A child sits neatly on a school bench, opening a lunchbox provided by the state. There is rice, a side dish, and vegetables. He is full that day and can even save a little to take home. Because at home, his father is still unemployed. His mother is still counting the remaining rice to make it last until the weekend.
The next day, when the program is delayed or has problems, their dining table falls silent again. That is the irony of the Nutritious Meals Program (MBG): the child is fed by the state, while the parents are left helpless.
It has been a year since the MBG started, claiming to be a solution to stunting. Yet the threat of stunting remains unresolved. This program is instead marked by various problems, from cases of mass poisoning, allegations of food not meeting halal standards, SPPG kitchens with uneven quality, to a large budget that is maintained even though other strategic sectors must be sacrificed.
These facts show that the MBG is not only problematic technically, but also conceptually flawed. The fundamental problem with the MBG lies in the state’s misguided perspective.
In normal life, feeding a child is the parents’ responsibility. The state is not a substitute for father and mother. The state’s role should be to ensure parents are able to carry out that duty decently and with dignity. However, the MBG instead bypasses the state’s most fundamental responsibility.
Instead of opening up as many jobs as possible, guaranteeing sufficient wages, and ensuring affordable food prices, the state chooses a shortcut: distributing ready-to-eat meals.
As if stunting is merely a problem of an empty child’s stomach. In fact, stunting is the fruit of structural poverty: unemployment, low income, high food prices, and an economic system that fails to protect families.
This is the hallmark of populist policy in a capitalist-democratic system. What is pursued are programs that appear quick, tangible, and easy to promote to the public, not solving the problem at its source.
It is no wonder that the MBG continues to be forced to run even though problems in the field recur. This program seems to serve the interests of the rulers and the SPPG kitchen business operators more than the fundamental interests of the people.
Furthermore, the MBG has the potential to weaken the family institution. When the state takes over the function of feeding children, dependency is normalized. Parents are positioned as passive aid recipients, while the state’s failure to ensure welfare is covered up with charitable programs. The child may be full today, but his family remains fragile tomorrow.
Islam views this issue fundamentally and with dignity. In Islam, the father is the provider for the family, while the state functions as a *raa’in* (custodian of the people’s affairs).
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, “The Imam is a guardian and he is responsible for his subjects.”
Therefore, the state is obliged to ensure that every head of household is able to work, earn a decent income, and access basic needs easily.
Islam’s solution to stunting is integral: opening up jobs, ensuring fair distribution of wealth, preventing monopolies, keeping food prices affordable, and educating the public about nutrition and health. The state does not replace the role of parents, but empowers them.
This is where the fundamental difference becomes clear. Capitalism-democracy prioritizes public image, so policies are measured by popularity and image-building. While the Islamic system makes the pleasure of Allah the main orientation, so policies are born from trust and responsibility, not from applause.
A state that fears Allah will not be busy feeding children for the sake of image, but will sincerely ensure their parents are able to feed them with their own sweat, honor, and peace of life.
