When Meals Are (Not) Nutritious and (Not) Free
The Free Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) is touted as the flagship program of the Prabowo-Gibran administration. The government, through Bappenas, identifies 4 main objectives for MBG. These include meeting the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups. The program is also intended to improve the quality of education. MBG is expected to stimulate the local economy. The program is also claimed to be capable of creating jobs.
President Prabowo Subianto has repeatedly said that MBG provides nutritious meals at no cost. The program is believed to improve children’s nutrition. MBG is also said to be capable of boosting the economies of thousands of farmers, fishers, and small businesses. This narrative builds hope that the state is tangibly present in people’s everyday lives.
However, various criticisms have emerged during implementation. The food supply-chain mechanism is considered unclear. The quality of service providers remains in question. Oversight on the ground is also considered weak. This has divided public opinion on MBG.
Some members of the public view MBG as reflecting populist policymaking. The program is considered to offer short-term benefits. At the same time, the country’s fiscal sustainability is seen as receiving insufficient attention. These doubts are not unfounded. The history of social assistance in Indonesia has often been marred by irregularities. Problems with poor targeting have also persisted. Political manipulation has further reinforced public distrust.
On the other hand, support for MBG is also strong. For many low-income families, the most important thing is that their children can eat. Access to free nutritious food is seen as tangible assistance. The program eases families’ daily expenses. Children who previously arrived at school hungry are considered better able to learn. For supporters, MBG is a symbol of the state’s presence in fulfilling citizens’ basic rights.
The CELIOS study places MBG at the intersection of social urgency and policy-governance challenges. The findings show that 79% of respondents are aware of conflicts of interest in the direct appointment of vendors. A total of 73% of parents prefer direct cash transfers to MBG. And 65% of respondents say they still spend extra money on food to replace MBG.
This report invites the public to take a more holistic view of MBG. The program cannot be judged solely by its good intentions and popularity. MBG requires transparent policy design. Accountability in implementation must be strengthened. Without improvements to governance, the goals of meeting nutritional needs and achieving social justice risk not being met sustainably.