By: Ainur Rohmah
When President Prabowo Subianto stood before thousands of workers at Jakarta’s National Monument to mark May Day and asked whether his signature free nutritious meals program was beneficial, he likely didn‘t expect the united roar that came back: no. The response, blunt and unambiguous, appeared to catch him off guard. For a brief moment, he fell silent before attempting to reassure the crowd, insisting that the initiative—known as Makan Bergizi Gratis, or MBG—was “very important for many Indonesian children who are malnourished, whose bodies are small, whose cells are not developing.”
The exchange captured growing unease surrounding one of Prabowo’s most ambitious and expensive policy undertakings. For months, he has invoked the program in speeches at home and abroad, presenting it as a cornerstone of his vision to improve public health and human capital. Just two days before the May Day incident, speaking at a groundbreaking ceremony for an industrial downstreaming project, he reiterated his commitment to see it through. Acknowledging its shortcomings, he pledged to fix them. Critics, he suggested, opposed the initiative not on its merits but out of fear that it might succeed.
Yet beyond the rhetoric, scrutiny has intensified. In Indonesia’s digital public sphere, a vigilant online community has begun to perform what some have called a “citizen audit,” combing through procurement data and budget allocations tied to the program. Their findings, drawn largely from publicly accessible government databases, have raised questions not only about inefficiency but also about the possibility of systemic corruption.
Red Flags
An examination of procurement data from Inaproc, the government’s official platform managed by the National Public Procurement Agency, reveals that in 2025 the National Nutrition Agency (BGN), tasked with implementing MBG, oversaw spending totaling approximately Rp6.2 trillion (about US$3.571 million). This figure encompassed 1,089 procurement packages executed through various mechanisms, including tenders, direct procurement and electronic catalog purchases.
But a closer look at how that money was allocated has fueled concern. The largest expenditures weren’t directed toward food—the program’s central promise—but toward supporting infrastructure and logistics. Vehicle procurement and leasing accounted for roughly Rp1.39 trillion, followed by the construction of kitchens at Rp1.26 trillion, and hardware and computer equipment at Rp830 billion. By contrast, the budget allocated specifically for food amounted to just Rp242.8 billion, significantly lower than spending on items such as clothing (Rp622.3 billion) and training programs (Rp464.6 billion).
Among the most contentious purchases was the acquisition of 21,801 electric motorcycles intended for operational use, each priced between Rp41 million and Rp43 million. The contract was awarded to a private firm, Yasa Artha Trimanunggal, with interests spanning logistics, medical equipment and international trade. Public attention quickly turned to the firm’s background, including reports that one of its senior executives had previously been questioned as a witness in a high-profile corruption case involving the distribution of social assistance funds in 2020.
The clothing budget has also drawn scrutiny. With expenditures reaching over Rp600 billion, the allocation covered uniforms, official footwear and accessories. Even seemingly minor items, such as socks, came under question: Rp6.9 billion was spent on socks priced at around Rp100,000 per pair, with no clear branding or adherence to national quality standards. Critics argue that such pricing far exceeds typical market rates.
Technology procurement is another flashpoint. The government allocated Rp508.4 billion for tablet computers to be used in a development initiative involving university graduates. Each unit was priced at Rp17.9 million—nearly double the estimated market value for comparable specifications, which hover around Rp8 million. Analysts say this discrepancy suggests a potential markup that could amount to hundreds of billions of in inflated costs.
Further controversy has surrounded the procurement of items deemed tangential to the program’s core objective of improving nutrition. These include expenditures on shoe polish and brushes totaling Rp1.5 billion, undershirts costing Rp 4.5 billion, belts at Rp 5 billion and towels reaching Rp 3.7 billion. For many observers, such spending appears disconnected from the stated mission.
Accountability and Oversight
Concerns have also emerged about how funds are distributed within the program’s operational framework. The head of the National Nutrition Agency, Dadan Hindayana, acknowledged that 1,720 nutrition service units had been temporarily suspended. Despite this, the kitchens associated with these units reportedly continued to receive daily incentives of Rp6 million. The agency has argued that certain activities remain ongoing during the suspension period, justifying the payments.
Charles Honoris, deputy chairman of a parliamentary commission overseeing health and employment affairs, questioned the logic of providing such incentives, particularly in cases where negligence may have contributed to food poisoning. He also cited discrepancies in the reported number of suspended units, noting that some accounts place the figure as high as 3,778. “How is it possible,” he asked, “that those responsible for failures resulting in public harm continue to receive substantial daily payments?”
Legal experts and anti-corruption advocates have pointed to broader structural issues. Wana Alamsyah, a researcher with Indonesia Corruption Watch, has argued that the procurement patterns suggest potential violations of law, including inflated pricing and weak budget planning. He estimates that the markup on tablet procurement alone could reach Rp7.95 million per unit, translating into a total potential overpayment of approximately Rp238.5 billion.
There are also indications that procurement rules may have been circumvented. Regulations require high-value contracts—those exceeding Rp100 billion —to be approved at the highest level of budget authority. However, data suggests that some contracts may have been artificially divided into smaller packages to avoid this requirement, a practice explicitly prohibited under existing regulations.
While electronic purchasing systems are designed to streamline procurement, critics argue that they can also obscure accountability. Items listed in official catalogs are often priced higher than those available in the open market, and the system allows for direct appointment of suppliers without competitive bidding under certain conditions.
A Program That Draws from Education Funds
Prabowo has remained steadfast, framing the program as a moral and economic imperative, arguing that state resources must be directed toward the welfare of the people. He has also claimed that the funds used to finance such initiatives come from savings achieved by curbing corruption.
Yet budget documents tell a more complicated story. In the 2026 state budget, a significant portion of the funding for MBG—amounting to Rp 223 trillion —has been drawn from the education sector. This represents a reduction of nearly 29 percent from the total education allocation of Rp769.1 trillion, leaving approximately Rp 546 trillion, or just 14.2 percent of total government spending, for education.
The National Nutrition Agency’s total budget has surged to Rp 335 trillion in 2026, a fivefold increase from the previous year. Of this, more than 83 percent is sourced from education funds, with the remainder coming from health and economic allocations.
The reallocation has prompted legal challenges. Critics argue that diverting such a large share of education funding violates constitutional mandates to prioritize education spending. They warn that the cuts could undermine efforts to improve teacher quality, expand access to schooling and upgrade educational infrastructure.
Government officials have defended the move by classifying the MBG program as part of educational spending, asserting that improved nutrition enhances students’ ability to learn. Critics, however, dismiss this as an overly broad interpretation that stretches the definition of education beyond reasonable limits.
Warnings of Systemic Risk
Independent watchdogs have issued stark warnings. In its 2025 annual report, the national anti-corruption commission highlighted the risks associated with large-scale programs lacking robust regulatory frameworks and oversight mechanisms. It pointed to vulnerabilities including conflicts of interest, weak accountability and the potential for criminal misconduct.
A separate study by Transparency International Indonesia, titled “Corruption Risks Behind the Free Nutritious Meals Program,” using a corruption risk assessment framework, concluded that the program’s design and implementation create fertile ground for systemic corruption.
Among the key findings were the absence of a strong legal foundation at the program’s inception, opaque processes for selecting implementing partners and procurement practices that fall short of transparency standards. The report also noted that some implementing organizations have ties to political, military or law enforcement figures, raising questions about conflicts of interest.
The scale of the program—targeting nearly 83 million beneficiaries with a projected budget of up to Rp400 trillion —further amplifies these risks. Without clear prioritization of recipients, analysts warn, the initiative could strain public finances while failing to deliver meaningful improvements in nutrition.
“The program appears promising on paper,” said Agus Sarwono, a researcher involved in the study, “but it does not meet the prerequisites of sound governance. The high vulnerability to corruption suggests that it should be suspended to prevent further losses to the state.”