MTI Reveals Vulnerabilities in Free Nutritious Meal Programme and Proposes 7 Solutions

The Indonesian Transparency Society (MTI) believes that the naming of suspects and the detention of the former Head of the National Nutrition Agency (BGN), Dadan Hindayana, alongside two former deputies, Sony Sonjaya and Lodewyk Pusung, by the Attorney General’s Office should not be viewed as the end of corruption issues within the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme.

For MMTI, while legal action against individuals is a legitimate and necessary step if allegations are proven, the root of the problem lies much deeper: a failure in the policy governance design from the outset. “Arresting three people will not cure a programme that is sick in its design,” stated the Executive Director of M0TI, Ahmad Jilul Q Farid, in a statement in Jakarta on Thursday (4/6/2026). “As long as the policy architecture remains unchanged, new officials inheriting the same system will face the exact same temptations. We are merely waiting for the next chapter of the same scandal,” Jilul added.

MTI highlighted that the case construction built by investigators indicates that corruption occurs throughout the programme’s governance chain. This includes the manipulation of partner verification on the BGN portal to ensure only certain foundations are appointed as Nutrition Fulfillment Service Units (SPPG), interventions in the preparation of Terms of Reference that led to improper procurement—such as electric motorcycles and televisions—and the inflation of kitchen construction costs.

MTI asserts that corruption in the MBG programme is not an anomaly, but rather an almost certain consequence of a policy design that allows for excessive discretion and conflicts of interest. There are at least four fundamental loopholes.

First, the technical regulations themselves allow for excessive discretion. Technical guidelines limit foundations to a maximum of 10 SPPGs within one province and five SPPGs if spread across more than one province; however, this limitation is nullified by its own exception clause, which states: “Except for foundations, agencies, and organisations, there is no limit on the number of SPPGs.” Jilul noted that there are no clear criteria regarding which subjects are exempted, no objective parameters to assess the need for such exceptions, and no transparent testing procedures. “Such phrasing provides too much room for policymakers to subjectively determine who is allowed to control the kitchens,” said Jilul.

Second, there are no limits on individual ownership. Restrictions are only applied to legal entities such as foundations, not to the individuals behind them, meaning a single party can control dozens of kitchen points.