Shalma Dinda Anggraini Setiono Putri (31)

XII IPS 2

GRAND FINALS ROUND OF NSDC 2020 (BANTEN vs DKI JAKARTA)

Motion : This House Believes That developing countries should allow third parties (e.g.
Private Companies, Other Nations, Individual Entrepreneurs) to bid for the right to govern
parts of their territory.

1. Who are the debaters of the two teams?

The debaters from Banten which occupy the proposition team are listed in order as such:
 Maura Tri Hardini (SMAN 2 Kota Tangerang Selatan)
 Rania Aydin Athifa (SMAN 2 Kota Tangerang Selatan)
 Katiana Indrasasana (SMA Pelita Harapan Karawaci)

The debatrers from opposition team, of Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta, are listed in order
below:
 Jeremiah Gerhard Lubis (SMAN 8)
 Rachelle Amadea Roselynn Nikita Tan (SMAN 70)
 Bonfilio Dazzle Valeriano Gyula (SMA ACS Jakarta)

2. What are the points of each debaters explained?

 Speaker 1 : Maura (Banten - Propostiton)
The first proposition speaker talks that there are abundance of land that didn’t develop
properly by the government for example like in Indonesia, so its better if let third
parties to govern the areas that are in need of development. In this case, there are
several points which :
- The government will decide which type of land that they are going to be for
the third parties to take care of, most probably the underdevelop land that are
empty but have some type of potential but the government must do it very
strategic.
- The people who have to bid it must be legitimate companies which means
there will be background checks and contract.
- The third parties can make their own rules for their areas as far as it doesn’t
disrupt other parts of the country or harm the environment.
She explain the reason why third parties should govern or can make the development
better than the government. She said that because the government can’t focus just for
developing sector but there are more problems that the government must solve. unlike
the third parties who have more less things to take care of and have more resources
can be more focus in making a development to the areas for example if they create
factories which is can will increase employment or create something that increase
tourism, create infrastructure by getting much money from third parties and also
create a better image for our country.
She also explain why its principally justifiable for us to do that. She said because the
government have the interest to equality throughout the country and they are the one
who capable to develop the areas and as the first argument she said that the
government can’t just focus on it so its better if let the third parties take care of it
because it make the development more faster and better which means has a positive
impact on equality in the country.

 Speaker 2 : Jeremiah (DKI Jakarta – Opposition)

He gives his argue as a reply of Maura’s statements :
1. Regarding the type of lands that investors can buy, he said that the investors are
smart enough which that means they won’t buy such a land when they got no benefits
at all.
2. Regarding the restriction, he said it won’t work as Maura said before. Firstly, the
third parties won’t do ang won’t want it because it just as same as the government are
undercut their benefits, and secondly, the supervision of developing countries are very
unreliable.
- by aggreeing it means that the goverment has just broke people’s trust in the
first place, people vote to get protection from the government. But if the
government let the exploitations happen it means we as a citizen didn’t get
protection at all. So instead of agreeing, it better to oppose. Because with that,
government still has power.
- the investors can change their agenda. It is clear that the investors can do it
with the supports of “economic capitalist”. With that, they are going to be very
exploitative to our enviroment & human resources.
- we can still have investors without this law. We can create stability without
having this law, and in this case, government still has power to control if
there’s something wrong in our investors and yet, it also gives benefits to us.

 Speaker 3 : Rania (Banten – Proposition)

Rania explains that side opposition needs to clarify that not all developing countries
have that kind of capability to do so. Developing countries are the one that need
urgency to have the fastest money as possible. That is to say, in their side (the house
of proposition) will be discussing their points such as on which side is more aligned to
the interest of developing countries, second on which party is better on developing the
areas, and on how third parties create better funding for a developing country.
The first proposition of the second speaker, these lands that we’re going to bid are all
abandoned land that are under development and also don’t have any people in it. But
even if so, it doesn’t justify you to use the idea of sovereignty because mostly in
developing countries, don’t have that much money and specialties as a government.
And even so, we have a way to provide a compensation for the people who are forced
to move out and not just abandon them. Secondly, about the responsibilities of the
government, that there is no problem with shifting your duties of taking care of a
territory to other parties who is more worthy to change that land for the better because
that means you have more people to incentivize to develop your land while still being
in control of your responsibilities. Thirdly, government only focus on metropolitan
cities. For example, Papua and Jakarta, have a very different amount of development
making it impossible to achieve an equal development on the side of their house. That
said, the proposition creates an alternative to make recovery of the territory as fast as
possible and landing it to someone who has a better capability.

 Speaker 4 : Rachelle (DKI Jakarta – Opposition)

The policy only gonna exploit our natural resources since the goverment has a weak
mechanism. We can't only focus on the economy itself, there are more aspects we
should look for. While it's never okay to sacrifice our sovereignty only for economic
benefits because it's also means we sacrifice our Workers and indigenous rights to the
third parties.
- it’s really harm us to give such “permission” to big countries e.g US, China, which
means we allow them to dominate the strategic lands in our country e.g Papua, Java
with this law.
- when the third parties has a power to govern their areas means they can make rules
as they want to. It’s gonna create monopoly in those area when in other hand,
government can’t control to it.
- third parties gonna pick the strategic lands where can bring them benefits. So the
idea of making undeveloped lands are never gonna happen.
- regarding the rules that different in each region, it’s just gonna make investors
confused. Even though we have big countries as third parties, it doesn’t matter since
due to it’s rules, investors are no more attracted to invest.
  Speaker 5 : Katiana (Banten - Proposition)
- it can be concluded that developing countries do not have the specialization and
capital at a rapid state in order to keep up with globalization. Other than that, in times
of crises or natural disasters, third parties could just pull off their investment due to
the unstable economy.
-by the government making a decision to let third parties bid on underdeveloped areas
means it’s for the great or good of its nation’s development.
- the concern of exploitation and hiding behind the government’s back, the
government will do a background check and see the balances of the third parties
bidding lands or areas means they will take full responsibility of the areas.

 Speaker 6: Bonfilio (DKI Jakarta - Opposition)

- He is going to deal on a principle basis, and second, he is going to think about the
pragmatic harms which is uncertain in development. He first clarifies that they took a
bizarre half of stats that he really wanted to emphasize, because it is about the rights
of these third parties to govern. Any benefits of third-party companies to make a
factory by moving their operations here was symmetric for their side of the house, on
their side, they are the one who dictate how much minimum wage these worker
actually have. We never see a mechanization of how development will occur. It is
ridiculous to say that there is going to be a delineation of the policy of the government
and the third-party. Giving up your land sovereignty is not justified, and on the land
that they are trying to develop, there is no people living on it.
- To point out the justification, he said that giving up the land sovereignty is not
always justified because they never actually tell you how this development will help
the people itself. Secondly, the only thing they got from proposition team was the
thought of making all places equally.
- The main argument here, was that it was a principal assault on the democratic rights
of the citizens because citizens consented to this by voting. So everything about
backlash and mass scrutiny doesn’t actually work as a mechanism because that’s why
factories like Nike are still being horrible to laborers. Therefore, the more you
regulate and supervise these companies, the mire you undercut your benefit.

3. How did they explain the points?

Each speaker explained the points/ arguments by bringing it up in a clear and firm
tone. Making their arguments strong and convincing. Some speakers supported the
arguments with some data or examples that have occurred, making the arguments
more valid. In every arguments they brought up, they tried to slip the errors from
opponent’s arguments. Each speaker in the team supported one another’s statement or
arguments, make it more strong and hard to argued.