Golden Visa: Investment and a Pillar of State Sovereignty
A perfect policy design formula is ultimately formed through philosophical reflection on how to create leverage for optimism in strengthening economic competitiveness and sustainable economic growth. The Golden Visa policy initiative reflects this “leverage of optimism” by ensuring the presence of global investors who can reside long-term in our country while investing large amounts of capital in our banking sector.
With the presence of this capital, it will automatically create more productive job opportunities originating from various corporate sectors. This indicates a significant surge in capital participation. However, the main concern today is the effectiveness of investment supervision: is this commitment real or merely fictitious? With the principle of “selective policy” based on the Immigration Management Information System (SIMKIM) and “advanced” Big Data, can real-time monitoring ensure that the minimum investment requirements of USD 350,000 for a 5-year visa or USD 700,000 for a 10-year visa truly flow into Indonesia’s economic ecosystem? And is this supervisory mechanism strict enough to prevent fictitious investment schemes in Indonesia?
Various studies on the long-term socio-economic impact of Golden Visa policies have also raised concerns. Many experts view this policy as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can support stable economic growth at around 5 percent and contribute to the realization of national investment programs projected to reach IDR 1,900 trillion in 2026. On the other hand, based on the experience of countries implementing similar policies, distortions in the property market have occurred—such as in Portugal, where housing prices surged by up to 60 percent at the minimum investment threshold. This directly reduced local purchasing power in the housing sector and triggered social conflict due to negative externalities from extractive investment dynamics.
Without strong oversight, the Golden Visa policy as a strategic instrument with great potential may turn into a burden for economic sovereignty and social harmony. In the future, the Golden Visa policy will face several critical issues that threaten its sustainability.
First, can investment realization in accordance with the 90-working-day policy commitment truly be monitored in real time? In implementation, improved compliance monitoring in 2026 still heavily depends on inter-agency coordination, which is often hindered by overlapping authority and delays in data integration within SIMKIM. These conditions create loopholes for fictitious investments, where capital is recorded only on paper without real financial flow, as has been found in immigration misuse cases.
Second, how will enforcement be carried out if Golden Visa investment commitments fail in implementation? Regulations state that failure to maintain the investment throughout the visa validity period may result in cancellation of residence permits and administrative sanctions, including deportation.
Third, could the Golden Visa policy worsen social inequality in Indonesia? This issue appears increasingly real and has long-term socio-economic implications. A surge of foreign investment in the property sector risks driving price inflation, as seen in Spain and Namibia, where urban housing became unaffordable for local residents. Such conditions may trigger social tensions and increase asset inequality among the population.
To address these challenges, the government requires strengthening the Golden Visa policy through a holistic and proactive approach that ensures effective investment supervision and mitigates long-term socio-economic impacts through:
(1) Strengthening real-time, technology-based monitoring mechanisms, including automatic verification of all fund flows within the 90-day period through collaboration with the central bank and financial institutions. This system can be complemented by routine audits conducted by the Inspectorate General to ensure all incoming investments are real and not fictitious, while implementing strict sanctions such as progressive fines or blacklisting for non-compliant investors.
(2) Enhancing inter-agency synergy on an ongoing basis by establishing a dedicated task force to validate fund sources and prevent transnational crime—similar to the European approach that has discontinued similar programs due to money laundering risks. This solution ensures rapid enforcement if investment commitments fail, supported by transparent annual public audit reports on Golden Visa investment realization.
(3) Adopting inclusive policies such as investment quotas in sensitive property areas to prevent excessive price increases, while requiring investors to contribute to social programs such as local workforce training or community infrastructure development to mitigate long-term socio-economic impacts. This approach can be combined with a special levy program for Golden Visa holders to support social protection initiatives.
With these measures, the Golden Visa policy will not only function as an investment attraction tool but also become a key pillar of sustainable state sovereignty, support national non-tax revenue (PNBP) targets, and maintain social harmony toward a more just and prosperous Indonesia.
