I Received a Report

But would he dare to share the same directly in front of the president? Not necessarily. The risk is he could be removed from office.

Besides that culture of silence, perhaps the cabinet also suffers from perspective bias, where indicators (means) become targets (ends).

Goodhart’s Law states that when a measure becomes a target, it risks losing its ability to assess a program’s success substantively.

In government, when economic growth or budget absorption is used as a benchmark for success, the focus shifts from the quality of results to merely achieving numbers.

As a result, means (instruments) may be treated as ends (goals), while the substance of development, such as job creation, income, and community welfare, becomes overlooked.

For instance, the target for improving economic welfare seems parallel to establishing as many village cooperatives and outlets as possible.

In fact, the number of cooperatives formed and outlets built are merely means, not ends. Both are instruments for achieving a more substantive goal, namely improving community welfare.

Imagine if the government experiences such a phenomenon, reported figures may inflate while actual results deflate. “80,000 village cooperatives have been established, 28,000 outlets have been built, and so on.”

What needs to be emphasized is that the president should not be dazzled by reports full of numbers from his aides. Conversely, the president must leave room for doubt in accepting those reports.

In the past, I assumed perhaps Bappisus was formed for that purpose. The president was expected to obtain A1 information from the field to challenge reports from ministers with an A2 status. However, it seems my assumption was incorrect.

Echo Chamber

The problem becomes even more complicated when cabinet meetings create an echo among them. Imagine an echo that begins from ABS reports, then conveyed by the president without review and later reaffirmed and believed by the ministers. The outcome is a truth believed by the president and his cabinet.

Consequently, statements like, “Ladies and gentlemen, I am now proud to be your leader, I am proud to be your president, I am proud to have led this government because in two years, we have worked with tangible results” (21/10). 

This statement does not align with the voices of public discontent, which continue to rise.

For example, I use ride-hailing services daily. When relaxed, I ask drivers about the impact of the maximum 8 percent cut policy set by the government. All drivers (two-wheeled and four-wheeled) respond similarly, “No impact!”.

This brief conversation at least shows that the Presidential Regulation No. 27 of 2026 has not been felt by drivers.

The regulation is merely an instrument, so it would be strange if the president claimed to have worked with tangible results merely upon issuing the regulation. Implementation needs to be ensured through monitoring and enforcement.

On a general aggregate level, an SMRC survey (17/10) confirms that 53.4 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the president's performance. Following up from several previous surveys, public satisfaction levels have tended to decrease over time.

In November 2025, public satisfaction was still very high at 81.2 percent. Then it dropped by about 20 percent in March 2026, down to 66.4 percent.

By July, it fell again to 51.1 percent. By October 2026, only 44.5 percent reported being satisfied or quite satisfied.