Feudalism of the Jury Panel
This article is a column; the entire content and opinions represent the personal views of the author and do not reflect the editorial stance.
That afternoon, upon watching the video that later went viral, my thoughts immediately drifted back to my high school days participating in the MPR’s Four Pillars Smart Quiz Competition.
There was a sense of pride in seeing young students demonstrate their understanding of nationalism, the constitution, and civic life through the 2026 MPR RI Four Pillars Quiz Competition.
The video that captured public attention originated from the provincial final of the 2026 MPR RI Four Pillars Quiz Competition in West Kalimantan, held in Pontianak on Saturday.
The event was participated in by nine senior high schools from various regions in West Kalimantan. After selection rounds, three schools advanced to the final: SMAN 1 Pontianak, SMAN 1 Sambas, and SMAN 1 Sanggau. (Kompas.com, 11/5/2026)
The issue arose during the answer buzzer session when the jury posed the question: “In selecting BPK members, the DPR must consider input from which institution?”
Team C from SMAN 1 Pontianak was the first to respond.
Confidently, a female student stated, “Members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives, taking into account the considerations of the Regional Representative Council, and formalised by the President.”
In substance, this answer directly referenced the constitutional provision, specifically Article 23F paragraph (1) of the 1945 UUD NRI.
However, instead of receiving additional points, the team was deducted five points by the jury led by Dyastasita WB, Head of the Assessment Bureau of the MPR RI Secretariat.
This time, the jury awarded full marks on the grounds that “the core of the answer is already correct.”
It was this contradictory decision that ignited public anger. A representative from Team B questioned the basis of the judging: why was an answer with the same substance deemed wrong for one team but correct for another?
On one hand, I must say I am proud of Team C for daring to speak up and respond with the facts at hand.
Of course, as the nation’s youth, this is what is called a brave attitude, imbued with nationalism; they are realising what democracy truly means.
For me personally, Team C has shown that they are no longer merely competing in a quiz, but truly reflecting on the meaning of the four consensuses of nationhood and statehood.