The call for free education and free nutritious meals in Papua is gaining renewed attention as Papua Pegunungan’s (Highland Papua) Vice Governor Ones Pahabol asks the central government to place two programmes at the heart of development policy for the country’s easternmost region.
Speaking before Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Agus Harimurti Yudhoyono, or AHY, on September 20, asked President Prabowo Subianto’s government to calculate the necessary budget this year so that free education and the Free Nutritious Meals programme, known as Makan Bergizi Gratis or MBG, could be implemented more broadly across Papua from next year.
For Ones, the two policies are closely connected.
Education determines whether children can develop the skills needed for the future, while adequate nutrition affects their ability to learn and grow. In remote parts of Papua, where families can face difficult access to food, schools and public services, he argues that the two programmes should be developed together rather than treated as separate policies.
His appeal also reflects a broader question facing Papua: how can public investment move beyond physical infrastructure and reach the daily lives of Indigenous Papuans, particularly children living far from urban centres?
Ones Pahabol’s Appeal to Jakarta
The request emerged publicly on September 20, when Ones spoke about the priorities he believes should guide development across Papua.
According to JPNN, the vice governor asked President Prabowo Subianto to calculate the required budget for 2026 so the education and free meal programmes could be implemented simultaneously in Papua the following year. He made the request in front of AHY.
Media Indonesia reported the same appeal, noting that Ones wanted free education and MBG integrated into the government’s development priorities for Papua.
The request is particularly significant because Ones presented it as an aspiration extending beyond Papua Pegunungan itself.
He referred to the six provinces of what he called Papua Raya and argued that communities across the region shared concerns about inequality and access to essential services.
“Attention to education must be a priority, as well as programs to meet the community’s nutritional needs,” Ones said, according to Metro TV. He added that communities across Papua wanted disparities in the region to be addressed more effectively.
His message was direct: development in Papua should increasingly focus on people, particularly the younger generation.
Education as an Investment in Papua’s Future
One of the strongest elements of Ones’s argument is his emphasis on education.
He described free education as a powerful instrument for the six provinces of Papua Raya and argued that education should become a central tool for improving the socioeconomic position of Indigenous Papua, or OAP.
JPNN reported that Ones proposed directing 70 to 80 percent of economic subsidies towards supporting OAP through the education sector. He also said that the Democratic Party was pursuing a formal request to the president concerning the implementation of free education across Papua.
The proposal reflects his view that infrastructure alone cannot determine Papua’s long-term development.
Roads, bridges and other physical infrastructure remain important, but their benefits ultimately depend on the ability of people to use new opportunities.
A child who has access to a functioning school, adequate nutrition, and qualified teachers is likely to have a stronger foundation for participating in the regional economy later in life.
That is why Ones has framed education not merely as a social service, but as a long-term investment in Papua’s human resources.
Media Indonesia reported that he sees education and nutrition as complementary elements in preparing the next generation for what he called Indonesia’s “Golden Generation”.
Why Nutrition Has Become Part of the Education Debate
The second part of Ones’s proposal concerns MBG.
The national programme provides free nutritious meals, and Ones argues that its significance in Papua extends beyond mere food provision.
In his assessment, MBG can become part of a wider human development strategy by helping children receive adequate food while also creating demand for agricultural and fisheries products produced locally.
Metro TV reported that Ones believes MBG in Papua can contribute to a new economic foundation at the village level.
The connection is relatively straightforward.
Schools require food. Food requires suppliers. In Papua, some of those suppliers can potentially come from local farmers, fishermen and community producers.
Ones therefore supports the use of local agricultural and fishery products in MBG kitchens.
He argued that farmers and fishermen in many parts of Papua have traditionally faced limited markets and distribution difficulties. Regular demand from MBG kitchens, he said, could create a more stable market for their products.
This is an important dimension of the proposal because it links social policy with local economic activity.
The programme is not being discussed only as a meal for schoolchildren. In Ones’s vision, it can also become part of a supply chain connecting villages, producers, kitchens and schools.
The Reality Facing Children in Remote Papua
The argument becomes more personal when Ones describes the conditions in remote communities.
He told Metro TV that children in isolated areas can face very different circumstances from those in urban centres where food is easier to obtain.
In some remote communities, he said, families may prepare food mainly in the afternoon. If there are leftovers, they can be kept for the following morning. If there is no remaining food, children may go to school without eating.
The statement reflects Ones’s description of conditions in remote communities, rather than a statistical measurement of all children in Papua.
He also pointed to environmental and seasonal pressures.
Long dry seasons can reduce the availability of staple foods such as tubers and vegetables. When household food supplies become more difficult to maintain, families can face additional pressure when trying to pay for education and daily meals.
For policymakers, such circumstances illustrate why a national programme may need local implementation strategies.
A standard approach designed for urban areas may not automatically work in remote mountain or rural communities.
Food distribution, school locations, transportation and local agricultural production all need to be considered.
MBG and the Local Economy
One’s argument for MBG is therefore partly based on economic considerations.
He sees the programme as a potential buyer of locally produced food.
Metro TV quoted him saying that local farmers and fishermen often experience difficulties finding markets for their products. By creating demand through MBG kitchens, he believes the programme can provide more predictable market opportunities.
JPNN similarly reported his view that using local farm and fishery products for MBG supplies could address two challenges simultaneously: child nutrition and limited market absorption for local producers.
The potential model is simple in concept.
A farmer produces vegetables or other food commodities. A fisherman supplies fish. Local procurement channels move the products to an MBG kitchen. The kitchen prepares meals for children. Public funding supports the programme, while part of the spending circulates within local communities.
For Papua, where transportation costs and distance can complicate access to markets, creating reliable local demand could be significant.
But the effectiveness of such a model would depend on procurement systems, food safety, production capacity, transportation and the ability of local suppliers to meet programme requirements.
Those operational questions are not fully addressed in the statements from Ones, but they will be important if the proposal is expanded.
Tackling Stunting Through Nutrition
Another reason Ones wants MBG extended throughout Papua is the need to improve child nutrition.
Metro TV reported that he wants the programme to reach children throughout Papua Raya and contribute to efforts to address stunting.
For Ones, nutrition is inseparable from human development.
A child who regularly receives nutritious food is better positioned to participate in school, while poor nutrition can make the educational process more difficult.
He therefore views MBG as a policy that operates simultaneously in the health, education and economic sectors.
This cross-sector approach is particularly relevant to Papua, where geographic isolation can make it harder for families to access food, healthcare and education simultaneously.
The Case for Schools Designed Around Local Needs
Education is the other half of Ones’s proposal.
He called for the expansion of the Sekolah Rakyat programme across Papua, with the expectation that each district could eventually have such a school integrated with daily nutritional support.
“We hope that every district builds Sekolah Rakyat so that free food and quality education can automatically support human development,” Ones said, as reported by Metro TV.
Media Indonesia also reported that he called for the expansion of Sekolah Rakyat throughout Papua’s districts, integrating it with nutrition provision.
The concept, as described by Ones, is intended to address two barriers at the same time.
The first is the cost of education.
The second is the cost and availability of adequate food.
For families living in remote areas, reducing both burdens could potentially make school attendance more sustainable.
However, the effectiveness of such a model would depend on the availability of teachers, school facilities, transportation, learning materials and reliable food supplies.
Free access does not automatically guarantee educational quality. It must be accompanied by adequate teaching capacity and infrastructure.
From Infrastructure to Human Development
One of the broader themes in Ones’s statement is the changing definition of development in Papua.
For years, public discussion about development in the region has frequently centred on roads, bridges, airports, telecommunications and other infrastructure.
One does not dismiss those investments. Instead, he argues that direct investment in human capital should increasingly accompany physical development.
JPNN reported that he believes development in Papua should move beyond physical infrastructure towards human development.
This perspective places education and nutrition at the centre of the development equation.
A road can connect a village to a market. A school can equip its children with knowledge. A nutritious meal can support a child’s daily ability to learn.
When combined, those interventions can contribute to a broader development ecosystem.
Why Papua Requires a Different Implementation Strategy
The geography of Papua presents a particular challenge for national programmes.
The six provinces of Papua Raya cover vast territories with communities distributed across cities, coastal areas, islands, valleys and mountainous districts.
The distance between communities means that a programme that works efficiently in a major Indonesian city may require a different logistical model in a remote Papua district.
Ones’s remarks about children going to school without adequate food highlight this challenge from the household level.
The same issue applies to the supply side.
If MBG is expected to use local agricultural and fisheries products, procurement systems must be able to reach small producers.
A farmer in a remote village cannot participate in a formal supply chain simply because demand exists somewhere else. Roads, transportation, storage, refrigeration where necessary and reliable payment systems all matter.
This is where education, nutrition, infrastructure and economic policy intersect.
A Potential Link Between Farmers, Fishermen and Schools
The local procurement aspect of MBG could also change how government spending interacts with rural economies.
Instead of food being brought into Papua entirely from outside the region, part of the demand could potentially be supplied by local producers when production, quality and logistics allow.
Ones specifically highlighted vegetables, agricultural products and fish from local communities.
For farmers and fishermen, stable demand can matter almost as much as price.
When producers know that a reliable buyer exists, they may have greater confidence in increasing production.
For the government, local sourcing could potentially reduce the distance between producers and consumers, although actual cost savings would depend on local conditions.
The proposal therefore has implications beyond nutrition.
It could become a mechanism for linking public expenditure with village economies.
The Political and Policy Dimension
Ones’s appeal is also a request to the central government.
He specifically addressed President Prabowo Subianto and asked the government to calculate the required budget during the current year so implementation could take place the following year.
This means the immediate issue is not simply whether free education and MBG are desirable, but how they would be financed and implemented across Papua.
Budget allocation would have to account for Papua’s geographical conditions and the different costs of reaching remote communities.
The request therefore places Papua’s regional needs within a national policy framework.
The vice governor is asking Jakarta to ensure that national programmes are implemented in a way that reaches communities across the region rather than remaining concentrated in more accessible areas.
Ones’s Broader Argument for OAP Welfare
At the centre of the proposal is the welfare of Orang Asli Papua.
Ones argued that education should become a major channel for economic support directed towards Indigenous Papuans. JPNN reported his proposal that 70 to 80 per cent of economic subsidies should be directed towards supporting OAP through education.
His argument is based on the belief that improving human resources is necessary to reduce long-term inequality.
Rather than focusing solely on immediate financial assistance, education can create capabilities that remain with individuals throughout their lives.
For Papua, this includes access to teachers, vocational skills, higher education and opportunities to participate in the formal economy.
MBG complements that approach by addressing a more immediate need: ensuring that children have food while they are at school.
Together, Ones sees the programmes as a long-term investment in Papua’s younger generation.
A Request, Not Yet a Final Budget Decision
It is important to distinguish Ones Pahabol’s proposal from a confirmed national budget decision.
The sources report his request that President Prabowo’s government calculate and allocate funding so that free education and MBG can be implemented across Papua next year. They do not establish that a final nationwide Papua-specific budget allocation has already been approved.
That distinction matters for readers outside Indonesia.
The current development is an advocacy effort from a provincial leader seeking stronger central government prioritisation. Its next stage would involve policy decisions, budgeting, programme design and implementation.
The proposal will therefore need coordination between national ministries, provincial governments, district governments and local communities.
What Implementation Could Mean for Papua
If the proposal moves forward, the effects would extend beyond classrooms.
For children, the immediate focus would be access to education and nutritious food.
For parents, reducing education and food costs could ease household pressure.
For farmers and fishermen, local procurement could create additional demand.
For local governments, the programmes could become tools for addressing human development alongside infrastructure.
For the central government, Papua would provide a demanding test of how national programmes can be adapted to remote and geographically complex regions.
The central challenge would be ensuring that policy ambition is matched by delivery capacity.
A programme may be nationally funded, but its success will ultimately be experienced in individual schools and communities.
Conclusion
Ones Pahabol’s request to the Indonesian government places two familiar national programmes at the centre of a distinctly Papua-focused development argument.
He wants free education and MBG in Papua to remain a priority under President Prabowo Subianto, with budget planning undertaken in 2026 so implementation can be expanded in 2027.
His argument rests on a simple connection.
Children need food to learn, and they need education to build a future.
In remote Papua, however, delivering both requires more than national policy announcements. It requires schools, teachers, food supplies, transportation, local producers, reliable distribution and coordination between government institutions.
That is why Ones’s proposal also has an economic dimension. His support for using local farm and fishery products in MBG kitchens could potentially connect public nutrition spending with village economies, while his call for Sekolah Rakyat seeks to bring education and nutrition closer together.
The next stage will be determined by budget decisions and implementation.
If the central and regional governments can translate the proposal into reliable services that reach remote communities, the programmes could become an important component of Papua’s human development strategy.
For Papua’s children, the measure of success will be straightforward: whether a child can reach school, learn with adequate support and begin the day without worrying about where the next meal will come from.
That is ultimately the human development question behind Ones Pahabol’s appeal.
Read Also
Papua Prioritizes Local Eggs for Free Nutritious Meals
Papua Free Meals Program Boosts Human Capital
Papua Pegunungan Invests Rp20 Billion in Student Education
Papua Tengah Pledges Rp56 Billion for Education