Sumber: Istimewa
IN its inception, the Financial Services Authority (OJK) was established with a clear and unequivocal mandate: to serve as an independent guardian of the financial services sector, free from interference by any party. OJK was created to ensure that activities within the financial sector are conducted in an orderly, fair, transparent, and accountable manner, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of consumers and the public.
Article 4 of Law Number 21 of 2011 concerning OJK affirms that this institution operates independently in carrying out its functions, duties, and authorities. This mandate was further reinforced by the Law on Financial Sector Development and Strengthening (P2SK Law), which reasserts and strengthens OJK’s status as an independent state institution.
However, practice does not always align with the letter of the law. Today, the financial community is witnessing how OJK is increasingly being “drawn” into the vortex of dominant political influence. As reported in the media, the first agenda of OJK’s new leadership team after their inauguration was a meeting to discuss ways to optimize the financial sector’s contribution to the government’s priority programs.
This is no longer merely a discourse, OJK is currently drafting regulatory adjustments to Bank Business Plans (RBB) to encourage banks to more actively support government programs. As of January 2026, total financing from the financial services sector for programs such as Free Nutritious Meals (MBG), Red-and-White Village Cooperatives (KDMP), and the three million housing program has reached IDR 177.38 trillion.
This raises a compelling question: does OJK still function as an independent supervisor, or is it beginning to transform into a kind of “task force” executing the political agenda of the ruling government?
That OJK should support national development programs is not inherently wrong.
The MBG program, for instance, is a noble initiative. Providing free nutritious meals to schoolchildren is part of a broader effort to educate the nation. However, when OJK and Bank Indonesia jointly push banks to f inance this program, supported by liquidity incentives from Bank Indonesia amounting to IDR 427.1 trillion and prudential regulatory relaxations from OJK, a valid question arises: who will oversee the quality of this lending?
OJK must return to its khittah (identity). It must remain an independent institution, whose supervision is not blunted by political pressure, and whose protection of consumers is not eroded by the interests of a select few.
Economists warn that the risk of non-performing loans in financing such programs remains high due to the limited governance capacity of participating businesses. This is precisely where OJK’s supervisory function should serve as a safeguard, not as a facilitator.
Even more concerning are the increasingly visible signs of political intervention. The ongoing revision of the Financial Sector Development and Strengthening Law (P2SK) in the House of Representatives is viewed by many as a gateway for political interference in financial sector authorities, including OJK, Bank Indonesia, and the Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Of the 16 key amendment areas in the P2SK Bill, several provisions are considered to carry the risk of opening space for political intervention in independent financial institutions. Economists caution that such measures could threaten f inancial stability and trigger dangerous politicization.
It is true that the House of Representatives has since conducted harmonization and stated that it will not directly interfere with OJK’s independence, limiting itself to performance oversight. Yet, as the old saying goes, “the devil is always in the details.” Who can guarantee that the DPR’s “oversight function” will not evolve into political pressure?
Frankly, restoring OJK’s function and role as a financial services supervisor is no easy task amid dominant political forces. It requires the courage to say “no” when necessary, a courage that is increasingly rare in this country. OJK must return to its khittah (identity). It must remain an independent institution, whose supervision is not blunted by political pressure, and whose protection of consumers is not eroded by the interests of a select few. Who today dares to stand against political will?
Government programs such as MBG and KDMP may indeed be important and noble. OJK’s duty is to ensure that financing for such programs does not become a ticking time bomb that eventually explodes in the lap of the public.
Because, in the end, OJK’s independence is not merely about the institution itself. It is about trust, public, investor and market trust.
Let us hope it does not come to that. The financial services industry, which pays its dues, expects OJK to remain independent and not become merely an extension of the government’s task force.
Article 4 of Law Number 21 of 2011 concerning OJK affirms that this institution operates independently in carrying out its functions, duties, and authorities. This mandate was further reinforced by the Law on Financial Sector Development and Strengthening (P2SK Law), which reasserts and strengthens OJK’s status as an independent state institution.
