Indonesia to Use Public Funds for China Railway Debt as Rosy Projections Crumble

China promised Indonesia's high-speed railway would create "no financial burden" for the Southeast Asian nation. That promise just crashed into reality at 620 million taxpayer expense.

When Numbers Don't Add Up

The math was supposed to be simple: 18 million passengers annually would generate enough revenue to service the debt. Instead, only 6.2 million people rode the rails in 2025—barely one-third of projections.

This isn't just a forecasting error. It's a fundamental miscalculation that exposes how China's Belt and Road Initiative works in practice versus on paper. What was sold as a self-financing infrastructure marvel has become another case study in optimistic projections meeting harsh economic realities.

The Indonesian government now faces a choice between letting the project fail or bailing it out with public funds. They chose the bailout, meaning Indonesian taxpayers will cover what Chinese lenders and rosy ridership forecasts couldn't.

The Belt and Road Reality Check

This follows a familiar pattern across China's global infrastructure push. Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port, Pakistan's Gwadar Port, and now Indonesia's high-speed rail—projects that began with promises of mutual benefit but ended with debt burdens for recipient countries.

The gap between projected and actual ridership reveals something deeper about how these deals are structured. Chinese contractors benefit from construction contracts, Chinese banks earn interest on loans, and Chinese equipment manufacturers secure sales. Meanwhile, the operational risks and revenue shortfalls become the host country's problem.

What This Means for Other Nations

Indonesia's predicament offers a cautionary tale for other developing nations considering Chinese infrastructure investments. The allure of modern railways and ports comes with hidden costs that only become apparent when passenger counts and cargo volumes fail to materialize.

For investors and policymakers, this case highlights the importance of independent feasibility studies and conservative demand forecasting. When geopolitical ambitions drive infrastructure decisions, economic fundamentals often take a back seat—until the bills come due.