A number of non government organizations have critized the free lunch program initiated by presidential and vice presidential candidates pair of Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka, citing its negative implications.

Ubaid Matraji, National Coordinator of the Indonesian Education Monitoring Network (JPII), asked the government not to be rash in implementing the program.

"The government should not only pursue populism, because it is bound by campaign promises, but must think about the impacts of the program and also the scale of priority that must be urgently addressed in order to improve the quality of our education," Ubaid said on Monday, March 4, 2024.

Although the president-elect has yet to be inaugurated, the government seems determined to start the free lunch program initiated by the Prabowo-Gibran pair. As a result, there are pros and cons in the community in response to the program.

Therefore, JPPI provides several notes regarding the free lunch program.

First, the purpose of this program is still unclear. Media reports show confusion regarding the target of the program. Some say it is for stunting prevention, nutrition fulfilment, additional lunch, and so on. If it is for stunting prevention, the program should be designated for pregnant women and children up to 2 years old. If it is meant to fulfill ideal nutrition for children, the program will likely fail to serve the target as the children go to school on an empty stomach because they do not have breakfast, while in the evening they eat noodles or seblak (a Sundanese savoury and spicy dish). Then the free lunch program that is meant for nutrition fulfilment is meaningless.

Second, the cost of education will increase. If the government force to implement the program, it will clearly become a burden on the State Budget and increase state debt. As a result, school tuition fees will become more expensive and unaffordable. Many people have been screaming about the cost of education and the effectiveness of the 12-year free compulsory education program. In public schools, let alone in public schools, there is still a lot of extortion, so school fees are increasingly unaffordable.

Third, lunch costs are prone to leakage, resulting in many principals and potential teachers going to jail. We must realize that until now the education sector is still in the category of the 5 most corrupt sectors in Indonesia. So, the cost allocated for free lunch, which is very fantastic, can be a breath of fresh air for unscrupulous people in the education sector to launch their actions. Moreover, it remains unclear who will manage the program, who are involved, what is the mechanism of transparency and accountability? The School Operational Aid (BOS) fund alone is still problematic, let alone the free lunch financing. If it is too rash just for the sake of good image of the government, many school principals and teachers will go to jail.

Fourth, If lunches are imposed, then the lunch budget must be outside the education budget. Currently, the education budget, which amounts to 20 percent, is already heavily burdened with teacher salaries and employee operational expenditure. As a result, it cannot be utilized much to improve access and also encourage better quality education.

Fifth, Prioritising solution to problems over fulfilling campaign promises for the sake of populism. Let's look at the current problems of education in Indonesia. Based on Statistics Indonesia (BPS) 2023 data, our national average years of schooling is still 8.7 years (meaning that majority of our children do not graduate from junior school). Meanwhile, in terms of quality, based on the 2022 PISA score, the literacy-numeracy skills of Indonesian students fall into the category of one of the countries with the lowest score and below the average minimum standard in the world. This means that Indonesia's human resources are already far behind those of other countries, and we are even further behind our neighbors. Can this be solved with free lunch? Definitely not.

Use of BOS funds

In a related development, the Cahaya Guru Foundation rejected the government's discourse on using school operational assistance (BOS) funds to realize the free lunch program. The foundation considers the program does not address the main problems of education, i.e. cases of sexual violence, bullying, discrimination and intolerance at schools.

The number of cases of violence in the educational institutions is increasingly worrying. Data collected by Cahaya Guru Foundation in 2023 shows that at least there were 139 cases of violence, with 19 deaths last year. Lately, there have been cases of violence and bullying at a private school in South Tangerang and at an Islamic Boarding School in Kediri, East Java. The latest case in Kediri has drwn concerns from the public as the victim died in an Islamic Boarding School that allegedly did not secure the license issued by the Ministry of Religious Affairs.

The foundation insistes that BOS funds should be used to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools such as teacher and employee salaries, teaching and learning needs such as books and stationery, electricity, water, school building maintenance and character education development including violence prevention and handling programmes in the school environment.

Earlier, Coordinating Minister for the Economy Airlangga Hartarto said last Thursday that the financing of the free lunch program will be borne by the School Operational Assistance (BOS) fund.

"Cahaya Guru Foundation disagree if the free lunch discourse uses the education fund allocation. The government still has major work to do in education, namely preventing and handling violence. We cannot allow children to become victims of bullying and violence from time to time. We need serious efforts and the involvement of all parties. If this is not resolved immediately, then the slogan of 2024 Golden Indonesia will only be empty words," said Muhammad Mukhlisin, Executive Director of Cahaya Guru Foundation.

"The government needs to focus on providing a solution to overcome this violence. It is not enough to issue policies, but it also requires the role off families and communities to prevent violence and foster humanitarian education," he added.