MPR Issues Apology Over Judging Incident in 2026 Four Pillars Quiz Final in West Kalimantan

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) of the Republic of Indonesia has issued an apology regarding the judging incident in the final round of the Four Pillars MPR Quiz Competition 2026 at the West Kalimantan provincial level.

MPR Deputy Speaker Abcandra Muhammad Akbar Supratman emphasised that the institution will conduct a thorough evaluation of the judges’ performance and the competition system.

“We apologise for the judges’ negligence. We will follow up on this incident,” said Akbar in a statement received by ANTARA in Jakarta on Monday.

Akbar expressed regret over the incident that occurred on Saturday (9/5).

He stressed the importance of judges acting objectively and being responsive to participants’ objections.

Additionally, he noted elements of negligence by the organising committee and judges, such as issues with audio setup and the appeals mechanism.

Therefore, Akbar stated that the MPR will promptly conduct a full evaluation.

“I believe this quiz competition needs to be evaluated to make it better. There should be no more incidents like this,” he said.

Previously, three senior high schools (SMA) competed in the final round of the Four Pillars MPR Quiz Competition at the West Kalimantan provincial level in Pontianak.

The three schools were SMA Negeri 1 Pontianak, SMA Negeri 1 Sambas, and SMA Negeri 1 Sanggau.

Recently, the competition has been widely discussed on social media due to a judging error during the buzzer question session. Netizens highlighted the judges’ response to participants’ objections.

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

Team C from SMAN 1 Pontianak answered: “Members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives, taking into account the consideration of 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 SMAN 1 Sambas then answered: “Members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives, taking into account the consideration of the Regional Representative Council and formalised by the President.”

The judges then declared Team B’s answer correct. “Yes, the essence of the answer is correct. Ten points,” said the head judge, Dyastasita W.B., Head of the Assessment Bureau of the MPR Secretariat General.

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

In response, Dyastasita said: “For Team C earlier, the consideration from the DPD was not mentioned. It was DPR.”

“It was there,” replied the student from Team C.

“I said it like this: members of the Financial Audit Board are selected by the House of Representatives, taking into account the consideration of 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 look at others’ views too? Maybe from the audience, did anyone hear me say DPD?” the Team C student replied again.

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

Before the host continued the competition to the next question, another judge, Indri Wahyuni, Head of the Secretariat Section of the MPR Socialisation Agency, provided an additional response.

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