Safeguarding the Integrity of Law in Pro-People Policy
John Rawls once stated that true justice is measured by how a state system treats those most vulnerable. In Indonesia, vulnerability is visible in the faces of children in underdeveloped, frontier and outermost regions, as well as pregnant women from disadvantaged families. They are a generation whose future is very much determined by what they eat today.
It is here that the Free Nutritious Meal Programme (MBG) possesses moral legitimacy. It arose from a sincere intention to ensure the state is present at its people’s dining tables. An idea that on paper is difficult to reject.
The welfare state indeed demands concrete presence that touches the most basic needs: food and nutrition. However, public policy never stops at intention. It must be tested in the field, in kitchens, in distribution chains, and certainly in public reasoning that judges it.
The Reality of MBG
It must be acknowledged that the MBG programme is not free from problems. A report by the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia notes that there are still gaps between targets and realisation, cases of mass poisoning in various regions, the appointment of partners that lacks transparency and is prone to conflicts of interest, and unclear standards for raw material quality.
Public concerns intensified when Indonesia Corruption Watch discovered political affiliation and patronage networks behind several foundations managing MBG kitchens. Some are linked to political parties, businessmen, bureaucrats, the military and police, and even individuals previously implicated in corruption cases.
The MBG budget is also very large, with the government allocating funds for the Free Nutritious Meal Programme up to IDR 335 trillion in 2026. Interestingly, each SPPG (MBG kitchen) receives approximately IDR 1 billion in monthly allocation, which can be used for raw material costs as well as labour expenses.
The Emergence of Ersatz Capitalism
At this point, the reflection of Yoshihara Kunio in his book The Rise of Ersatz Capitalism in South-East Asia becomes relevant. Ersatz capitalism or pseudo-capitalism is capitalism that does not grow from innovation and competitiveness. Rather, it is born from proximity to power. In it, rent-seekers exploit political access to obtain licences, protection, and quick profits. The economy moves, but its foundation is fragile. What develops is not creativity, but connections.
Ersatz capitalism indeed characterised the Suharto administration. With a centralised approach, it penetrated the business world in various sectors by involving cronies or loyalists. The New Order ruler also involved senior military figures to secure his businesses. Those who had good relationships with cronies and senior military figures obtained privileged rights to do business in Indonesia.
In the current context, ersatz capitalism risks being reborn if this programme proves to involve only cronies and loyalists of those in power. Are those managing the MBG kitchens competent? Do they have a clear track record in the food and beverage business? How is the involvement of nutritionists in determining the MBG menu?
Powerless Law
The MBG problem is certainly not merely a matter of economics and politics. It touches the foundation of our law. The legal framework for MBG is at least evident from Presidential Regulation (Perpres) Number 83 of 2024; Perpres Number 115 of 2025; and Perpres Number 12 of 2025. But interestingly, the MBG programme actually came into existence before these presidential regulations. This raises the question: why was the MBG programme created first whilst its legal framework came later?
The choice to use presidential regulations also warrants scrutiny. It is true that the president’s authority to issue a perpres is based on Article 4 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and perpres are included in the types and hierarchy of legislation according to Law 12 of 2011. However, this choice seems to exploit the flexibility inherent in a presidential regulation. Besides serving as an order from higher legislation, a perpres can be utilised to exercise government authority.
The phrase “government authority” appears to provide considerable room for manoeuvre for the executive to implement priority programmes that are impulsive, especially since perpres do not require parliamentary approval.
The MBG programme has indeed acquired legal justification, but our policy-making style often gets trapped in administrative formalism. What matters is that procedures are followed, and what matters is that there are rules. However, procedure without substance only produces spurious legitimacy, and spurious legitimacy in turn produces pseudo-capitalism (Ersatz).
MBG Solutions
Strengthening MBG governance is key. Transparency in procurement, independent nutritional audits, involvement of local governments and school communities, and mechanisms for open public oversight—not merely administrative formalism, but a moral requirement of a policy in a welfare state. A programme as large as MBG requires not only a large budget, but also considerable trust, and trust only grows from openness.
Equally important, the success of MBG should not be measured solely by the number of meal portions distributed, but by its impact on long-term quality of life such as reduced stunting and improved learning capacity. In other words, the measure of success must shift from output to outcome, from distribution to transformation.
Ultimately, the best nutrition for this nation is not merely protein and calories, but justice. And justice only grows in soil guarded by law that is clean, transparent, and genuinely stands with those most vulnerable.