Danantara: Bhap or Zhap?

In today’s circles, whenever a new breakthrough or entity emerges, the obligatory question is always the same. Borrowing a term popularised by Grind Boys: is it ‘bhap’ or ‘zhap’? Is it genuinely impressive and delivering real impact, or just hype and discourse that ultimately fizzles out? This contemporary question is highly relevant when observing the presence of Danantara. Since this institution was established to helm the transformation, has the performance of our state-owned enterprises (SOEs) truly soared, or is it merely treading water? To answer this, we must dissect the root context. Change is a certainty in the business world. In today’s dynamic environment, change is not merely a cycle but has become the new normal. Peter Drucker, the father of modern management, once sharply stated, ‘Innovation is the specific instrument of entrepreneurship. It is the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth.’ A changing environment should not always be viewed as a threat. On the contrary, as Drucker suggests, change always contains opportunities to innovate and open new pathways. However, looking back at Indonesia’s history, there appears to be an anomaly regarding change in the economic sector. Revisiting literature from the 1980s, such as Richard Robison’s magnum opus ‘Indonesia: The Rise of Capital’, reveals a bitter reality that the system of managing state wealth or our economy seemed stagnant. In fact, according to Robison, our economic culture at the time was still identical to the VOC era: extractive, elitist, and monopolistic. Robison’s view serves as an accurate mirror for the condition of our SOEs before the transformation era. Many institutions that should have been the engines of a people’s economy were instead trapped in inefficiency and operated with a colonial-era mentality that only benefited a select few. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, in their book ‘Why Nations Fail’, clearly narrate the paths of nations throughout history. They assert that prosperous and advanced nations are those capable of managing their economies inclusively, not those that merely rely on natural resource exploitation, but those that build the quality of human resources to foster a climate of healthy, equitable, and innovative competition. Since his inauguration as president, Prabowo has stated his commitment to ending the extractive and monopolistic culture in the Indonesian economy. Through his economic thinking, known as Prabowonomics, he offers a new idea via an instrument called Danantara. Danantara was born precisely to fight extractive and monopolistic economic practices. Its existence is not to monopolise assets, but rather to serve as an instrument to break down the economic barriers that have been monopolised all this time. Philosophically, Danantara is an original fruit of Prabowonomics, an idea that rests on efforts to create inclusivity through economic equality. The foundation of Indonesia’s inclusive economy is actually clearly mandated in Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. Prabowo is fully aware that Danantara was not established with the spirit of strengthening the state’s monopoly grip. Its primary spirit is to dismantle the extractive economic structure that has been slowly eroding the nation’s potential since the VOC era. Of course, changing a culture that has been rooted for hundreds of years cannot be done overnight. It requires strong affirmative action through Danantara with a purely business, professional, and rational approach. Every change requires a process, and Danantara is no exception. As a holding company overseeing all SOEs and a sovereign wealth fund managing state assets, Danantara needs time to consolidate its strength, reform outdated practices, and dismantle old cultures. Now, under more focused command, the achievements and transformation of SOEs are showing undeniable results. So, back to the initial question: ‘bhap’ or ‘zhap’? The following figures validate that SOE performance has indeed soared. This performance improvement is directly reflected in the surge of SOE dividends, which reached Rp131.4 trillion in 2025, a significant increase from the Rp85.6 trillion achieved in 2024. From a profitability perspective as of April 2026, the banking sector, as a major contributor, posted excellent results. Bank Mandiri recorded a profit of Rp21.3 trillion (up 13 percent) and BRI recorded a profit of Rp21.2 trillion (up 15 percent). This dynamism is not confined to the financial sector. In the energy sector, Pertamina posted a record profit of Rp24.9 trillion, an 80 percent jump compared to April 2025, thanks to consolidation in its upstream sector involving Patra Niaga, Pertamina International Shipping, and its refineries. The most phenomenal growth was shown by Pupuk Indonesia (PIHC), which recorded a profit of Rp4.8 trillion, skyrocketing by 202 percent. Even more impressive, this transformation success has managed to revive entities that were previously bleeding. Krakatau Steel, once burdened by heavy debt, successfully reduced its debt from USD 1.7 billion to USD 1.1 billion, drastically lowered its interest burden, and by April 2025 managed to return to profitability with a profit of Rp635 billion. This success was achieved through four measurable transformation stages: Fundamental Business Review, Business Consolidation, Transformation Journey, and Value Creation. At PIHC, for instance, the subsidy scheme was changed from cost-plus to mark-to-market, providing agility to capture profits while managing global commodity fluctuations. In the Industrial Estate line, the new management recorded a record land provision of 142 hectares in 2025. As a result, revenue soared to Rp3.81 trillion and profit reached Rp1.3 trillion.