Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L Makmur
Freeport Indonesia. Photo: www.ptfi.co.id
The controversial story surrounding PT Freeport Indonesia once again takes the center stage. This time around is on divestment, which should have taken place this October regardless that divestment is not sufficiently regulated.
“The divestment is scheduled for this October. If there are no further steps taken, we will then remind them,” asserted Bambang Gatot, the Director General of Mineral and Coal at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), in his office on 20 October 2015.
Mr. Gatot further revealed that his institution is on a standby mode and is waiting until end of this month for any form of divestment proposal, which supposedly offers the government a 10.64% stake in Freeport. As to what kind of divestment scheme will be executed, he expressed that he will follow the policy laid out by the Minister of ESDM, Sudirman Said.
Previously, it was rumored that Minister Said prefers that Freeport’s second divestment stage will use an initial public offering (IPO) scheme. The Minister firmly believed that an IPO scheme will enable the public to directly oversee the performance of Freeport, since the capital market provides higher degree of transparency and is easily accessible by the public.
Commenting on such divestment plan, the Director of Indonesia Resources Studies (IRESS) Marwan Batubara believed that the government has no intention to actually buy Freeport’s stocks. He asserted that the government intends to use the IPO scheme, in argument that they do not have enough money to fund the divestment.
“It is unethical for the government to lead public opinion and making them to believe that an IPO scheme is a better method for divestment. This is the reason why I think that the government has no resolution to buy the divested stocks,” said Mr. Batubara.
Mr. Batubara firmly believed that his analysis is well-grounded, as the experience with PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara shown that the public does not directly enjoy the benefit from the divestment. Moreover, he also refuted the argument that government cannot prepare the necessary budget to take over Freeport’s divested stocks. He pointed out that the natural resources in Papua are valuable assets. It could even be collateralized for financing purpose.
According to Mr. Batubara, if the government is truly incapable of buying the divested stocks, it is better to handover it to state-owned enterprise or regional-owned enterprise rather than channeling it to private parties or use IPO. He emphasized that the benefit of divestment must really be enjoyed by the public.
On the other hand, he does not mind if Freeport wants to engage in an IPO. However, such activity must strictly be a business operation that cannot be claimed as a form of divestment. He strongly criticized that the government gains nothing from an IPO scheme. In fact, the government actually has to own a portion of Freeport’s stocks through the divestment.
“This is a matter of moral hazard. It is common knowledge that the government tends to be morally corrupt. And just because some companies want a slice of the pie, then the government throws out various excuses to avoid buying the stocks, much like the case with Newmont,” concluded Mr. Batubara.
(hot/ds)
Marcell Sihombing, Kartini L Makmur
Freeport Indonesia. Photo: www.ptfi.co.id
The controversial story surrounding PT Freeport Indonesia once again takes the center stage. This time around is on divestment, which should have taken place this October regardless that divestment is not sufficiently regulated.
“The divestment is scheduled for this October. If there are no further steps taken, we will then remind them,” asserted Bambang Gatot, the Director General of Mineral and Coal at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), in his office on 20 October 2015.
Mr. Gatot further revealed that his institution is on a standby mode and is waiting until end of this month for any form of divestment proposal, which supposedly offers the government a 10.64% stake in Freeport. As to what kind of divestment scheme will be executed, he expressed that he will follow the policy laid out by the Minister of ESDM, Sudirman Said.
Previously, it was rumored that Minister Said prefers that Freeport’s second divestment stage will use an initial public offering (IPO) scheme. The Minister firmly believed that an IPO scheme will enable the public to directly oversee the performance of Freeport, since the capital market provides higher degree of transparency and is easily accessible by the public.
Commenting on such divestment plan, the Director of Indonesia Resources Studies (IRESS) Marwan Batubara believed that the government has no intention to actually buy Freeport’s stocks. He asserted that the government intends to use the IPO scheme, in argument that they do not have enough money to fund the divestment.
“It is unethical for the government to lead public opinion and making them to believe that an IPO scheme is a better method for divestment. This is the reason why I think that the government has no resolution to buy the divested stocks,” said Mr. Batubara.
Mr. Batubara firmly believed that his analysis is well-grounded, as the experience with PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara shown that the public does not directly enjoy the benefit from the divestment. Moreover, he also refuted the argument that government cannot prepare the necessary budget to take over Freeport’s divested stocks. He pointed out that the natural resources in Papua are valuable assets. It could even be collateralized for financing purpose.
According to Mr. Batubara, if the government is truly incapable of buying the divested stocks, it is better to handover it to state-owned enterprise or regional-owned enterprise rather than channeling it to private parties or use IPO. He emphasized that the benefit of divestment must really be enjoyed by the public.
On the other hand, he does not mind if Freeport wants to engage in an IPO. However, such activity must strictly be a business operation that cannot be claimed as a form of divestment. He strongly criticized that the government gains nothing from an IPO scheme. In fact, the government actually has to own a portion of Freeport’s stocks through the divestment.
“This is a matter of moral hazard. It is common knowledge that the government tends to be morally corrupt. And just because some companies want a slice of the pie, then the government throws out various excuses to avoid buying the stocks, much like the case with Newmont,” concluded Mr. Batubara.
(hot/ds)