Hetifah pushes for rematch of MPR RI's Four Pillars LCC final in West Kalimantan

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Chair of Commission X of the House of Representatives (DPR RI) and MPR RI member Hetifah Sjaifudian has urged a rematch of the final round of the Four Pillars of the MPR RI Quiz Competition (LCC) 2026 at the provincial level in West Kalimantan following a controversy stemming from a judging error.

“To ensure fairness, we are pushing for the event in West Kalimantan to be held as a rematch or replay,” said Hetifah when met at the parliamentary complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Tuesday.

Hetifah expressed her concern over the incident that occurred on Saturday (9/5). She also extended apologies, particularly to the students of SMA Negeri 1 Pontianak who were disadvantaged.

As a corrective measure, she urged the MPR RI to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of future competition organisation. Such incidents are hoped not to recur, as they could tarnish the MPR RI’s reputation.

“We hope that not only the judging panel but all parties properly prepare for this competition so that similar cases do not happen again,” she said.

Previously, three senior high schools (SMA) competed in the final round of the MPR RI Four Pillars LCC at the West Kalimantan provincial level in Pontianak: SMA Negeri 1 Pontianak, SMA Negeri 1 Sambas, and SMA Negeri 1 Sanggau.

The competition recently became a hot topic on social media due to a judging error during the buzzer question session. Netizens highlighted the judging panel’s response to participants’ objections.

As seen in the competition video broadcast on the MPRGOID YouTube channel, the judging error began with the question: “In selecting BPK members, the DPR is required to consider input from which institution?”

Team C from SMA Negeri 1 Pontianak answered: “Members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives while considering input from the Regional Representative Council and formalised by the President.”

The judges then deducted five points from Team C’s answer. The same question was then posed to the other team.

Team B from SMA Negeri 2 Sambas answered: “Members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives while considering input from the Regional Representative Council and formalised by the President.”

Team C then raised an objection to the judges’ scoring. “Judges, permission, earlier we answered the same as Team B. The same,” said a representative from the team.

In response, Dyastasita said: “Earlier, for Team C, it was mentioned that there was no consideration from the DPD. It was the DPR.”

“There was,” replied a student from Team C.

“Earlier, I said it like this: members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives while considering input from the Regional Representative Council and formalised by the President,” she continued, repeating the previous answer.

“The judges thought there was no Regional Representative Council mentioned,” Dyastasita interjected.

“Sir, sorry, could you perhaps check views from others too? Maybe from the audience, did anyone hear me say DPD?” the Team C student replied again.

“I think the decision is with the judging panel,” Dyastasita said.

Before the host proceeded to the next question, another judge, Head of the Secretariat of the MPR RI’s Socialisation Agency Indri Wahyuni, provided additional response.

“Like this, right, you’ve been warned from the start that articulation is important. So, get used to answering with clear articulation. If you think you did, but the judges assess that you didn’t because they couldn’t hear your articulation clearly, then the judges have the right to deduct five points,” said Indri.