Prabowo’s corporate courtship and the politics of proximity

President Prabowo Subianto convened back-to-back meetings with key business leaders at his Hambalang residence in West Java on Feb. 9 and 10. He began with representatives of the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo) before hosting heads of five of the country’s largest conglomerates the following day. The meetings were framed as efforts to strengthen government-business synergy and accelerate economic development. Yet they have also sparked questions about the political and economic calculus behind the outreach.

Prabowo’s meeting with 22 Apindo representatives focused on labor-intensive industries such as textiles, garments, footwear, furniture and food and beverages. These sectors, which employ millions of workers, are under mounting pressure from weakening global demand, rising production costs and intensifying import competition.

By prioritizing dialogue with employers from these industries, the government underscored job preservation and industrial resilience as immediate policy concerns. Prabowo reportedly invited each of the 22 Apindo executives to speak during the four-hour meeting, asking them to outline their current activities, the challenges they face and what the government could do to address those challenges.

During the meeting, the President sought concrete recommendations to address raw material constraints in manufacturing, a sector critical for job creation and economic resilience. Apindo and the government also shared the view that expanding the tax base would help increase state revenue without overburdening compliant businesses. Apindo chair Shinta W. Kamdani emphasized the need for regulatory certainty in labor policy and productivity-focused reforms to maintain a conducive investment climate.

The discussion also touched on the Indonesia-European Union Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IEU-CEPA) as a strategic opportunity to boost exports, alongside calls to streamline regulations, licensing and logistics to enhance competitiveness against regional peers such as Vietnam. Apindo reiterated its support for Prabowo’s broader agenda on poverty reduction, child nutrition and quality education.

The tone shifted the following day when Prabowo met five of Indonesia’s most powerful tycoons: Prajogo Pangestu of Barito Pacific; Anthony Salim of Salim Group; Franky Widjaja of Sinar Mas; Garibaldi Thohir of Adaro; and Sugianto Kusuma of Agung Sedayu Group. This gathering carried distinct political and economic weight. Unlike the Apindo meeting, it brought together business leaders who control vast capital, natural resources and strategic assets across energy, property, manufacturing and finance.

During the meeting, Prabowo emphasized public–private collaboration under the banner of “Indonesia Incorporated” to drive competitiveness and growth. The business leaders voiced support for government priorities ranging from food and energy security to education and health care. He also urged them to partner with the state in job creation, strengthening the real sector and empowering micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).

Notably, shares of several conglomerates whose leaders had just met Prabowo recorded gains on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) during the week of Feb. 9 to 13. The upswing coincided with the high-profile Hambalang meetings, prompting market observers to point to the timing as investor sentiment appeared to respond positively to signals of closer alignment between the new administration and major corporate groups.

The selectivity of the second meeting is difficult to ignore. Indonesia’s business landscape extends well beyond a handful of dominant conglomerates, yet only five tycoons were invited to Hambalang. If broad consultation with major capital holders had been the sole objective, wider representation could easily have been arranged. The decision to convene a smaller, curated circle suggests that the gathering was as much about signaling alignment as it was about economic coordination.

In a political economy where access often translates into influence, choosing which “dragons” sit at the table inevitably raises questions about how the administration is defining its inner economic circle, and what that means for those left outside it. Ultimately, the Hambalang meetings expose a familiar fault line in Indonesia’s political economy.

Engagement with major conglomerates may be necessary to mobilize investment and sustain growth. But when access appears selective and is followed by favorable market reactions, it risks reinforcing the perception that proximity to power carries tangible advantage. The administration’s challenge is not merely to attract capital, but to demonstrate that economic policymaking rests on institutional integrity and fair competition, not on the consolidation of influence among a chosen few.