MBG Accused of Being a Debt Burden, Expert Explains APBN Fiscal Mechanism

Economic observers consider the notion linking the rise in national debt to the Free Nutritious Meals (MBG) programme as a superficial fiscal perspective that fails to grasp modern APBN management mechanisms. Senior Analyst Ronny P. Sasmita from the Indonesia Strategic and Economic Action Institution (ISEAI) stated that in modern state budget governance, government debt is not used to finance a single specific programme but forms part of the overall national financing strategy. “In the structure of the modern APBN, national debt never stands alone to finance a single programme but is part of the entire national financing strategy, from infrastructure, education, health, energy subsidies, social protection, to economic stabilisation,” Ronny said in his statement on Tuesday (12/5/2026). Based on data from the Directorate General of Financing and Risk Management (DJPPR), the central government’s debt was recorded at Rp 9,920.42 trillion as of 31 March 2026. This figure equates to 40.75 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In terms of composition, the debt consists of Government Securities worth Rp 8,652.89 trillion or 87.22 per cent and loans amounting to Rp 1,267.52 trillion or 12.78 per cent. According to Ronny, debt realisation cannot be linked solely to one programme. Technocratically, Indonesia’s APBN structure employs a pooled financing mechanism, not project-based debt as understood by some segments of society. Therefore, he views the claim that debt is rising due to MBG as an imprecise simplification academically. “If such logic is applied, then all state programmes, from toll roads to civil servant salaries, could be accused as the sole cause of debt. Yet, the national economy operates far more complexly than mere fiscal cocoklogi on social media,” he said. Ronny emphasised that investment in child nutrition is one form of productive state expenditure in modern development theory. In his view, human resource quality is the primary foundation of a country’s long-term productivity. He stated that children suffering from stunting, protein deficiency, or chronic nutritional deficits are likely to have lower cognitive capacity and economic productivity as adults. “The state is not spending money on lunch but making biological and intellectual investments in the productive generation 15 to 20 years from now,” he said. Ronny added that the greatest cost to a country is not feeding children but allowing a generation to grow with poor health and intelligence quality. This is because the impact will be far more expensive for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the future. Beyond the nutrition aspect, he considers the MBG programme to also have a multiplier effect on the agriculture, livestock, food SMEs, regional logistics, and local job creation sectors. “State money does not disappear but circulates in the domestic economy. In a global situation full of uncertainty, fiscal instruments like this also serve to maintain national consumption and strengthen domestic demand,” he said. Therefore, Ronny believes public debate should focus on the effectiveness of programme implementation, not questioning its existence. “Healthy debate should not be about whether MBG is needed, but how to ensure this programme is on target, efficient, and not leaky,” said Ronny.