Gaslighting Young Citizens: What the 2026 MPR RI Civic Quiz Controversy Reveals About Institutional Communication

On May 9, 2026, what appeared to be a minor dispute during a high school civic competition evolved into a national conversation about public trust, institutional accountability, and communication ethics in Indonesia.

The controversy emerged during the provincial final of the 2026 MPR RI Four Pillars Quiz Competition (LCC Empat Pilar MPR RI) in West Kalimantan, where three schools competed: SMAN 1 Sanggau, SMAN 1 Sambas, and SMAN 1 Pontianak.

During the competition, Josepha Alexandra from SMAN 1 Pontianak answered a question regarding the appointment mechanism of Indonesia’s Audit Board (BPK). Her response stated that members of the BPK are elected by the House of Representatives (DPR) with consideration from the Regional Representative Council (DPD) and formally inaugurated by the President.

Substantively, the answer was correct.

However, the judging panel reduced her score, arguing that the reference to the DPD was not clearly heard. The controversy intensified when a nearly identical answer from another team later received full points.

When Josepha protested the inconsistency, the event’s master of ceremonies, Shindy Luthfiana, responded with a statement that quickly went viral across Indonesia:

“Please accept the judges’ decision, because the judges present today are highly competent and very thorough in listening to the answers. Maybe it is only your feeling. Perhaps you can watch the replay after the event is finished.”

The phrase “maybe it is only your feeling” became the focal point of public backlash.

From a public communication perspective, this was not merely a poor choice of words. It reflected a communication pattern commonly associated with gaslighting: a form of psychological manipulation in which individuals are encouraged to doubt their own perception, memory, or understanding of reality.

Gaslighting is damaging enough in interpersonal relationships. In institutional public communication, however, the consequences become significantly more severe. A high school student, emotionally invested in a nationally recognized civic competition, was not confronting an individual alone. She was confronting institutional authority represented by official moderators, judges affiliated with the Secretariat General of the MPR RI, and the formal structure of a state-sponsored event.

In this context, institutional legitimacy amplified the psychological pressure.

More importantly, the incident unintentionally communicated a dangerous civic lesson. The LCC Empat Pilar program is designed to educate young Indonesians about democracy, citizenship, and constitutional values. Yet the public perception created by this incident suggested the opposite: that authority should not be questioned, that procedural power outweighs factual accuracy, and that objections can be dismissed as emotional reactions rather than legitimate concerns.

This is where communication failures become governance failures.

The repeated emphasis that the judges were “highly competent” functioned not as reassurance, but as a shield against accountability. Competence should strengthen transparency and openness to correction. Instead, in this case, institutional authority appeared to be used to close the space for dialogue.

For leaders, public institutions, communication professionals, and event organizers, this controversy offers several critical lessons.

First, authority is not a substitute for accountability. Institutional credibility depends not on appearing infallible, but on demonstrating fairness when mistakes occur.

Second, empathy is not weakness. Acknowledging public concerns, especially from young participants in educational programs, strengthens institutional trust rather than undermining it.

Third, language carries moral consequences. In crisis communication and public-facing environments, a single dismissive phrase can reshape national perception more powerfully than formal protocols or branding efforts.

Finally, fair objection mechanisms are part of good institutional design. Transparent review systems are not administrative burdens; they are trust infrastructure.

The broader issue is not whether one participant deserved additional points. The larger question is what kind of civic culture institutions are teaching future generations through their communication behavior.

Public trust is not lost only through corruption or policy failure. Sometimes, it is lost through a single sentence that tells citizens their reality is “only a feeling.”

For modern institutions, especially those responsible for civic education and democratic values, communication is no longer secondary to governance. Communication is governance.