Socio Today
JAKARTA — Results from a comprehensive public perception and expert evaluation survey released by the Center of Economic and Law Studies (Celios) have placed Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Bahlil Lahadalia at the center of public discourse. According to the findings, Bahlil earned the lowest performance score among cabinet members in the administration led by President Prabowo Subianto. The survey methodology combined broad public polling with targeted expert judgments, yielding critical insights into how citizens and specialists perceive the execution of vital governmental portfolios during the administration’s current term.
The release of these metrics arrives at a delicate juncture for the administration, prompting varied reactions from political analysts, civil society organizations, and the targeted officials themselves. As governance enters a phase marked by stringent economic targets and ambitious national development goals, public evaluations of ministerial effectiveness carry significant weight in shaping policy direction and maintaining administrative accountability.
Survey Methodology and Core Findings
The Celios assessment utilized a dual-track evaluation framework, capturing both grassroots sentiments and specialized professional evaluations. For the public perception metric, data collection took place between October 2 and October 17, 2025. The survey engaged a sample size of 1,338 respondents representing a diverse cross-section of society, including rural residents, suburban communities, and urban centers across the archipelago. To capture this broad demographic, researchers deployed digital data collection techniques utilizing targeted advertisement formats on major social media platforms, specifically Facebook and Instagram, ensuring wide geographical and socio-economic distribution.
In the public sentiment scoring, Bahlil Lahadalia recorded the lowest net score, registering at –1320. This negative sentiment was mirrored in the evaluation conducted by subject-matter experts. Within the expert judgment category—which assessed policy execution, transparency, regulatory consistency, and strategic foresight—Bahlil similarly scored the lowest among his peers, registering at –151.
The survey did not single out the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources alone; several other high-profile cabinet positions also received negative performance evaluations from the combined respondent pool. Following Bahlil in the rankings of lowest-performing ministers based on the survey’s composite metrics was the Minister of Human Rights, Natalius Pigai, who secured the second-lowest position with a score of –346.
Further down the index, Coordinating Minister for Food Zulkifli Hasan recorded a score of –253, reflecting public and expert anxieties surrounding food security, agricultural supply chains, and price stability. Minister of Tourism Widiyanti Putri Wardhana followed with a score of –180, while Minister of Culture Fadli Zon registered a score of –170. These cumulative figures illustrate widespread scrutiny across multiple strategic sectors, ranging from resource management and human rights to food policy, tourism, and cultural governance.
Response from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources
Confronted with the survey results during a public appearance at the Golkar Party DPP office in Jakarta on Tuesday, October 21, 2025, Bahlil Lahadalia maintained a composed demeanor. The minister, who also serves as the General Chairman of the Golkar Party, stated that he had not yet thoroughly examined the detailed findings of the Celios report.
"I haven’t read it yet, let me read it first," Bahlil told journalists when asked for his official response regarding his placement at the bottom of the performance index.
Despite acknowledging his unfamiliarity with the specifics of the data, Bahlil offered a broad defense of his ministerial record over the preceding year within President Prabowo Subianto’s administration. He asserted that the operations and outcomes under his purview were proceeding adequately and without fundamental institutional crises.
"Everything is fine, everything is good," Bahlil stated, downplaying the negative quantitative metrics generated by the independent economic and public policy think tank.
The minister’s remarks reflect a common political stance when confronted with unfavorable polling data, prioritizing direct engagement with departmental deliverables over abstract public opinion indices. However, political observers note that dismissing such evaluations outright could risk alienating public trust, particularly in sectors as vital to the national economy as energy and mineral resources.
Contextualizing the Evaluation: The Energy and Mineral Resources Portfolio
Bahlil Lahadalia’s position at the helm of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources places him at the nexus of Indonesia’s economic engine. The ministry oversees the management, regulation, and exploitation of the nation’s vast oil, gas, and mineral wealth—sectors that form the backbone of state revenues and industrial downstreaming policies.
Over the past year, the ministry has faced complex structural challenges. These include navigating the transition toward renewable energy sources, managing domestic energy subsidies, addressing regulatory hurdles in mining permits, and balancing environmental concerns with the aggressive acceleration of nickel and other critical mineral processing plants. The complexity of these overlapping mandates often exposes the ministry to sharp criticism from environmental watchdogs, industrial stakeholders, and consumer advocacy groups alike.
The inclusion of other senior officials in the lower tiers of the Celios index further highlights the systemic pressures facing the current administration. For instance, the low ranking of the Coordinating Ministry for Food underscores persistent public sensitivity toward inflation, staple food affordability, and agricultural self-sufficiency goals. Similarly, evaluations of the Ministry of Human Rights and the Ministry of Culture point to ongoing debates regarding institutional efficacy, legislative prioritization, and the protection of civil liberties and national heritage in a rapidly modernizing society.
Expert Analysis and Broader Implications
Independent policy analysts examining the Celios survey results emphasize that indices of this nature serve a dual purpose within a democratic framework. On one hand, they provide a snapshot of public discontent and sector-specific challenges that formal government reporting mechanisms might overlook. On the other hand, digital surveys deployed via social media platforms can sometimes be influenced by immediate, highly publicized controversies or short-term economic pressures rather than long-term strategic progress.
The methodology utilized by Celios—combining mass digital sampling with expert panels—offers a hybrid perspective designed to mitigate pure populism by incorporating technical evaluations. The divergence or alignment between public sentiment (evidenced by Bahlil’s –1320 score) and expert judgment (–151) suggests that while specialists recognize the structural difficulties inherent in the energy sector, the general populace feels the immediate impact of policies, potentially through fuel price adjustments, electricity tariff debates, or localized environmental disputes tied to mining activities.
For President Prabowo Subianto’s administration, such independent evaluations act as an informal diagnostic tool. Cabinets operating under high-growth expectations must balance the political cost of unpopular structural reforms with the necessity of long-term economic restructuring. Ministries dealing with foundational commodities and resources are inherently vulnerable to negative sentiment, as fluctuations in global commodity markets directly trickle down to domestic purchasing power.
As the administration progresses past its initial operational milestones, the pressure on ministers flagged in the Celios report to demonstrate tangible, citizen-centric results will likely intensify. Whether the leadership will implement targeted policy adjustments in response to these performance metrics remains to be seen, but the data undeniably establishes a benchmark of public and expert skepticism that the affected ministries must actively work to overcome.
