The corruption case involving former leaders of the National Nutrition Agency (BGN) has added to the growing list of issues surrounding the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) Program. The program, which has been promoted as a long-term investment in improving the quality of Indonesia’s human resources, has faced challenges, including food poisoning incidents, unequal distribution of benefits, and controversies over budget utilization. Controversies have ultimately raised questions about how effectively the program’s oversight and governance systems are functioning.
Professor Gabriel Lele of the Department of Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Universitas Gadjah Mada (Fisipol UGM), believes that the legal case involving the former BGN leadership is merely the culmination of governance problems that have accumulated since the program’s inception.
The program was designed from the outset with a centralized, closed structure, raising concerns about accountability and oversight. Moreover, decision-making within this government priority program has largely been concentrated among a small number of actors at the central level who report directly to the president.
“If a program is considered a presidential priority, its fundamental characteristic is closed and centralized. Only a few people are involved and directly accountable to the president,” he said on Tuesday (Jun. 9).
Professor Gabriel argued that the MBG implementation model, which is designed nationally and applied uniformly across Indonesia, risks overlooking differences in local conditions, capacities, and needs. Not all regions in Indonesia have the same level of readiness or demand. Therefore, involving local governments is important for program implementation, enabling policies to be more adaptive and responsive to on-the-ground conditions.
“When a policy model like MBG is formulated nationally and implemented throughout Indonesia, the risk is a lack of sensitivity to local contexts. Levels of readiness and public acceptance vary from one region to another,” he explained.
Furthermore, he highlighted weaknesses in the program’s oversight and accountability mechanisms. The management of a massive budget for a nationwide program by BGN has not been scaled by clear control mechanisms that can detect irregularities early.
Meanwhile, oversight conducted by institutions such as the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) generally occurs only after problems have surfaced, making it more reactive than preventive. This situation creates opportunities for various issues, ranging from procurement irregularities and budget inefficiencies to declining service quality in the field.
“Especially when a program involves a large budget and national coverage, temptations to misuse resources will always exist. These can be minimized, if not entirely eliminated, by establishing adequate control and accountability systems,” he explained.
In addition to weak oversight systems, Professor Gabriel pointed out that public accountability mechanisms have failed to function effectively. Various criticisms raised by the public regarding food poisoning cases, alleged budget waste, and the quality of program implementation have not received adequate responses and have instead been perceived by the central government as threats.
“Many of those criticizing the program are actually people who support the goals of MBG and want it to be implemented properly. But because of the responses they received, public frustration has only grown,” he said.
Political factors have also contributed to the government’s slow response to controversies that have emerged since the program’s launch. As one of President Prabowo Subianto’s flagship campaign promises, MBG carries significant political value, making corrections and evaluations particularly sensitive. The government is likely aware of weaknesses in the program’s implementation, but faces a dilemma in making substantial changes because MBG has become a symbol of both policy program and political commitment.
“They see this program as an investment for the 2029 election,” he said.
Nevertheless, he expressed appreciation for the government’s decision to pursue legal action against the former BGN leaders. However, the response should not be limited to prosecuting individuals. Instead, the case should serve as momentum for comprehensive governance reform. Without systemic changes in program management, oversight mechanisms, and decision-making processes, similar problems are likely to recur regardless of who leads the agency.
“We appreciate the decision to remove and then arrest the head of BGN and the deputy. Our hope is that it does not stop there, but instead becomes momentum to truly address the deeply flawed governance surrounding the planning and implementation of the MBG program,” he said.
As an initial step toward reform, Professor Gabriel urged the government to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of MBG’s institutional design, covering planning, implementation, budgeting, and accountability. He suggested that the government consider temporarily suspending the program for one to two months to allow for a more thorough review involving independent experts in nutrition, finance, and governance.
“It should not be evaluated solely by bureaucrats and campaign teams. It needs to be assessed by people with the necessary expertise, such as nutrition experts, governance specialists, and financial experts,” Gabriel concluded.
Author: Cyntia Noviana
Editor: Gusti Grehenson
Post-editor: Jasmine Ferdian
Photos: Antara and Magnific