Criticism of Free Nutritious Meals Programme Not Aligned with Budget Facts, Says Policy Observer
A controversy regarding the Free Nutritious Meals (Makan Bergizi Gratis, MBG) programme has resurfaced in public discourse following criticism from several politicians who argue that the funding scheme could jeopardise the national education budget. However, accusations that MBG is eroding education allocations are deemed inconsistent with government fiscal data.
Aiman Adnan, a social and public policy observer from the Indonesian Literacy Cadre Advanced Foundation (KALIMA), stated that the MBG debate should be framed within the broader context of the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN) as a whole, rather than focusing on a single budget line item in isolation.
“Education budgets have not declined; they have actually increased. This is APBN fact, not interpretation,” said Aiman in Jakarta on Tuesday, 3 March 2026.
Previously, several politicians from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) questioned the use of MBG funds, arguing that it could reduce fiscal space for improving education quality. This criticism sparked debate over government spending priorities.
According to Aiman, the MBG programme can actually be viewed as a social intervention that supports education quality. He argued that ensuring children’s nutrition is a fundamental prerequisite for effective learning processes.
“If a politician claims to care about education but refuses to ensure children are well-fed before learning, the public rightly questions: whose version of education are they defending?” he said.
He also emphasised that MBG is not a unilateral policy. The programme, he noted, has undergone discussion and joint approval between the government and parliament.
“MBG was discussed, approved, and endorsed together in parliament. And that parliament includes factions that are now most vehemently attacking it,” he said.
Aiman believed that consistency in political positions deserves public scrutiny. “If MBG is now called problematic, the straightforward question is: why approve it then? It’s like signing a receipt and then screaming that you’ve been robbed,” he remarked.
Regarding the issue of teacher welfare, which critics have also linked to MBG, he cited APBN data showing increases in salaries and allowances for teachers and lecturers in the latest budget.
“If education budgets were being plundered by MBG, where would the tens of trillions in increased allocations for teachers and lecturers come from? These are official figures, real figures,” he asserted.
He added that evaluation of MBG remains open, but public debate should be grounded in data and the full budgetary context. “The figures are stripped of context, the numbers divorced from their setting. The public is swayed by emotion, not invited to think,” he concluded.