Indonesia's collapsed textile giant Sritex faces delisting as former executive named suspect in bank loan scandal
IDX director I Gede Nyoman Yetna said on Thursday (May 22) that Sritex shares, which have been suspended from trading since 2021, now meet the criteria for delisting and reverting to private status. However, he did not specify when the delisting would take place, saying the exchange is currently coordinating with the Financial Services Authority and a curator on the process.
'Given that Sritex has been officially declared bankrupt, management responsibilities have now been transferred to the court-appointed curator,' Nyoman said in a statement.
'Late (on) Wednesday (May 13), the Attorney General's Office named Iwan Setiawan Lukminto, who served as president director of Sritex from 2014 to 2023, as a suspect in a corruption case involving approximately 693 billion rupiah (S$54.7 million) in unsecured loans issued to the company,' said AGO spokesperson Harli Siregar.
Two other suspects were also named: Zainuddin Mappa, former chief executive officer at Bank DKI, and Dicky Syahbandinata, a former executive at Bank BJB. Bank DKI is a regional lender owned by the Jakarta provincial government, while Bank BJB is owned by the West Java and Banten provincial governments.
Abdul Qohar, director of investigation at the AGO, said corruption occurred in the disbursement of loans from several state-owned banks to Sritex, with total outstanding debt reaching 3.6 trillion rupiah as at October 2024. He said executives at the regional banks failed to conduct sufficient analysis, and did not comply with procedures and requirements.
A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU
Friday, 8.30 am Asean Business
Business insights centering on South-east Asia's fast-growing economies.
Sign Up
Sign Up
He noted that unsecured loans should only be granted to companies or debtors with an A credit rating, whereas Sritex had been rated BB- by Moody's.
Once a textile powerhouse in South-east Asia known for supplying global fashion giants like H&M and Zara, as well as producing uniforms for Nato, Sritex began to unravel during the pandemic. Plummeting orders pushed the company into a spiral of debt and financial distress.
The company was declared bankrupt by a court last year after failing to repay debts totalling US$1.6 billion.
The Sukoharjo, Central Java-based company halted operations on Mar 1, leading to the dismissal of over 10,000 workers, after rescue efforts initiated by President Prabowo Subianto's administration failed to yield results.
The court-appointed curator is reportedly exploring opportunities to attract investors interested in leasing Sritex's assets, as part of ongoing efforts to manage the bankrupt company's remaining resources and potentially revive its operations.
Sritex made its stock market debut on IDX in 2013, riding high on its reputation as a textile titan. The Lukminto family, which owns the company, were once among Indonesia's 50 richest, with a fortune estimated at US$515 million on Forbes' 2020 list.
Although Sritex shares have been suspended since 2021, they remain priced at 146 rupiah, giving the company a market valuation of nearly three trillion rupiah, with close to 40 per cent held by public investors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
EU push to protect digital rules holds up trade statement with US, FT reports
The European Union is trying to prevent the United States from targeting the bloc's digital rules as both sides work through the final details of a delayed statement to formalise a trade deal reached last month, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. EU officials said disagreements over language relating to "non-tariff barriers", which the U.S. said include the digital rules, are among the reasons for the hold-up of the statement, the newspaper said.
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Companies are pouring billions into AI. It has yet to pay off.
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Corporate spending on artificial intelligence is surging as executives bank on major efficiency gains. So far, they report little effect to the bottom line. Nearly four decades ago, when the personal computer boom was in full swing, a phenomenon known as the 'productivity paradox' emerged. It was a reference to how, despite companies' huge investments in new technology, there was scant evidence of a corresponding gain in workers' efficiency. Today, the same paradox is appearing, but with generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI). According to recent research by McKinsey & Co, nearly eight in 10 companies have reported using Gen AI, but just as many have reported 'no significant bottom-line impact'. AI technology has been racing ahead with chatbots such as ChatGPT, fuelled by a high-stakes arms race among tech giants and super-rich startups, and prompting an expectation that everything from back-office accounting to customer service will be revolutionised. But the payoff for businesses outside the tech sector is lagging behind, plagued by issues including an irritating tendency by chatbots to make stuff up. That means that businesses will have to continue to invest billions to avoid falling behind – but it could be years before the technology delivers an economy-wide payoff, as companies gradually figure out what works best. Call it the 'gen AI paradox,' as McKinsey did in its research report. Investments in Gen AI by businesses are expected to increase 94 per cent in 2025 to US$61.9 billion (S$79.5 billion), according to IDC, a technology research firm. But the percentage of companies abandoning most of their AI pilot projects soared to 42 per cent by the end of 2024, up from 17 per cent the previous year, according to a survey of more than 1,000 technology and business managers by S&P Global, a data and analytics firm. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore I want to divorce my husband and be a single mother: More victims speaking up on emotional abuse World Trump drops Ukraine ceasefire demand after Putin summit Singapore Buying hope: Inside S'pore's love affair with the lottery Singapore She won big in Genting, but getting $240k winnings back to Singapore was dicey Opinion Confessions of a born-again Singaporean Business Manage your household finances like a business for clarity, say entrepreneurs Business Silence does not work when dealing with job loss blues Singapore Singapore congratulates Indonesia on 80th Independence Day Projects failed not only because of technical hurdles, but often also because of 'human factors' like employee and customer resistance or lack of skills, said S&P Global senior analyst Alexander Johnston. Gartner, a research and advisory firm that charts technological 'hype cycles', predicts that AI is sliding towards a stage it calls 'the trough of disillusionment'. The low point is expected next year, before the technology eventually becomes a proven productivity tool, said Gartner chief forecaster John-David Lovelock. That was the pattern with past technologies such as personal computers and the internet – early exuberance, the hard slog of mastering a technology, followed by a transformation of industries and work. The winners so far have been the suppliers of AI technology and advice. They include Microsoft, Amazon and Google, which offer AI software, while Nvidia is the runaway leader in AI chips. Executives at those companies have bragged how AI is reshaping their own workforces, eliminating the need for some entry-level coding work and making other workers more efficient. AI will eventually replace entire swaths of human employees, many predict, a perspective that is being widely embraced and echoed in the corporate mainstream. At the Aspen Ideas Festival in June, Mr Jim Farley, chief executive of Ford Motor, said: 'Artificial intelligence is going to replace literally half of all white-collar workers in the US.' Whether that type of revolutionary change occurs, and how soon, depends on the real-world testing ground of many businesses. 'The raw technological horsepower is terrific, but it's not going to determine how quickly AI transforms the economy,' said Mr Andrew McAfee, a principal research scientist and co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Initiative on the Digital Economy. Still, some businesses are finding ways to incorporate AI – although in most cases the technology is still a long way from replacing workers. One company where AI's promise and flaws are playing out is USAA, which provides insurance and banking services to members of the military and their families. After several pilot projects, some of which it closed down, the company introduced an AI assistant to help its 16,000 customer service workers provide correct answers to specific questions. USAA is tracking its AI investments, but does not yet have a calculation of the financial payoff, if any, for the call centre software. But the response from its workers, the company said, has been overwhelmingly positive. While it has software apps for answering customer questions online, its call centres field an average of 200,000 calls a day. 'Those are moments that matter,' said Mr Ramnik Bajaj, the company's chief data analytics and AI officer. 'They want a human voice at the other end of the phone.' That's similar to an AI app developed more than a year ago for fieldworkers at Johnson Controls, a large supplier of building equipment, software and services. The company fed its operating and service manuals for its machines into an AI program that has been trained to generate a problem summary, suggest repairs and deliver it all to the technician's tablet computer. In testing, the app has trimmed 10 to 15 minutes off a repair call of an hour or more – a useful efficiency gain, but hardly a workplace transformation on its own. Fewer than 2,000 of the company's 25,000 field service workers have access to the AI helper, although the company is planning an expansion. 'It's still pretty early days, but the idea is that over time, everyone will use it,' said Mr Vijay Sankaran, the chief digital and information officer at Johnson Controls. The long-term vision is that companies will use AI to improve multiple systems, including sales, procurement, manufacturing, customer service and finance, he said. 'That's the game changer,' said Mr Sankaran, who predicts that shift will take at least five years. Two years ago, JPMorgan Chase, the nation's largest bank, blocked access to ChatGPT from its computers because of potential security risks. Only a few hundred data scientists and engineers were allowed to experiment with AI. Today, about 200,000 of the bank's employees have access to a general-purpose AI assistant – essentially a business chatbot – from their work computers for tasks such as retrieving data, answering business questions and writing reports. The assistant, tailored for JPMorgan's use, taps into ChatGPT and other AI tools, while ensuring data security for confidential bank and customer information. Roughly half of the workers use it regularly and report spending up to four hours less a week on basic office tasks, the company said. The bank's wealth advisers are also employing a more specialised AI assistant, which uses bank, market and customer data to provide wealthy clients with investment research and advice. The bank says it retrieves information and helps advisers make investment recommendations nearly twice as fast as they could before, increasing sales. Ms Lori Beer, the global chief information officer at JPMorgan, oversees a worldwide technology staff of 60,000. Has she shut down AI projects? Probably hundreds in total, she said. But many of the shelved prototypes, she said, developed concepts and code that were folded into other, continuing projects. 'We're absolutely shutting things down,' Ms Beer said. 'We're not afraid to shut things down. We don't think it's a bad thing. I think it's a smart thing.' Mr McAfee, the MIT research scientist, agreed. 'It's not surprising that early AI efforts are falling short,' said Mr McAfee, who is a founder of Workhelix, an AI consulting firm. 'Innovation is a process of failing fairly regularly.' NYTIMES
Straits Times
9 hours ago
- Straits Times
Silence does not work when dealing with job loss blues
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Retrenchment is viewed differently now. Just look at the LinkedIn networking platform, which is peppered with posts on job losses, says the writer. SINGAPORE - Growing up, I was obsessed with collecting toys that came with Happy Meals. Whenever my parents took me to a McDonald's outlet, I looked forward to going home with a Hello Kitty plushie or a Transformers autobot. For what I thought was a blissful period, my dad started adding a new toy to my collection almost every day. I learnt only recently that I had got it completely wrong. He had been retrenched. Not wanting to worry my mum, he continued to leave home as usual and spent the day at the library, often having lunch at McDonald's, until he found a new job. Unbeknownst to him, my mum knew about the ruse. She had tried to reach him in the office and was inadvertently told that he had lost his job. I did not understand why my parents, who had a loving relationship, found it difficult to talk about retrenchment, until earlier this year. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Over 280 vapes seized, more than 640 people checked by police, HSA in anti-vape raids at nightspots Singapore SPLRT disruption: 28km of cables to be tested during off-service hours; works to end by Aug 23 Singapore First-half GDP boost likely temporary; Republic must stay relevant amid challenges: Chan Chun Sing Life Six-figure sales each durian season: Why S'pore durian sellers are now live selling on TikTok Singapore Airport-bound public bus to be fitted with luggage rack in 3-month trial: LTA Asia Australian universities slash staff, courses as rising wages and foreign student curbs bite Life Meet the tutors who take O-level exams every year to create a 'war mate' bond with their students Life Pivot or perish: How Singapore restaurants are giving diners what they want That was when my then employer, an international media outlet, closed most of the roles in my Singapore-based division. My colleagues and I were encouraged to apply for new positions that were made available under a restructuring process. I had dialled into the meeting because I was on annual leave and thousands of miles away from home. Towards the end, we were asked if we had any questions. I found myself with a jumble of thoughts and nothing to say. I wandered around a museum and watched a ballet performance. All while feeling like I was going through the five stages of grief. I kept it from my mum, not wanting to worry her. In other conversations, I said I was feeling okay. I was determined to focus on the positives. I would not feel the impact immediately, as I was expected at work for several more months. I also had the opportunity to apply for roles within the company, and I knew I had a decent chance at them. Finally, I did not have large financial commitments. I did not have a mortgage or children. Then the insecurities crept in, and these were much harder to talk about. I felt shame, even though we were told the restructuring was not based on performance. I questioned if I was employable in an industry that I had spent a decade in. I stacked myself up against my colleagues, many of whom were trying for roles in the restructuring, and external applicants. I contended with how I would feel if I failed to get a role, and as importantly, how that would look. The optics bothered me and there was nothing I could do but sit with uncomfortable feelings. I can only imagine what was running through my dad's mind in the late 1990s, when retrenchment was a taboo subject. He was the sole breadwinner supporting a mortgage, my mum and I, and with more at stake than existential thoughts and a bruised ego. Retrenchment is viewed differently now. Just look at the LinkedIn networking platform, which is peppered with posts on job losses. The responses are overwhelmingly positive, offering comfort and, more often than not, connections to a new gig. As one retrenched worker put it: 'The response from you all has been so supportive and genuinely encouraging that it almost makes a girl want to get laid off more often! Emphasis on the almost...' In the current economic climate, with companies from Microsoft to the Bumble dating app announcing layoffs, people are using the platform to talk about the grief associated with losing a job. I have benefited from this, as it reminds me that retrenchment is a relatively common experience. But I could not find the words for a post, and having to engage in a public space felt like too much of a burden. Grief, however, had a way of reminding me that it needed some place to go. I was hypersensitive and erratic, and I knew I needed to accept that things would not be the same. With the restructuring, I lost a job that I loved, which came with a range of functions. I lost colleagues, many of whom had become friends. In choosing to leave the company, despite being offered roles, I gave up the prestige that comes with working for a global organisation. Giving grief an airing looks like this to me. In the immediate aftermath of the restructuring, my colleagues and I spoke a lot, sharing our worries, encouragement and practical resources. This grounded me during a challenging time when I was often working the early shift, and spending the afternoons and evenings at interviews. I am seeing a counsellor, which was a benefit offered to affected staff. She has helped me to balance my identity as a journalist with the other things I value. I told my loved ones about my struggles. I put aside thoughts of whether my feelings were valid and focused on what I knew I was carrying. Somewhere along the way, I told my mum. 'Never mind,' she said. 'Remember to eat well or else you will have no energy.' I learnt a big lesson. The stigma of retrenchment is nowhere as strong as my dad's experience, but it still carries a sting. During the process, I felt most comfortable keeping silent, thinking it was the best way to figure out the next steps. That silence magnified my inner turmoil. In crises, we are often our harshest judges. We live in a world that I hope has become kinder to downturns, failures and messy feelings. I don't think I have grown more comfortable with putting my thoughts online. But I did not have to look far for support, with people who were willing to see me through a difficult season.
