He says economy remains stable, debt levels are low, and The Economist’s criticism is misplaced.
JAKARTA – Finance Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa said British publication The Economist should instead give credit to Indonesia, arguing that the government has successfully maintained economic stability and controlled the state budget deficit.
Speaking at Halim Perdanakusuma Air Force Base in Jakarta on Monday (18/5), Purbaya said Indonesia’s government debt ratio remains at around 40% of gross domestic product (GDP).
According to him, the figure is significantly lower than in several European countries, where debt levels are approaching 100% of GDP.
“They should take a look at the policies of European countries — what their deficits are and how much debt they have. Their debt is close to 100% of GDP. We are still at 40% of GDP. We are still in a good position, The Economist should be praising us,” Purbaya said, as quoted by Antara.
He also stressed that Indonesia’s fiscal condition remains well maintained, with the budget deficit staying below the 3% of GDP threshold.
According to him, there are no major issues in the management of the national economy.
“So, there is no problem. Even now, we are still calculating what the deficit will be,” he said.
Purbaya further said the government had carefully calculated the budget to support various priority programmes, including the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme and the Red and White Village Cooperatives initiative.
He added that budget allocations for these programmes had been adjusted according to the needs of each sector and would not disrupt economic stability or other development programmes.
“We have calculated everything carefully, including MBG and other programmes, without disrupting other development agendas. We are managing it properly, including subsidies and all related spending,” he added.
Meanwhile, the British publication had previously criticised several Indonesian government policies, saying they could pose risks to economic stability and democratic quality.
The criticism included concerns over high levels of government spending that could strain public finances, the potential weakening of fiscal discipline due to costly priority programmes, and the growing role of the state in national economic activity. (DK/ZH)
as a preferred source on Google