{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1793737,
        "msgid": "gone-with-the-wind-1781009782",
        "date": "2026-06-09 19:00:00",
        "title": "Gone with the Wind",
        "author": "Teguh Firmansyah",
        "source": "REPUBLIKA",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Politics",
        "summary": "An opinion piece by Sudirman Said uses a recent quiz competition scandal in Pontianak as a metaphor for the state of Indonesian governance. The incident, where a correct answer was unfairly penalised, is presented as a miniature reflection of a broader national decline in integrity, fairness, and credibility. The author warns that when essential values collapse, public trust and the entire supporting system crumble.",
        "content": "<p>What is the state of our nation? \u201cWe are good, but actually we could\nstill be much better,\u201d a respected religious figure remarked in an\nintimate discussion not long ago. The phrase before the comma feels calm\nand serene. The phrase after it seems to hold an alarm.<\/p>\n<p>A month ago, there was a minor \u201cstir\u201d in Pontianak. It stemmed from\nan MPR event on 9 May 2026: the 2026 Four Pillars Quiz Final for high\nschools across West Kalimantan Province. The finalists were three teams:\n(A) Sanggau, (B) Sambas, and (C) Pontianak. All from SMA Negeri 1.\nDuring the \u201cquick answer\u201d session, the MC read out a question: \u201cIn\nselecting members of the BPK, the DPR is required to consider the\nopinion of which institution?\u201d<\/p>\n<p>From Team C, a young woman called out an answer that was, in fact,\nthe wording of Article 23F paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Very\nfluent. But, alas, the judge gave a score of -5. The opportunity was\nthen taken by Team B: their answer was the same, but the same judge\nawarded them +10. Unsatisfied, the girl from Team C interrupted, \u201cExcuse\nme, earlier we answered the same as Team B.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>One sentence. One act of courage. She clearly did not stay silent.\nShe refused to accept it. But not by shrieking. Not by scolding. Even\nwhen the judge dismissed her, she calmly asked the audience to check for\nthemselves. An Attitude. A form of decorum.<\/p>\n<p>The panel of judges insisted, \u201cThe decision is in our hands\u201d\u2014another\nway of saying \u201cwe are the ones holding power\u201d? The MC, who had the\nopportunity to validate, instead praised the judge as someone who was\n\u201calready very competent and very thorough\u201d\u2014an amplification of \u201cthe\njudge is always right\u201d? To the protesting team, the MC subtly cornered\nthem, \u201cperhaps that is just your feeling\u201d\u2014a euphemism for \u201cjust accept\nyour fate!\u201d?<\/p>\n<p>What actually happened? From the video that circulated, it was clear\nthat Team C\u2019s answer was 100% identical to Team B\u2019s. The Pontianak stage\nquickly exposed its true nature: this was a spectacle of forced power,\nnot a contest of honourable competition.<\/p>\n<p>What happened afterwards? The public was outraged. The MPR was\nslapped in the face. The MPR, MC, and judge apologised. The judge and MC\nwere immediately deactivated. Were the relevant MPR elements\ndeactivated? Who knows.<\/p>\n<p>What is the message behind it? Borrowing the diction from the\nopening: generally the event went well, but actually it could still be\nmuch better. The first \u201cgood\u201d is the realm of the skin, or\nprocedural.<\/p>\n<p>The second \u201cgood\u201d is the realm of the flesh, or essence: integrity,\nfairness, open-mindedness, propriety, rectitude, having shame, and so\non. When the essential \u201cgood\u201d is stripped away, the entire supporting\nsystem collapses and crumbles. A decline in trust and credibility\noccurs. What is the point of a splendid programme if its trust and\ncredibility are already gone with the wind?<\/p>\n<p>The universe is at work. After a month since the Pontianak uproar\npassed, it feels necessary to reflect for a moment; it seems to offer\nitself as a miniature stage of the nation\u2019s condition. The narrative and\nthe roles of its actors\u2014the judge, the MC, the MPR, the audience, Team\nA, Team B, and especially Team C\u2014truly reflect the current inner\natmosphere. Let us examine it.<\/p>\n<p>First, \u201cThe decision is entirely in the hands of the judge.\u201d There is\nno discourse. No exchange of arguments. Aspirations are castrated. As\nlong as a nation is managed by a dominance of muscle\u2014not brain and\nconscience\u2014then it will be impossible for a climate of correction and\ngenuine partnership to grow. What flourishes instead is: falseness,\nyes-men, mutual suspicion, indifference, inequality, poverty, injustice,\nand eventually a flash flood of abuse of power and repression across all\nlines. Do we want to continue like this?<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/gone-with-the-wind-1781009782",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}