newsletter 7

NEWSLET

TER

E D S U

I

VOLUM

E 7 -

AUGU

ST 201

5

NON INTERFERE

NCE ASEAN - SPE

AKER POSITION -

SOUTH CHINA S

EA DISPUTE - ED

S UI TRIFECTA

EDS UI NEWSLETTER VOL 7 01

CHEERS,EXTERNAL DIVISION

EDS UI 2015

A LETTER FROM EDITOR

EDITOR IN CHIEFMANAGING EDITORLAYOUT AND DESIGN

PUBLICATIONEDITOR

CONTACT USTWITTERTWITTER

WEBFACEBOOK

Gayatri KancanaRatna GandanaIreisha AnindyaImam TaufiqAyu Gayatri

@eds_uieds.ui.ac.ideds.ui.ac.idEnglish Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

THE TEAM

page 5

page 10

page 13

TABLE OF CONTENT(S)

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE

ASEAN MATTER

ASEAN MATTER

TIPS AND TRICKS

COMPETITION REVIEW

SHOULD ASEAN ABANDON ITS NON-INTERFERENCE PRINCIPLE?

WHICH SPEAKER POSITION SUITSME BEST?

THE TRIFECTA


By: Qurrat Aynun Abu Ayub (EDS UI 2013)>>>>>> SHOULD ASEAN ABANDON ITS

NON-INTERFERENCE PRINCIPLE?

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations or commonly abbreviated as ASEAN, is an emerging political and economic organisation of ten South-east Asian countries formed on 8 August 1967. ASEAN has been through a massive transformation since its incep-tion and moving towards a more devel-oped organization. However, challeng-es remain clear for the regional entity to advance. Some international observ-ers view ASEAN as a "talk shop", stating that the organisation is "big on words but small on action" that ASEAN poli-cies have proven to be mostly rhetoric, rather than actual implementation. It is all because the way ASEAN works is highly constrained by the non-interfer-ence principle. ASEAN's commitment to non-inter-ference is enshrined in several of the as-sociation's founding documents and declarations. The 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, for example, recognizes it as fundamental principles "the right of every State to lead its national existence free from ex-ternal interference, subversion or coer-cion" and "[n]on-interference in the in-ternal affairs of one another." Other documents repeat these same themes. The principle has long been ques-tioned; the questions resonate even louder when it comes to human rights

as the region is lagging in this particu-lar matter. The most recent case was thousands of ethnic Rohingnya who fled from Myanmar to Thailand, Indone-sia, and Malaysia. The humanitarian crisis puts the regional organization in a negative light because member states -just like in similar cases in the states -just like in similar cases in the past- cannot do any tangible action and not even condemnation to the slaughters and human rights violation that happened within Myanmar territo-ry. Every of these crises show a signifi-cant drawback for the advancement of the region. ASEAN as the emerging re-gional organization is still not able to assure its human security condition. It is such an irony since people are be-coming the main focus of develop-ment yet there is no certainty about people’s rights. For example, accord-ing to the Kuala Lumpur Declaration on a People-Oriented, People-Centred ASEAN adopted at the 26th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur on April 27th 2015, ASEAN leaders agreed to “con-tinue establishing a people-oriented, people-centred and rules-based ASEAN community where all people, stakeholders and sectors of society can contribute to and enjoy the benefits from a more integrated and connected community encompassing enhanced

ASEAN MATTER


cooperation in the political-security, economic and socio-cultural pillars for sustainable, equitable and inclusive de-velopment”. Under the sub-topic on socio-cultur-al, the declaration stated: “Promote and protect the rights of women, chil-dren, youth and elderly persons as well as those of migrant workers, indige-nous peoples, persons with disabili-ties, ethnic minority groups, people in vulnerable situations and marginalised groups, and promote their interests and welfare in ASEAN’s future agenda including through the ASEAN commu-nity’s post-2015 vision and its atten-dant documents”. ASEAN has human rights body formed in 2009 under the official name of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commis-sion on Human Rights (AICHR). Never-theless, up until now, given the slow and incremental progress of human rights practices in Southeast Asia, the Commission’s achievements have also Commission’s achievements have also been questioned. Optimists would say that ASEAN has achieved a milestone in terms of human rights agreements, as proven by the brand-new ASEAN Human Rights Declaration that was signed by all member states during the 21st ASEAN Meeting in Phnom Penh last November. However, what has been November. However, what has been done post the declaration? How is it

being implemented? Less than a month after the adoption Less than a month after the adoption of the declaration, the plight of the Ro-hingya blew up. It is not a new problem in ASEAN. For decades, ASEAN has turned a blind eye to the fate of the Rohingya, one of the world’s most vulnerable mi-norities. Myanmar is being reluctant to openly discuss the issue and resulting into an obstacle for ASEAN to further de-velop a joint position. Recalling the non-interference principle, there is noth-ing ASEAN can do to neither better the condition of Rohingnya in Myanmar nor provide justice for the violated groups. All in all, ASEAN is trying its best push the progress within the region. ASEAN is very ambitious about the integration, eco-nomic advancement, and socio-develop-ment. It created guiding principle when it comes to human rights protection, found-ed framework to make sure all member states are on the same page upholding the human rights. However, declarations remain as declarations, the human rights body does not have any power, and the member states are using non-interfer-ence as their shield against any critics. Is it true that the regional organization only serves as “talk shop” platform? Is the non-interference principle still relevant to the goal ASEAN want to achieve? Or should ASEAN leave the principle behind because it is the source of hin-drance after all?

”

“

ASEAN MATTER


WHICH SPEAKER POSITION SUITS ME BEST?>>>>>

By: Roderick Sibarani (EDS UI 2009)

TIPS AND TRICK

So, before answering the question in the title, I’d like to disclaim that what I write here is biased to my own personal experience (which of course also takes into account inputs from some of my debater friends), so don’t take it without a grain of salt! Another thing I’d like to disclaim is READING A LOT IS A MUST if you want to perform well in any role. Firstly, let’s establish that your speaker role can play a really huge role in a lot of important things in a debate:1. It can determine your team’s chance in performing at a certain competition.1. It can determine your team’s chance in performing at a certain competition.2. It can determine your chance of getting a higher personal speaker score.3. It can determine how much constructive experience you can take from par-ticipating in a certain competition. This might be important for those planning to join more than one competition and/or make debating sort of a long-term, more than one year career.4. It can determine how much enjoyment you take from debating, but5. It can also mean absolutely nothing. Seriously, if you don’t particularly care about the speaker position, don’t make your involvement debating harder than it actually (already) is.


TIPS AND TRICK

1. Which speaker position you feel most comfortable in? This question can have a very high importance if it’s paraphrased as: which speaker posi-tion you feel least frustrated in?

2. Because some people can only speak in a certain position and it makes them very uncomfortable to speak in a different position. It’s completely al-right for you to be that kind of person, some of the best debaters I know can only comfortably perform in one position.

3. Does my teammate(s) have specific preferred specific role? How un-comfortable are they about changing position?

4. What does your debater friend(s) suggest about your speaker posi-tion? In this question I think you need to prioritize the opinion of those who watch your performance most often above other considerations.

5. Do you think you can allocate time well during speeches? Whether you 5. Do you think you can allocate time well during speeches? Whether you usually manage to bring all the materials you planned on bringing during speeches, whether you usually allocate time for each of those materials even before you speak, whether you usually succeed in carrying out such time planning.

6. Do you think you can structure your speech in an efficient and under-6. Do you think you can structure your speech in an efficient and under-standable manner? Whether audience usually has trouble following your speech, whether your audience managed to understand the majority of what you think you managed to say, whether your audience has the same perception with you about the impact of your analysis towards the entire debate (do they agree with you that it answers a certain burden of proof, do they agree with you that it rebuts a certain point, do they think it actual-ly contradicted other materials your team brought).ly contradicted other materials your team brought).

Those objectives are of course very personal to each one of you. Those ob-jectives are not mutually exclusive with each other, you can make priorities based on those different objectives. Feel free to include inputs from other people and/or change those priorities over time. After setting those priorities, you can answer some of the questions below, and at the end of this article I’m going to tell you the order of relevance of those questions for the different priority you set. It is advisable that you also ask your debater friend(s) about these questions. Especially when the questions refer to “audience”.


7. Do you think you are a person with common sense? Do you find people easily understanding and agreeing with what you say? Do you find it easy to deduct logical conclusion from just observing certain phenome-na? Do people usually agree with those conclusions? Do you often find yourself explaining to other people what you previously meant with some-thing?

8. Do you find it easy to understand what other people are saying? Do 8. Do you find it easy to understand what other people are saying? Do you often find yourself misunderstanding what people say?

9. Do you think it’s easy to construct a logical explanation in a limited time? Do people usually agree with a new idea you come up with in a short time?

10. Do you think you can only come up with logical ideas after following a discussion in a certain amount of time?

11. Do you find it easy to identify a flaw in one statement? Do people usu-11. Do you find it easy to identify a flaw in one statement? Do people usu-ally agree with you with what you identify as logical flaw?

12. Do you find it easy to come up with rather unorthodox, creative ideas? Do people usually agree with those unorthodox after you explain the spe-cific context you’re coming from?

13. Do you find it easy to re-explain what people say?

14. Do you find it easy to listen to your teammate while organizing your 14. Do you find it easy to listen to your teammate while organizing your own speech? Can you easily identify the flaws in your teammate’s explana-tion? Can you easily come up with an explanation to overcome that flaw? To make sure that it’s not just your biased opinion, does audience usually think you effectively rebuild your teammate? Does audience usually think you were repeating what your teammate said when you thought you were rebuilding it?

TIPS AND TRICK


If you agree 5-7, you can be a good first and/or third speaker, you can also be a good outer speaker in British parliamentary format. Why? Because these speaker positions have more must-perform and rather specific duties than, say second speaker. These speaker positions also have a very strict re-quirement to be as efficient as possible in the delivery.

If If you disagree with number 8, it’s not ideal to be a later speaker (speaking position other than first speaker) as later speakers have more responsibility to give responsive analysis to the opponent. In British Parliamentary, you can be a first speaker in closing team if you disagree with number 8, al-though it’s not ideal, it can still be forgiven if your second speaker gives good responsive analysis.

If If you disagree with number 9, it’s not ideal for you to be first speaker. These speakers need to think fast in often times a very limited time.

If you agree with number 10 and/ or 11, maybe later speaker is the ideal po-sition for you.

If If you agree with number 12, then 2nd speaker or inner speaker in British Par-liamentary might be a good position for you. These speakers are valued for the groundbreaking analysis they contribute to the debate. (I, myself, find it really hard to come up with unconventional ideas, that’s why I prefer being an outer speaker). Note that second speaker or member speaker don’t always have to give groundbreaking analysis. There are times when you need to prioritize other duties, either clarifying, responding, rebuild-ing, etc.ing, etc.

If you disagree with number 13, then 1st speaker might not be an ideal po-sition for you because debaters usually expect a certain material described during prep time to be delivered by their first speaker.

If you agree with number 14, then you can be a good later speaker. Make sure you answer the later questions to ensure your complementary analysis are not repetitive.

for number 5 -14

TIPS AND TRICK


If priority 1 is at the top of your list, then you need to give most weight to question 2 and 3. You might want to explore question 13 and communicate it with your teammate(s). You can consider your answer to question 1 & 4 as you wish. Either exclusively or interchangeably depending on whose opin-ion do you think matter more. After that, you can explore the rest of the

questions and communicate it with your teammate(s).

If priority 2 is at the top of your list. Answer question 1, then 4, then ques-tion 5-14.

If priority 3 is at the top of your list, if you’re a newbie debater I suggest that you become the first speaker because I think it’s easiest to monitor first speaker speeches (and thus easiest to evaluate your progress independent-ly) because these positions have a more definite role making each perfor-mance more easily comparable with each other. If you’re no longer a newbie, I personally suggest that you perform the role you feel the least comfortable in because I personally feel even if you have an ideal position, your handle on that position will be significantly improved once you can your handle on that position will be significantly improved once you can

perform in all other positions.

If priority 4 is at the top of your list. Give most weight to question 1 and then make sure you don’t become first speaker if you disagree with

number 13.

If If priority 5 is at the top of your list then just do whatever your teammate feels most comfortable about. Though I feel you must prioritize that in all

scenario. Feel free to disagree.

TIPS AND TRICK


Those are my obviously incomplete observation about the speaker positions avail-able. I hope it helps!

Now, Each Priority of Your Objectives

By: Tanita Dhiyaan Rahmani (EDS UI 2012)

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA DISPUTE:WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHERE WE MIGHT END UP

NOTES 1South China Sea does have hundreds of is-lands and islets, but all of them are unhabited and cannot sustain life. Moreover, almost all will be below the sea level when the sea is at tide.

2According to CSIS (Center for Strategc Stud-ies publication, South China Sea carries 40% of world trade and 50% of energy trade. Malac-ca Strait, which is the gateway to South China Sea has activities 3x more than Canal of Suez and 15x than Canal of Panama, making it the world’s most critical waterway. In addition, Chi-nese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying mentioned that the total worth of the trade in SCS is $5 trillion per year.

>>

ASEAN MATTER

:

ASEAN is not new to territorial dispute amongst its members (and beyond) from Preah Vihear Temple dispute between Cambodia and Thailand, Bay of Bengal between Myanmar and Bangladesh, to Pulau Batu Puteh between Sin-gapore and Malasia yet perhaps nothing has ever become as close as to a re-gional arm conflict than the South China Sea dipsute. The South China Sea dis-pute is essentially the clashing claims of territorial features (reef, island, islet, shoal, etc.) in the South China Sea (SCS) between China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Viet-nam, the Philippines, and Brunei (also reffered as the claimant States). What’s appealing about these contested features isn’t about what the features have to offer1, but the rich resources under and near the features since under interna-tional law, the right to exploit what’s in the water and its shelf is derived from who owns the land nearby. Ultimately, those who control the water lane of SCS is controlling one of the biggest international navigation route2. Many studies conclude that the area has bounteneaous valuable fishery stock (e.g. tuna) as well as the possibility of vast beds of oil and natural gas underneath. well as the possibility of vast beds of oil and natural gas underneath.

For ASEAN claimants, the control to these as-pects will allow economic growth and na-tional development, but it’s more than that for China. China’s assertiveness in pursuing its claim (which consist of 90% of SCS area) has been driven by its growing rivarly with the United States and Japan. The ultimate goal for China is also to establish its hege-mony in the western Pacific and kick US and Japan out of the picture. What seems to occur now is concerning. Studies said that the claims by these countries are murky at best; relying nothing on legal basis but on historical tales. This explains why the claim-ants States began aggressively occupy and run activities in their claimed features since just recently. The Philippines, for example,


planned to signed 15 exploration contracts in the Reed Bank, a contested fea-ture with China, while Vietnam and China intensified reclamation (up to 9,6 mil-lion square area) and even military installation in their contested features in the Spratley Islands. All claimant states except Brunei are noted to have embarked on a substantial enhancement of its maritime military forces, leading to what we see as an arm race between claimant States. Arm clash has also occurred nu-merous time in the past; Vietnamese vessel fired Philippine’s fishing vessel that fished in the Pigeon Reef in 1998, China was alleged to destroy Vietnamese ves-fished in the Pigeon Reef in 1998, China was alleged to destroy Vietnamese ves-sels in the contested waters of Vietnam near the Spratly Island in 2011, and the Philippines’s oil survey ships operating in Reed Bank (near the Palawan Island) have been confronted by Chinese vessels this year. Not only are these instanc-es contravened international law, they escalate tension to the region and dimin-ish the confidence to solve the dispute peacefully.

ASEAN MATTER

Ideally, to avoid arm clash to erupt in a larger scale, the dispute should be solved either diplo-matically or judicially. Declarations after declara-tions and workshops after workshops were con-ducted mainly by ASEAN, but it seems like things are heading nowhere clear since de-cades ago, and here are probably why. One, ASEAN is not a conflict resolution body, it is a conflict management body that heavily relies on the ability of its members to find middle grounds and willing to compromise for a great-er interest. Unfortunately, the strategy has been derailed due to the lack of confidence amongst claimant States as shown from the above exam-ples. Two, a unified ASEAN stance is unlikely to ples. Two, a unified ASEAN stance is unlikely to be achieved because China’s significant influ-ence which recently led Cambodia to side along with China for an economic benefit. This is exactly China’s interest to divide ASEAN as it allows them to opt bilateral talks instead of mul-tilateral, giving them more bargaining chip (this tactic is commonly referred to tactic is commonly referred to “divide and rule”). Three, solving it through judicial bodies such as ICJ or ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) is hard to achieve, since ICJ requires both parties to consent before the pro-ceeding (which claimant States are reluctant to


ASEAN MATTER

do so, especially China) and ITLOS has arguable jurisdiction in this matter. Per-haps the only option left there is for ASEAN is to show its ASEAN Way swag, putting this highly strategic issue in its re-gional frame above individual state’s in-terests, because if ASEAN cannot make peace within themselves first, what’s at stake is either devastatingly imbalance arm conflict or more infiltration of exter-nal forces (possibly US and Japan) that will surely shook the values and dynamic of ASEAN.

For comprehensive and on-point articles on South China Sea dispute, read along:

1. South Asia’s Troubled Waters: http://www.-cairn-int.info/article-E_PE_143_0035--dis-putes-in-the-south-china-sea.htm

2. Latest Negotiation on South China Sea: http://www.france24.com/en/20120713-ase-an-diplomacy-dis-pute-row-south-china-sea-china-philippines-vietnam-malaysia-brunei

3. Succint review and timeline of the dispute: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacif-ic-13748349

NOTES:


THE TRIFECTABy: I Gusti Ayu Sri Gayatri K.D. (EDS UI 2013)

COMPETITION REVIEW

In the spirit of debating proliferation, EDS UI also contributes in coloring up the second half of the debating season annually. We hold 3 competitions of our very own to give debaters more avenues to show their debating skills, as well as winning more trophies and making new networking. Namely Just For Fun Debate (JFF), Newbies Debate and Founders’ Trophy (FT), each of them is specially made to feed up experiences to debaters with different kinds of hunger. Here are their brief profiles:

Just For Fun Debate (JFF)

SOURCE : EDS UI


This one is the meal for debaters who are in hunger for jokes and fun things to laugh on, in the jungle of serious discus-sion about economics crisis and terror-ism. JFF has been held annually every September since 2009 with a very noble purpose to fill the first days of the new (and probably stressful) academic year (and probably stressful) academic year with witty jokes and laughter. Unlike tradi-tional debating competition, JFF gives award for The Funniest Speaker along with the usual Best Speaker title. It also adds a column in the score sheet rating the funny level of a speaker, ranging from 1 to 10. Debaters are also free to make up funny names upon their composite duos, to compete in this British Parliamen-tary open format. Taking place for two days in Depok Campus, JFF offers a very cheap registra-tion fee. It costs 100.000 rupiah per team for the last 2 years, and 75.000 rupiah in years before. In 2009, it was even free-of-charge! It was combined with a pot-luck for break-fasting together. The main thing that brings JFF its fame , is its spectacular motions that derives into speeches that can even make adjudicators stop paying attentions for some seconds, just to chuckle, before being able to tune in back to the ongoing round. It is nowhere on earth you can debate upon “This house believes that opposition should win” if it is not in JFF.

>>>>>>>>>

Trivia! The themes being discussed on JFF in 7 years of its commencement:

2014 : Disney 2013 : Movies 2012 : Future 2011 : Harry Potter 2011 : Harry Potter 2010 : Tribute to Philosophy, The Mother of Science 2009 : 9/11 in Memoriam

This year’s JFF will be discussing about popular culture, especially what’s up in buzzfeed and 9gag. And the laughter will be on the air of UI Depok Campus on September 5th to 6th 2015.


Newbies Debate

SOURCE : EDS UI

This is the perfect meal for the new ar-riving debaters in varsity ground, com-monly known as newbies or also novice. Held annually around October and No-vember, Newbies Debate aims to give warm welcome to those who never been competing in any varsity level competi-tive debating (even for those who were in swing teams). This will give debaters a ground to compete with people in a rela-tively same starting point. It will be a nice bridge to enter the more competitive de-bates in varsity level.

COMPETITION REVIEW

Conducted in Asian Parliamentary format, this institution-based competi-tion will be a good chance for young bright speakers to emerge as soon as they enter a new college. All the motions are impromptu, but no worries, be-cause Newbies Debate also provides senior debaters from various institutions to join the teams in case-building time. They will be guiding the teams and sharing some tips and tricks which are useful for your debating career. A strong debating society should have unlimited stock of bright debaters and they can only come if we start nurturing them since their first months in col-lege. So, dear novice debaters, your first varsity best speaker and champion title await you early this November 2015 in Kampus UI Depok!

Founders’ Trophy

Besides the FT Trophy which is to be given from a champion to the other champion, the organizing committee also provides trophies as your fix be-longings. Each of the champion and best speaker for main and novice cate-gory will be given a specially designed animal – like trophy. The iconic animal is different every year, chosen according to the theme brought by EDS UI’s youngest batch, who serves as the Organizing Committee. It’s a very nice chance to get various generations of debaters reunite on a weekend in UI Depok. Since it is only in FT, numbers of legendary alumni will come whether as debaters, adjudicators or simply enjoying time as audi-ence while meeting their old debater friends and getting to know people from their younger batches. Some of them also contribute motions and do-nating cool books as the prizes for each round’s best speakers and the top 10 speakers. Get yourself ready to close the season this year with this oldest and one of the most prestigious open BP tournament nationwide, coming soon at the end of this November.

This is the most delicious meal for the brave souls. You can be starters, intermediates or even alumni to join as long as you are ready to be chal-lenged with tough motions in thrilling rounds. Cre-ated in the beginning of millennium, 2000 , by EDS UI alumni, the competition is dedicated for the 4 founders of EDS UI, who made the first ever debating society in Indonesia; who grew up the debating society in Indonesia; who grew up the seeds of critical thinking activities combined up with the art of public speaking. That is why the winner of this competition is awarded with the prestigious wooden trophy of 4 people, symboliz-ing the founders and their hard works of establish-ing a debating society where we are in today.

SOURCE : INDODEBATE

COMPETITION REVIEW


NEW SLETTER EDS UI VO LUM E 7AUGUST 2015

newsletter 7

Documents