advance justice. When local actors play dangerous games, they endanger not only political stability but also the moral fabric of the republic. Exploiting demonstrations for short-term gains betrays the sacrifices of citizens who risk their safety to voice legitimate concerns. The misuse of people’s energy for elite battles deepens mistrust and fragments the collective sense of belonging that underpins Indonesian identity.

    The attempt to escalate peaceful demonstrations into political turmoil stands as a caution and moral lesson for all. It reveals both the predatory instincts of certain elites and the resilience of grassroots actors who refused to surrender their struggle to manipulation. For Indonesia to strengthen its democracy and nationhood, it must ensure that civic movements remain rooted in public interest, free from elite capture. Only then can demonstrations serve as instruments of reform rather than stages for political gamesmanship.

  • Why the U.S. Overlooks Indonesia’s QRIS, GPN, and TKDN: A Missed Opportunity Amid Inshoring and Tariff Shifts

    Why the U.S. Overlooks Indonesia’s QRIS, GPN, and TKDN: A Missed Opportunity Amid Inshoring and Tariff Shifts

    As the global economy undergoes significant transformations, Indonesia has emerged as a proactive player, implementing policies like QRIS (Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard), GPN (Gerbang Pembayaran Nasional), and TKDN (Tingkat Komponen Dalam Negeri) to bolster its digital infrastructure and domestic industries. These initiatives aim to enhance financial inclusion, secure payment systems, and promote local manufacturing. However, the United States appears to be overlooking these developments, potentially missing out on strategic economic opportunities in Southeast Asia’s largest economy.​

    Indonesia’s Strategic Economic Initiatives

    Indonesia’s government has been steadfast in its commitment to strengthening its domestic economy. The QRIS system, for instance, has revolutionized digital payments by standardizing QR codes across various platforms, facilitating seamless transactions for millions of users. Bank Indonesia reported that as of mid-2023, QRIS had been adopted by over 26.7 million merchants, with 91.4% being micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMES).​

    Similarly, the GPN initiative aims to create a unified national payment gateway, reducing reliance on foreign payment networks and enhancing the security and efficiency of domestic transactions.​

    The TKDN policy mandates a certain percentage of local content in products and services, encouraging foreign companies to invest in local manufacturing. This policy has seen significant success, with companies like Pertamina, for example, achieving a 60% TKDN realisation in 2021, amounting to IDR 9.73 trillion.

    U.S. Hesitation and Missed Opportunities

    Despite these advancements, the U.S. has shown reluctance to engage with Indonesia’s economic policies. The American Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have expressed concerns over the TKDN regulations, viewing them as obstacles to investment. This perspective overlooks the potential benefits of integrating into Indonesia’s growing economy and the opportunities for collaboration in the technology and manufacturing sectors.​

    Moreover, the U.S.’s focus on reshoring and insourcing manufacturing, especially under the Trump administration’s tariff policies, has led to a more inward-looking economic approach. This shift may cause American companies to miss out on strategic partnerships and market access in countries like Indonesia, which are actively seeking to attract foreign investment and technology transfer.​

    Global Companies Embracing Indonesia’s Policies

    Contrastingly, other global players have recognized the potential in Indonesia’s policies. Apple Inc., for example, committed to a US$1 billion investment to establish a manufacturing plant in Indonesia after facing a ban on the iPhone 16 due to non-compliance with TKDN requirements. This move not only aligns with Indonesia’s local content policies but also secures Apple’s position in a rapidly growing market.​

    Such examples highlight the opportunities available for companies willing to adapt to Indonesia’s economic landscape. By investing in local manufacturing and complying with domestic policies, foreign companies can gain significant advantages in market access and consumer trust.​

    The Need for a Strategic U.S. Approach

    For the U.S. to maintain its economic influence in Southeast Asia, a strategic reassessment is necessary. Engaging with Indonesia’s initiatives like QRIS, GPN, and TKDN can open avenues for collaboration in digital infrastructure, fintech, and manufacturing. By aligning with Indonesia’s economic policies, the U.S. can foster stronger bilateral relations and tap into a burgeoning market.​

    Furthermore, supporting American companies in navigating Indonesia’s regulatory environment can enhance competitiveness and innovation. This approach requires a shift from viewing policies like TKDN as barriers to recognizing them as frameworks for mutual growth and partnership.

    Indonesia’s proactive economic policies present significant opportunities for international collaboration and investment. While the U.S. has been cautious, a more engaged and adaptive approach could yield substantial benefits. Recognizing and integrating with initiatives like QRIS, GPN, and TKDN can position the U.S. as a key partner in Indonesia’s economic development, fostering mutual prosperity in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

    References:

  • Abolishing Import Quotas: A Strategic Step Toward Affordable Prices in Indonesia

    Abolishing Import Quotas: A Strategic Step Toward Affordable Prices in Indonesia

    In recent days, President-elect Prabowo Subianto has made a bold statement that has stirred national discourse: the abolition of the import quota system. This proposal, while eliciting mixed reactions, deserves serious consideration as a strategic effort to reform the distribution and regulation of essential commodities. For a country like Indonesia, which has long grappled with stabilizing food prices and protecting household purchasing power, such a policy shift may offer significant potential.

    Indonesia’s current import quota system was designed to regulate the supply of crucial goods such as rice, sugar, garlic, beef, and other staples. In times of scarcity, the government authorizes limited import quotas to boost market supply. However, in practice, these quotas often fail to reduce prices. Despite the availability of imported goods, prices remain high. In some cases, quotas have even become tools of market manipulation by groups with exclusive access to import licenses.

    The core issue with the quota system lies in its exclusivity and lack of transparency. Only select importers are granted permits, creating an uncompetitive market. This situation paves the way for oligopolistic practices and, in some cases, cartel behaviour, where a small group of actors controls supply and pricing. As a result, consumers are forced to pay inflated prices, even though global market prices or basic production costs are much lower. The current system widens the gap between large and small players in the national supply chain.

    Replacing the quota system with a more open approach, such as a transparent, tariff-based licensing system, would likely lead to a healthier market. Importation would no longer be a playground for elite interests but a mechanism for stabilizing prices and ensuring availability. Increased competition among importers would drive prices closer to equilibrium levels. For consumers, this means better access to essential goods at more affordable prices and improved quality.

    This reform would also benefit domestic industries that rely on imported raw materials. Sectors such as manufacturing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) would gain more flexibility in sourcing inputs. Competitive pricing of raw materials would lower production costs and boost the competitiveness of local products both at home and abroad. This could stimulate exports and increase employment opportunities.

    Moreover, a more open import regime could positively impact other sectors, including logistics, ports, freight transportation, and warehousing. Increased flow of goods and more efficient distribution channels would strengthen supply chains, making them more resilient to shocks. This would also spur economic development, particularly in eastern Indonesia, which often suffers from high logistics costs.

    However, abolishing import quotas must be approached with caution. A large portion of Indonesia’s domestic food producers remains small-scale and vulnerable. These local producers could be easily displaced if the market is flooded with cheaper and more consistent imported goods. Thus, any reform in the import system must be accompanied by robust protection and empowerment policies for local farmers, livestock breeders, and micro-businesses. Government support is essential in the form of production subsidies, access to affordable financing, improved technology, and guaranteed markets for local produce.

    Additionally, import oversight and regulation must be enhanced. Without stringent quality control and safety standards, the domestic market could be overwhelmed with substandard imports. Agencies such as quarantine services, customs, the Ministry of Trade, and the Ministry of Agriculture must play a proactive role. The digitization of import processes, data transparency, and the integration of national stock and demand information should be prioritized to ensure a smooth and accountable system.

    What is commendable about President Prabowo’s proposal is the political will to evaluate longstanding policies that have become sources of inefficiency. Import regulations can no longer rely on closed, bureaucratic approaches. The global landscape has changed, supply chain disruptions caused by pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, and climate change all highlight the need for a flexible and open system to safeguard economic stability.

    Naturally, such a bold policy will attract resistance, especially from groups that have long benefited from the current quota system. However, the government must remain grounded in the principle that public policy should serve the broader interest of the people, not a handful of economic elites. Affordable food prices are not merely an economic issue, they are also a matter of social justice and national stability.

    In the long term, reforming the import system can be part of a larger structural transformation of Indonesia’s economy. The government must design a careful transition strategy, involve stakeholders inclusively, and foster public dialogue to ensure that the policy is widely accepted and effectively implemented.

    If executed carefully, based on data, transparency, and protection for domestic producers, the abolition of import quotas will not merely be a technical reform, but a strategic move toward a healthier, fairer, and more efficient trade system. The Indonesian people deserve access to high-quality goods at affordable prices. This is where the government must step in—not to restrict the market, but to ensure that it works for everyone.

  • Sumitronomics: Balancing Socialism and Pragmatism in 100 Days Prabowo’s

    Sumitronomics: Balancing Socialism and Pragmatism in 100 Days Prabowo’s

    Just four months after Prabowo Subianto was inaugurated as President, the public raised their dissatisfaction with several of his administration’s policies, which appear to be growing. Student demonstrations and civil society protests since mid-February 2025 indicate that Prabowo’s new government have institutional reforms and an administration-style shift that has not yet been effectively communicated to the public.

    This month’s demonstrations are particularly significant for two reasons. First, February marks the founding month of two political parties that have influenced Prabowo’s economic and political thinking: the old Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI), established by Sutan Syahrir (whom the mentor of Prabowo’s father, Sumitro Djojohadikusumo) and the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), founded on February 6, 2008, by Prabowo itself.

    Second, the demonstrations signal that Prabowo’s administration is far from attempting to establish an authoritarian regime. Despite accusations of fascism, Prabowo has directed security forces to avoid repressive measures against protesters, instead opting for a persuasive approach. One notable instance was on February 20, when Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi was sent to engage with student protesters, persuading them to disperse peacefully while promising to consider their demands.

    Nevertheless, Prabowo’s repeated assertion that his administration’s policies are rooted in the economic-political thought of Prof. Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, who championed democratic socialism. His idea of economic-political seems still far from technocratic planning and effective political communication. Former Vice President Boediono criticized Prabowo’s administration for its failure to integrate expert-driven technocratic planning with political legitimacy. Boediono himself is often associated with neoliberalism, an economic philosophy strongly opposed by Prabowo and inconsistent with Indonesia’s constitutional economic framework. But still, his critique still warrants attention.

    Prabowo’s Economic Policies in the Framework of Sumitronomics

    Among the many economic policies attributed to Sumitro’s economic philosophy, often referred to as Sumitronomics, there are three key initiatives have sparked considerable public debate:

    First, Prabowo aims to fulfil his campaign promise of providing nutritious meals, accelerating the program to reach full implementation by this year. The initiative targets 82.9 million children, leading to an increase in the budget from IDR 71 trillion at the start of the year to IDR 171 trillion by the end of 2025.

    Second, in an effort to ensure citizens’ constitutional rights to health, education, and decent living, the state budget has been restructured for greater efficiency. Unnecessary expenditures and ceremonial costs have been reduced, allowing the government to focus on fundamental public needs, including education, healthcare, and the ongoing school nutrition program.

    Third, the administration is working to improve efficiency and professionalism within SOEs by revising the BUMN Law. This legal reform serves as the foundation for establishing the Sovereign Wealth Investment Fund Agency within the name Daya Anaga Nusantara (BPI Danantara), which will oversee assets from seven SOEs worth IDR 15,939 trillion.

    Evaluating Prabowo’s Policies Through the Sumitronomics Framework

    How does Sumitronomics assess Prabowo’s economic policies? It is essential to revisit the three pillars of Sumitro’s economic philosophy, which were conceptualized during the New Order era as the Trilogi Pembangunan (Development Trilogy): (1) high economic growth, (2) equitable distribution of development benefits, and (3) stable and dynamic national progress.

    Will Prabowo’s policies drive economic growth? If we refer to Keynesian economic theory, which was adopted by Sumitro, maintaining public purchasing power through full employment requires government intervention. While various policy options exist, governments generally prioritize providing essential public services such as education, healthcare, and subsidies without social discrimination.

    The nutritious meal program exemplifies this approach, ensuring basic nutrition for school children, pregnant women, and toddlers. Beyond addressing stunting issues, this policy could also impact social inequality between families with few and many children.

    As of 2024, households with 4–6 members accounted for 58.63% of the population, according to Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS). The BPS also reported a 0.46% decline in poverty from March 2023 to March 2024, followed by a 0.29% decrease by September 2024. This indicates a growing middle-income population with larger families, reflected in an increase in Indonesia’s per capita income from IDR 75 million in 2023 to IDR 78.62 million in 2024.

    A rising middle class with larger families presents both opportunities and challenges, such as higher weekly household spending and reduced daily per capita consumption. Consequently, government intervention is necessary through a school meal policy implemented equitably, not just for the lower class, since the expanding middle class with larger families is the demographic most affected.

    Balancing Socialism with Pragmatism

    The nutritious meal program is socialist-oriented and will undoubtedly spur economic growth by driving substantial government social spending while promoting equitable agricultural and rural development. This aligns with Prof. Sumitro’s belief that economic progress should begin in rural areas. This approach was not exactly the same, but it was equal to distributing the budget for economic processes at the grassroots with economic process.

    However, as a state policy, pragmatism is inevitable when balancing the national budget. Budget efficiency is a necessary approach to refocus and reallocate financial resources toward economic growth priorities. As a result, non-essential government expenditures—such as extravagant seminars, unnecessary official travel, and their associated kickbacks—have been significantly reduced. As President Prabowo aptly stated, “To change how the government spends its budget, we must exercise fiscal restraint until expenditures are well-targeted and properly allocated.”

    This message needs to be understood clearly by all the citizens since we already know how the public bureaucracy today still needs some efficiency, not just the money, but also the process to make it more reliable for society.

    Nevertheless, Prabowo’s administration must ensure that its pragmatic efficiency measures are accompanied by thorough planning, competent bureaucracy, and technocratic support from public policy experts. Otherwise, efficiency efforts might inadvertently undermine citizens’ rights that should be guaranteed.

    In a democratic governance framework, pragmatism in public policy must be complemented by transparency and accountability to maintain public trust and satisfaction with Prabowo’s leadership. A case in point is the rapid and somewhat abrupt passage of the BUMN Law, which laid the groundwork for the establishment of BPI Danantara. To uphold public confidence, the government must clearly explain the rationale behind BPI Danantara’s formation, particularly as its organizational structure is set to be announced on Monday, February 24, 2024.

    Prabowo’s socialist-oriented policies, inspired by his father Sumitro Djojohadikusumo’s economic philosophy, will gain public support if they adhere to established democratic principles, namely: pragmatism (delivering tangible benefits), technocracy (well-planned governance), transparency, accountability, participatory governance, and, most importantly, respect for civil liberties and human rights.

  • Danantara: Prabowo’s Bold Vision to Transform Indonesia’s Economy

    Danantara: Prabowo’s Bold Vision to Transform Indonesia’s Economy

    In the heart of Indonesia’s economic transformation, a new initiative is set to redefine the role of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and pave the way for national prosperity. Danantara, officially named Daya Anagata Nusantara, is a visionary economic strategy introduced by President Prabowo Subianto in 2025. This initiative aims to consolidate and optimize the management of Indonesia’s BUMNs / SOEs (Badan Usaha Milik Negara / State Owned Enterprises). This strategy aims to create a more efficient and competitive economic structure that benefits the entire nation.

    Set for an official launch on February 24, 2025, Danantara is envisioned as Indonesia’s national investment fund, a powerful financial instrument that will oversee key national assets. Danantara is designed to manage and integrate these sectors, from banking and energy to telecommunications and mining, under a single, well-structured umbrella of productive economy. With a total asset valuation reaching IDR 14,715 trillion, equal to 900 million USD, this initiative is expected to play a central role in Indonesia’s economic growth and stability.

    Prabowo carefully chose the name Daya Anagata Nusantara to reflect the nation’s commitment to a prosperous and self-sustaining future. In Bahasa Indonesia, Daya means strength or power, Anagata means the future, and Nusantara represents the Indonesian archipelago. Thus, Danantara symbolizes Indonesia’s future economic strength, which is managed with the vision of long-term national welfare and sustainability.

    This concept aligns closely with Article 33 of the Indonesian Constitution UUD 1945, which states that national wealth must be utilized for the greatest prosperity of the people. By consolidating the assets of SOEs under Danantara, the government seeks to enhance efficiency, drive sustainable development, and ensure that the benefits of economic growth reach every citizen.

    Danantara’s structure is inspired by successful international models, particularly Temasek Holdings in Singapore and Khazanah Nasional Berhad in Malaysia. As a sovereign investment arm, both Temasek and Khazanah have successfully managed Singapore’s state assets, generating growth through strategic investments. Similarly, Danantara will act as a professional investment institution, ensuring that Indonesia’s national assets are managed with transparency, efficiency, and accountability. This new framework is expected to attract both domestic and foreign investors, boosting confidence in Indonesia’s economic potential.

    The focus areas of Danantara will include downstream industry, infrastructure development, food and energy security, and import substitution industries. Additionally, it will support the digital economy and technological innovation, further positioning Indonesia as a global economic powerhouse.

    The establishment of Danantara presents significant opportunities for businesses and investors. The government aims to create a more competitive and innovative business environment by streamlining the management of state-owned assets to become economically productive. This initiative also opens doors for strategic partnerships between SOEs and private enterprises in the long run, fostering collaboration that can drive major economic projects regionally.

    Furthermore, Danantara’s impact is expected to extend beyond Indonesia’s borders. With a more integrated and professional approach to asset management, the country could become a more attractive destination for foreign direct investment (FDI), strengthening its position in global trade and commerce.

    Danantara’s vision is deeply connected to the economic philosophy of Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, one of Indonesia’s most influential economists and a proponent of state-led economic development in the Suharto era. With him, Suharto gained development achievements during his presidency during the 1980s. Sumitro’s belief that Indonesia’s economic independence must be built on the strategic management of national resources resonates strongly with Danantara’s mission. By consolidating state assets under a professional body, Danantara moves closer to realizing Soemitro’s dream of an economically sovereign Indonesia.

    Despite its promising vision, the greatest challenge facing Danantara is corruption within Indonesia’s bureaucracy. Corruption has long been a barrier to efficient governance and economic management, leading to massive financial losses and undermining public trust. Even so, with that high obstacle, Indonesia still needs to try to initiate any efforts, including Danantara.

    For Danantara to succeed, the government must ensure strict transparency and accountability. Implementing independent oversight mechanisms, conducting regular audits, and involving civil society in governance will be crucial to preventing corruption. Additionally, firm legal action against corrupt officials will reinforce the government’s commitment to ethical leadership.

    If implemented successfully, Danantara has the potential to reshape Indonesia’s economic future. Optimizing state asset management, enhancing investment strategies, and reducing inefficiencies could significantly increase national revenue. This, in turn, would enable greater investments in public welfare programs, infrastructure projects, and job creation initiatives, leading to improved living standards for millions of Indonesians.

    Even more, Danantara could elevate Indonesia’s global economic standing, strengthening its role in international trade and investment networks. By building a sustainable and inclusive economy, the country could accelerate its journey toward achieving Vision 2045, the national aspiration of becoming a high-income, globally competitive nation.

    highlight:

    Danantara is more than just an economic strategy. It is a bold step toward a self-reliant and prosperous Indonesia. By drawing inspiration from global models, embracing professional asset management, and ensuring a corruption-free administration, Indonesia has a real opportunity to maximize its economic potential.

    With strong political will, public support, and sound governance, Danantara can be the key to unlocking Indonesia’s economic golden age. As the country prepares for the next stage of its economic transformation, the success of Danantara will serve as a defining moment in Indonesia’s journey toward prosperity, independence, and global leadership.

    recommended to read:

    Afifi, A. A., Adrian, H., Azami, E., & Farid, M. (2024). Re-Viewing Sumitro’s Policy and Industrial Maturity: Powering Downstream and Manufacturing Industries for Economic Growth and Sustainable Society. Journal of Regional Development and Technology Initiatives, 2, 79-102.