Indonesia’s newly launched sovereign wealth fund, Daya Anagata Nusantara (Danantara), has ignited a firestorm of public skepticism and online chatter, with growing concerns over its transparency and potential risks to personal savings in state-owned banks. Launched earlier this week by President Prabowo Subianto with an initial capital of $20 billion, the fund aims to consolidate major state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and drive economic growth across strategic sectors. Yet, just days after its unveiling, fears of mismanagement and even a potential bank run have dominated discussions, both on the streets of Jakarta and across social media platforms.
The controversy surrounding Danantara, projected to manage up to $900 billion in assets, comes at a time when state budget cuts have already heightened public frustration over the use of taxpayers’ money. Critics and ordinary citizens alike are questioning whether the fund, envisioned as a catalyst for Indonesia’s economic ambitions, could instead become a liability, with some drawing parallels to Malaysia’s infamous 1MDB scandal, which was marred by allegations of massive corruption.
Public Anxiety Fuels Online Movement
At the heart of the public backlash is a deep-seated distrust of state institutions, compounded by Indonesia’s historical struggles with mismanagement and corruption within its SOEs. This skepticism has manifested in a growing online movement, with social media users openly discussing plans to withdraw funds from state-owned banks and switch to private lenders. A post by Jakarta university student Fajar Adi on the platform X, under the handle @PetrolWeeb, exemplifies the mood. Initially intended as a jest, his suggestion of mass withdrawals garnered over 1 million views and 26,000 likes by 27 February, sparking a polarized debate. 
“If it succeeds, the profits will be big. But if it fails, the losses will also be huge,” Fajar told The Jakarta Post. “I worry that if it collapses, millions of customers, including myself, could lose our money in state-owned banks.” While he later clarified that he lacks the influence to trigger a bank run, the viral post has inspired some to act, with many users sharing lists of recommended private banks and others accusing Fajar of recklessness.
Similarly, a 29-year-old Jakarta worker, who gave the pseudonym Sufi Si Jawara, expressed unease over the lack of accountability mechanisms for Danantara. “There is no guarantee it will be free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism,” he said, highlighting that the fund is not subject to direct oversight by key anti-corruption bodies like the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) or the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). “If something goes wrong, is there any guarantee that customers in state-owned banks will be protected?”
Under Indonesia’s new SOEs Law, passed on 4 February, oversight of Danantara falls primarily to SOEs Minister Erick Thohir, who chairs the supervisory board and holds significant authority over the fund’s executive body. This arrangement has only deepened public concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly with figures like Pandu Patria Sjahrir, the fund’s chief investment officer and nephew of former senior minister Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, in key positions.
Economic Risks and Expert Warnings
The escalating public discourse has raised alarms among economists and analysts, who warn of the catastrophic consequences of a potential bank run. Abdul Manap Pulungan from the Institute for Development of Economics and Finance (Indef) cautioned that large-scale withdrawals could precipitate a banking crisis with far-reaching effects. “It would not only affect state-owned banks but also private banks, non-bank financial institutions, and the capital market,” he said. “Banks are the core of the national payment system, and a crisis would be severe and uncontrollable.”
However, not all experts share the same level of concern. Mochammad Doddy Ariefianto, an economist at Bina Nusantara (Binus) University, downplayed the likelihood of a bank run, citing Indonesia’s current economic stability. “I doubt it will actually happen because the economy is unlike during the financial crises of 1998 or 2008,” he noted. “I also don’t think people will follow these rallying calls because they are baseless.”
Official responses have sought to reassure the public. The Financial Services Authority (OJK), Indonesia’s banking regulator, issued a statement affirming that Danantara’s establishment does not compromise the security of deposits or banking operations. Dian Ediana Rae, OJK’s chief executive of banking supervision, emphasized the authority’s commitment to maintaining financial stability through robust governance and risk management practices. Similarly, Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa, chairman of the Indonesia Deposit Insurance Corporation (LPS), urged calm, assuring citizens that public deposits in state-owned banks remain safe and professionally managed, as reported by Antara.
A Vision for Growth Amid Skepticism
Danantara, which translates to “Future Power of the Archipelago,” is positioned as a cornerstone of President Prabowo Subianto’s economic agenda. The fund targets investments in critical sectors such as downstream nickel processing, oil refineries, petrochemicals, and renewable energy, with the goal of bolstering Indonesia’s global competitiveness. Supporters argue that consolidating SOEs under a single investment vehicle could streamline operations and attract foreign capital, driving long-term growth.
Yet, the ambitious scope of the fund has only amplified public unease. Many Indonesians recall past instances of mismanagement in state enterprises, and the lack of independent oversight for Danantara fuels fears that history could repeat itself. The fund’s leadership structure, including familial ties to influential political figures, has also drawn scrutiny, with critics warning of potential vested interests that could prioritize private gain over public good.
If confirmed, such concerns could undermine not only Danantara but also broader confidence in Indonesia’s financial system. While there is no evidence at this stage to suggest imminent failure or malpractice, the government faces an uphill battle to win public trust. Analysts note that transparency will be key—regular updates on the fund’s operations, clear accountability mechanisms, and independent audits could help mitigate skepticism. Without these measures, speculative fears may continue to fester, potentially destabilizing the very economic growth Danantara seeks to achieve.
Historical Context and Regional Parallels
Indonesia’s experience with state-led initiatives is colored by past challenges, including inefficiencies and corruption scandals that have plagued SOEs for decades. The comparison to Malaysia’s 1MDB fund, which became synonymous with financial misconduct after billions of dollars were allegedly siphoned off, looms large in public discourse. While there is no indication that Danantara is on a similar trajectory, the historical precedent serves as a cautionary tale for both policymakers and citizens.
Regionally, sovereign wealth funds have had mixed success. Singapore’s Temasek Holdings and Malaysia’s Khazanah Nasional have demonstrated the potential for such entities to drive economic progress when underpinned by strong governance. In contrast, funds marred by opacity or political interference have often faltered, eroding public trust and financial stability. For Indonesia, striking the right balance will be critical to ensuring Danantara fulfills its promise without becoming a liability.
Looking Ahead: Trust as the Ultimate Currency
As the debate over Danantara unfolds, the Indonesian government faces a dual challenge: advancing its economic vision while addressing legitimate public concerns. The viral social media campaigns and personal testimonies reflect a broader anxiety about accountability and risk in a country where trust in state institutions is often fragile. While a full-scale bank run remains unlikely, as some experts suggest, the mere possibility underscores the urgency of rebuilding confidence.
For ordinary Indonesians like Fajar and Sufi, the decision to limit their reliance on state-owned banks is less about immediate financial strategy and more about safeguarding their future. “I’m not trying to cause panic,” Fajar insisted. “I just want clarity on what happens if things go wrong.” His question echoes a sentiment shared by many—one that the government must answer if Danantara is to succeed as a symbol of progress rather than a source of division.
The coming months will be pivotal. If the government can demonstrate that Danantara operates with integrity and delivers tangible benefits, it may yet win over skeptics. But if public distrust continues to grow unchecked, the fund risks becoming a lightning rod for broader discontent, with consequences that could ripple across Indonesia’s economy and beyond. For now, the nation watches and waits, hoping that the “Future Power of the Archipelago” lives up to its name.
