The Makan Bergizi Gratis (Free Meal Program) has recently been the subject of controversy. Amid the depreciation of the Rupiah against the Dollar and the sinking value of the Indonesian Composite Index in the stock market, MBG is accused of being the primary reason why foreign investors are reluctant to invest or save their money in Indonesia. Once, MBG was a protection mechanism for children in need. Nonetheless, the situation has worsened, as MBG is a pillar program.
Fair to say that accusing MBG of being the main cause of economic decline is unfair, since there are multiple reasons why the Indonesian economy is sinking. Yet, not admitting that MBG has a role in making things harder would be unjustified. MBG has been problematic.
First, the head of MBG, Dadan Hindayana, has been in custody over a corruption scandal within the organisation he led. He is accused of selling the rights to operate SPPG, the public kitchen that serves over 3,000 meals to children every day. Dadan is also being vindicated for purchasing electric motorbikes that have no direct relation to the MBG’s practical program.
Second, based on the findings from Taufikin(Taufikin 2026). The practice of MBG deviates from its main purpose. One of Taufikin’s criticisms is the lack of clear targets. Since the foundation of MBG, the main priority has been helping children who have experienced malnutrition. Yet, practically almost everybody gets to consume MBG. Taufikin stated that spoilage due to an unclear target will impact the nation’s fiscal health and simultaneously strain relations between the government and foreign investors.
The Question of MBG When Supposedly MBG is a protection mechanism
Based on research by the SMERU Institute, most public kitchens for MBG are concentrated on the island of Java (Satyadharma and Naistana 2026). Meanwhile, the situation outside Java requires urgent action. Several issues include the need for a public kitchen outside Java to prepare over 3,000 meals each day. At the same time, the standard should be lower than that for each kitchen to ensure the quality of the food students consume. Due to the over-capacity of many public kitchens, there are a lot of cases where the low quality of the food poisons the kids.
Various issues with MBG can actually be summarised in one question: Isn’t MBG supposed to be a protection mechanism? MBG is designed to ensure that no children in Indonesia experience malnutrition, as people expect the growth of the human quality index in Indonesia over the next 10 to 15 years. Nonetheless, MBG is never appropriate as a pillar program.
Significantly, there are several direct programs that are more logical for increasing human quality, such as scholarships, educator development through practice, and financial compensation. For food security, the government can do something to address what is lacking in a region, for example, to ensure that at least children get protein, minerals, and calcium from local food. The government’s task is only to ensure that every child has access to essential nutrients, but not under the concept that everything should be provided by the government. The community can work together to provide that food.
Yet, in reality, the government takes all the responsibility through MBG and goes further by providing more public kitchens that cost massively and even taking the educational budget; another controversial move by the current regime. Considering the recent situation, there is almost no surprise when MBG becomes an object of debate.
There is wise advice that MBG needs to be redesigned. In the latest design, MBG should be returned to social insurance, not a pillar program. The nature of MBG is a protection mechanism, and nothing wrong with that. It would be problematic when, in fact, MBG is pushed to be a pivotal program, even though the government cannot handle that without sacrificing other important programs.
In the end, the country should not focus on gratification, but rather on ensuring that everybody is treated as humanely as possible. To play that part, the government does not need to act like a superhero.
Short References:
Satyadharma, Jonathan Farez, and Pranindiska Nurlistyo Naistana. 2026. “Layanan Dapur MBG Terkonsentrasi Di Jawa: Bagaimana Nasib Pelajar Di Pulau Lain?” The Conversation, 2026. https://theconversation.com/layanan-dapur-mbg-terkonsentrasi-di-jawa-bagaimana-nasib-pelajar-di-pulau-lain-283923.
Taufikin. 2026. “Rethinking the Allocation of MBG Funds: Toward Justice, Utility, and National Benefit.” Priviet Social Sciences Journal 6 (1): 465–77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55942/pssj.v6i1.748.
