Natasha Hawkins                                                                                                         15

II – Optimism                                                                                       December 14, 2007

ADJUDICATION

                        The negative side of the previous debate was that Myanmar’s membership in the ASEAN not be revoked. The first negative constructive speaker started out with telling us of the recent events and controversies that Burma is experiencing. Massive human rights violations were taking place; the villages were being massacred by the military itself. The speaker expounds that if the ASEAN revokes the membership of Myanmar in the summit, then it will be going against the very principles of the ASEAN. If the ASEAN does revoke their membership, the speaker says that more disorder will ensue so they should just continue to influence Myanmar with non-stop talks. The Speaker gave good examples of past events, such as the one about North and South Korea and she also gave an analogy regarding a black sheep in the family, the family must still reach out to that member or even more chaos can occur. Her cross-examination was what I found, the most thorough and the best out of the entire cross exams. The speaker did not appear very confident in some parts, and rushed at the end of her speech.

                        The second constructive speaker added more strong points. Her main argument was that the ASEAN should stick to their commitment or what else would the ASEAN be for? By revoking Myanmar’s membership, it will be going against their core purpose of attaining a unified Asian region. She stated that it is part of ASEAN’s duty to help the countries part of their summit when help is needed and by doing so, it would help end the problems facing Myanmar. Her cross examination was rather short and it was not able to prove the point well enough, which is a shame since her argument was one of the strongest in the Debate. She spoke well with some conviction, though she did fumble with some words. She also spoke too quickly in other parts of her speech.

                        The first negative rebuttal speaker expounded more on ASEAN conducting more ARF meetings and that more talks should ensue. That there should be a peaceful intervention despite differences. She was not really able to rebut the Affirmative side’s arguments well. She was barely understandable, mumbled a lot of incoherent words and sometimes spoke too quickly. The second negative rebuttal speaker again expounded and added more good points. She stated that would one nation let another nation fall for its own benefits? She, like the first rebuttal speaker, again stated that it is not possible to help build democracy overnight so more efforts are needed. She stated that if Myanmar’s membership be revoked, then the ASEAN will be going against their own policies of attaining a community of peace. She rebutted the affirmative side’s arguments, saying that is selfish for the ASEAN to turn their backs on Myanmar and that the credibility of the ASEAN attaining a unified and peaceful Asia will be tarnished. The speaker did not speak with much conviction; she paused often and rushed in the latter parts.

            The best speaker is Tetris Tan, the best debater is Verna Tan and the winning side is the Negative side.