Guess Who Just Joined the Party?

When Danantara was first introduced, I honestly thought it was an interesting idea.

A super holding entity with the ambition to manage state investments more professionally and, hopefully, with minimal political intervention.

And to be fair, I liked the idea.

Indonesia has no shortage of ambitions. What we often lack is long-term execution and capital allocation that can support those ambitions.

So when I learned about the Development and Development Management Fund (DDMF) under Danantara, my first reaction was actually positive.

Basically, I thought:

“Finally, maybe there’s a vehicle that can support large-scale projects without relying solely on conventional budget mechanisms.”

Because let’s be honest, many strategic projects require patient capital and long-term thinking.

And in theory, a dedicated development fund sounds reasonable.

In fact, I think Indonesia does need institutions that are capable of thinking beyond annual budget cycles.

But then I came across one particular provision that made me pause.

DDMF is not only open to raising funds through special instruments and partnerships.

Apparently, it also has access to funding sourced from the APBN.

A man playing Wayang

And that’s where my concerns begin.

Bukan karena gua menolak keberadaan DDMF.

Actually, I agree with the spirit behind it.

But timing matters.

And looking at today’s fiscal condition, where budget pressures are already visible, the idea of opening another channel that could potentially absorb APBN resources feels a bit unsettling.

At least to me.

It feels like installing another pipe when we’re still trying to make sure the existing ones don’t leak.

Maybe the intention is good.

And perhaps there are governance mechanisms that will ensure the funds are used responsibly.

I genuinely hope that’s the case.

Because Indonesia does need institutions that can think beyond annual budgets and support projects with long-term impact.

But institutions, no matter how promising they sound, are only as good as the incentives and guardrails surrounding them.

And that’s probably where the conversation should be.

Not whether Danantara or DDMF should exist.

But how they should operate.

Personally, if the decision to allow APBN funding remains, I think transparency becomes even more important.

And honestly, I can’t help but think about Temasek Holdings in Singapore.

What I find interesting is not just the scale of the institution, but the level of transparency they maintain.

Their financial statements are published.

Their performance can be audited.

And perhaps most importantly, the public has access to those reports.

People can see where things are going.

They can track the institution’s performance.

And they can evaluate whether the long-term strategy is actually delivering results.

I think that kind of openness matters.

Not because public institutions should seek applause.

But because transparency reduces unnecessary suspicion.

Negative sentiments often grow in places where information is scarce.

And if DDMF is going to hold projects that may span decades and potentially involve public money, then society deserves visibility.

Not visibility into every operational detail.

But enough visibility to answer simple questions:

“How are we doing?”

“What projects are being supported?”

“Are we moving in the right direction?”

Because trust isn’t built through ambitious announcements.

Trust is built through consistency.

Through accountability.

And through the willingness to let people see both successes and failures.

Creating a new institution is probably the easy part.

Ensuring that it remains disciplined, transparent, and aligned with its original purpose over the next twenty or thirty years?

I think that’s the harder challenge.

And maybe, that’s the question worth asking.