Quiz Controversy: MPR RI Reviews Additional Sanctions for Judges

The organisation of the Four Pillars of the MPR RI Quiz Competition at the West Kalimantan provincial level, held on 9 May, continues to attract scrutiny due to the judging system. Following the controversy, the MPR RI General Secretariat is reviewing additional sanctions against the panel of judges. The MPR RI has already imposed a deactivation sanction on the judges in the competition. “If there are other administrative sanctions, there are rules and processes for them. That is currently in the stage,” said MPR RI Secretary General Siti Fauziah during a press conference at the parliamentary complex in Senayan, Jakarta, quoted from ANTARA on Thursday, 14 May 2026. Subsequently, she said, the secretariat will investigate the judges from within the MPR based on applicable regulations. She explained that the secretariat will investigate the judges from within the MPR based on applicable regulations from the State Civil Service Agency (BKN). “Because only today we communicated with the MPR leadership, so we will look at the applicable rules from BKN. Is there any element that could be related to the rules in BKN?” she said. She also assured that the panel of judges will not be involved again in the 2026 MPR RI Four Pillars Quiz Competition, including in the special re-competition for the final round at the West Kalimantan provincial level. Previously reported, this quiz competition, which has drawn significant attention from social media users, began when the MC read a question regarding the mechanism for selecting members of the Financial Audit Agency (BPK) involving considerations from the Regional Representative Council (DPD). A participant from Group C named Josepha Alexandra answered: “Members of the Financial Audit Agency are elected by the House of Representatives taking into account considerations from the Regional Representative Council and are officially appointed by the President.” However, that answer received a minus 5 score from judge Dyastasita WB. When the question was passed to another group, Group B gave an answer with the same sentence structure as Group C. This time, the judge awarded full points of 10. The difference in decisions immediately triggered protests from Group C participants. They felt they had given the correct answer in line with the substance of the question. On the other hand, the judges claimed they did not hear the mention of the word “DPD” in Group C’s answer and emphasised that articulation is an important factor in judging.