The 3T Wetlands

Initially, the programme arrived like a party invitation. Schoolchildren would receive nutritious meals. Mothers would not need to worry excessively about their children going to school on an empty stomach. Alongside that, farmers hoped their harvests would be absorbed. Livestock breeders imagined their eggs and chickens would have a steady market. The state was present, not in the form of speeches, but in the form of warm rice, side dishes, vegetables, and a glass of milk. The idea was simple. Too beautiful to refuse, even. Who could bear to oppose children eating nutritiously? Therefore, when President Prabowo Subianto launched the Free Nutritious Meal (MBG) programme, many welcomed it with applause. Some supported it due to ideological conviction. Others for humanitarian reasons. Moreover, this programme was not solely portrayed as distributing lunch to pupils in schools with neatly paved yards and air-conditioned classrooms. The MBG was, more importantly, introduced as an effort to save the future of Indonesia’s most vulnerable children. Children in underdeveloped regions. Pregnant women in impoverished villages. Areas that for decades have been visited more often by promises than by policy. Who could bear to refuse? The image of children studying on empty stomachs possesses extraordinary soft power. It can melt political calculations. Like a hot knife through butter, humanitarian reasons often liquefy objections. Especially if those three sacred letters are mentioned: 3T. Tertinggal (Underdeveloped). Terdepan (Frontier). Terluar (Outermost). Three letters containing both guilt and hope. For this republic knows, development often proceeds like a wedding guest who lingers too long in the front room. There are rooms at the back of the house that are briefly glanced at when elections approach, then forgotten again once the party is over. Therefore, when the government said the MBG would also reach 3T regions, many considered this the noblest aspect of the programme. The state finally arrived bearing not just a flag and speeches, but also a plate of nutritious food. Unfortunately, good intentions often invite uninvited guests. Recently, the narrative about MBG has changed drastically. A programme initially promoted as an investment in the nation’s future has suddenly entered the legal domain. Yet, criticism of MBG had actually emerged from the beginning. Some questioned its implementation readiness. Others warned of potential budget leakages. Some demanded stricter oversight. But its managers appeared calm. Criticism was treated like the sound of crickets at night: audible, but deemed not important enough to make one rise from sleep. Until the situation reversed. President Prabowo Subianto dismissed the managers of the National Nutrition Agency and replaced them with new officials. Not long after, the Attorney General’s Office moved further. Five people have been named as suspects by the AGO. They are not kitchen staff who miscalculated the number of eggs or wrongly recorded rice purchases. They are individuals within the decision-making circle. The AGO named the former Head of the National Nutrition Agency, Dadan Hindayana, as a suspect. Also apprehended were two former deputy heads of BGN, Sony Sonjaya and Lodewyk Pusung. From external parties, there is Asep Yusuf Somantri, described as a close associate of Sony Sonjaya, and Andri Mulyono, Commissioner of PT Yasa Artha Trimanunggal. According to the AGO, two corruption clusters are being unravelled. The first cluster is the buying and selling of SPPG points, namely the Nutrition Fulfilment Service Units or MBG kitchens. The second cluster is the procurement of goods and services, including the alleged mark-up of electric motorcycle procurement worth around Rp1.1 trillion. The second cluster is certainly serious. Its modus operandi feels familiar. This nation has witnessed procurement projects turning into budget magic tricks far too often. Prices that were originally lean suddenly become fat. Documents that were supposed to be fences transform into red carpets. State money evaporates in an almost always identical manner; only the names of the perpetrators change. But the first cluster is far more interesting to dissect. For it is there that we find an almost perfect irony. The logic that made the MBG easy to accept was allegedly the same logic used to manipulate its projects. If 3T regions are considered most in need, their budgets would be easier to prioritise. If 3T regions are considered to concern the fate of the most vulnerable children, proposals for additional points would be harder to reject. If 3T regions are perceived as far from scrutiny, the playing field becomes more spacious. Like farmers seeking the most fertile soil to plant rice, rent-seekers apparently know precisely where the wettest fields lie. And indeed, this allegation finds reflection in the numbers. Initially, the number of SPPGs planned for 3T regions was around 2,000 points. That made sense.