Introduction

On the 78^th day of his presidency, President Prabowo Subianto launched his populist, flagship programme that featured as a key promise in his campaign: Makan Bergizi Gratis (Free Nutritious Meal – MBG). This programme has received strong support from a significant majority of the population (with more than 80% of approval rate), placing it as a promising political asset for Prabowo.

However, there are growing concerns aboutits lack of transparency and inadequate preparation.

If the president aims to capitalise this programme to maintain his popularity – and potentially extend his presidency to a second administration – he needs to adopt a paradigm shift in designing the programme. Prabowo must prioritise transparency, primarily by ensuring that every document, guideline and policy related to the MBG are prepared properly and made accessible to the public.

Equally important is how he manages the preparation of this programme in detail. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”.

Without adhering to these two principles, MBG is at risk of failing to achieve its ambitious goal of catering to 81 million beneficiaries, thus undermining Prabowo’s credibility and political stature going forward.

Massive Budget, Minimal Clarity

Some Rp100 million saved from the recent budget cut was channeled instead towards MBG, raising the total budget to Rp171 trillion rupiah. It is more than the budget allocated for the Ministry of Defense.

Given its budget size, it has thus become everyone’s interest to monitor its implemention and ensure that the massive fund is not misappropriated. Unfortunately, the current MBG modus operandi relies heavily on verbal instructions and lacks clear written guidelines, detailed work plans, visions, or other technical instructions.

Such situation leaves the public in the dark and renders the program vulnerable to mismanagement and potential corruption. This has contributed to problems such as spoiled or even uncooked food served to students.

This is why transparency is paramount. Undang-Undang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 (Law on Public Information Disclosure) mandates that government agencies must provide information to the public as long as it does not involve threats to national security, defence, state secrets or matters of personal privacy.

None of these exceptions relate to MBG. That being said, when important documents or guidelines are seemingly hidden (if any), the programme has not only violated the aforementioned law but also eroded public trust at a time when their support for the programme’s implementation is high.

Although the MBG programme was initiated by Prabowo, its position as a public good ultimately makes it belong to all Indonesian people. Allowing the public access to guidelines and action plans would enable them to provide constructive input, contribute creative ideas and enhance the programme’s implementation.

It is thus strange why the government is not transparent about this programme.

The Risks of Poor Planning

Indeed, the MBG programme is projected to yield economic benefits. It is estimated to boost GDP growth by 0.06%, increase jobs by 0.19% and grow income for MSMEs by 33.68%,

However, rushing the implementation of any government programme without adequate planning can lead to serious setbacks. Effective risk management, detailed impact analysis and a clear, step-by-step strategic plan – including technical instructions and contingency measures – are all critical components in programme as big as this.

Unfortunately, the programme’s obscurity makes it difficult to monitor these processes, which could lead to some serious problems. These are not mere hypothetical risks – evidence from other parts of the world suggests that negative outcomes may very well occur.

In Brazil, a free meal programme has been troubled by bureaucracy, weak accountability and unclear spending. This has led to financial waste on one hand and substandard food quality on the other. In India, corruption and mismanagement have manifested in disturbing ways. Teachers and meal workers manipulated attendance records to divert food supplies; a school principal in Firozabad embezzled some of the funds and; a tragic incident in Bihar in 2013 resulted in the deaths of 23 children due to contaminated food in 2013.

Latest report in Indonesia underscores these risks. While the programme is designed to provide meals that meet 35% of the daily nutritional requirements (Angka Kecukupan Gizi – AKG), only 15% of options in the menu (five out of 29) have met this standard.

Furthermore, protein analysis reveals that 48% of the sampled meals contain excessive protein, 34% fall below the target and only 17% meet the recommended range of 33-36.4% of daily protein intake. These alarming findings demonstrate that even the most well-intentioned social welfare programmes can deviate significantly from their goals the preparation phase is not conducted well.

Strengthening this suspicion is the perception that MBG was “designed by running”, which implies that its concept was not thoroughly developed before its launch. Such mismanagement threatens MBG to meet its original goals while also adding further stress to the country’s coffers. The programme, as it stands, could end up being a huge waste of money with unclear outcomes.

In light of those potential threats, the establishment of Badan Gizi Nasional (National Nutrition Agency – BGN) in 2024 was actually intended to regulate the entire implementation and supervision of MBG.

However, BGN has not demonstrated its capability to address the problems. It is very concerning that there is still minimal information available to the public regarding BGN’s governance, work plan, vision, mission, master document, guidelines and technical instructions. Its website fails to provide meaningful detailed information, leaving citizens uncertain about its true direction.

In other words, an institution created to address MBG’s problems is also suffering from the same problems. Even after more than a month of operation, the public remains uninformed about the agency’s processes and progress. At the very least, the creation of an online dashboard could facilitate easier monitoring and help bridge some existing information gaps.

This situation is particularly frustrating due to the strong public support for MBG. The public cannot be content with just snippets of the programme’s information provided through verbal testimonies or short articles. Furthermore, the programme’s abnormal budget raises a red flag since the programme is vulnerable to corrupt practices, especially in the procurement process.

It is crucial to remember that government procurement in Indonesia is historically one of the most corruption-prone sectors. Data from Lembaga Kebijakan Pengadaan Barang/Jasa Pemerintah (LKPP) and KPK reveals that between 2004 and 2023, there are 339 documented cases of corruption related to procurement activities. The findings of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) indicate that of the 2,227 corruption cases handled by the law enforcement, 49.1% of them were cases related to the procurement of goods and services. These have incurred losses reahed up to Rp 5.3 trillion.

Conclusion

While the MBG programme enjoys overwhelming public support and potentially delivers socioeconomic benefits, its current implementation appears flawed by a lack of transparency and inadequate preparation. It thus risks becoming a waste of public funds with unclear results.

The government should establish clear guidelines and transparent information including a detailed work plan and a strong oversight mechanism to ensure the programme’s sustainability. Citizens must also be invited to participate in the monitoring process and hold authorities accountable for errors. With what is currently visible, we can imagine that the MBG program is at risk of being a huge waste of public funds, potentially reaching hundreds of trillions of rupiah,

For Prabowo, this programme should not only be seen as a mainstay political asset but also a test of his commitment to effective, accountable and transparent governance. If he continues to ignore the need for thorough preparation and full transparency, it will certainly endanger the success of MBG, which will also have a negative impact on his administration.