In the life of a nation, we need to distinguish between understanding\ngovernment and having state consciousness. Government operates through\nauthority, programmes and policies, while the state is built upon\nideals, the constitution, law, the interests of the people and the\nsustainability of collective life. Therefore, regarding major government\npolicies, especially those that use substantial state resources, our\nquestion should not stop at whether we agree or disagree. The more\nimportant questions are: for what purpose was the policy made, whether\nits objectives align with constitutional ideals, how the policy is\nimplemented, who benefits, who bears the risks, and whether the policy\nultimately leads the people towards a better life.<\/p>\n
From a legal perspective, these matters cannot be adequately assessed\nsolely on formal legality. Indeed, every government action must have a\nbasis of authority and must not contravene the law. However, the rule of\nlaw does not only concern legality. It also concerns justice, protection\nof rights, public interest and legitimacy. A policy may have a legal\nbasis, but its implementation still needs to be tested from the\nperspective of justice and utility. Therefore, a distinction must be\nmade between actions that violate the law and actions that substantively\nhave the potential to reduce the rights or opportunities of the public.\nThe former concerns legality, while the latter touches upon legitimacy.\nLaw, therefore, must not only ask, \u2018Is the government permitted to do\nthis?\u2019, but must also ask, \u2018Is this method fair and do its benefits\nreach the people?\u2019<\/p>\n
It is within this framework that the Free Nutritious Meal Programme\n(MBG) should be read. Providing nutritious food to Indonesian children\nis a highly noble policy. The state indeed has a responsibility to build\nhealthy, intelligent and high-quality human beings. This objective\naligns with the constitutional ideals of advancing the intellectual life\nof the nation and promoting general welfare. Therefore, criticism of MBG\nshould not be directed at its fundamental purpose. What needs to be\ncritiqued is how the programme is constructed so that the substantial\nstate budget does not merely produce food for children, but also\ngenerates broader economic benefits for society.<\/p>\n
MBG is fundamentally not just a food programme. With its large-scale\nrequirements for rice, eggs, chicken, fish, vegetables, fruit, milk,\nspices, transportation, processing and labour, MBG in fact creates a\nvery large market. Therefore, the important question is: who enjoys that\nmarket? Does most of its economic value return to farmers, livestock\nbreeders, fishermen, MSMEs and rural communities, or is it instead more\nconcentrated among business actors who already possess capital and\nnetworks? This question is not an accusation against any particular\ngroup. It is a question about the justice of distributing state\nresources.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mbg-and-kdmp-strengthening-policy-correcting-its-course-1787280771", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }