I thank the opposition for agreeing to do this debate. This debate is over whether the Sovereign State of Malaysia should aid the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements in achieving unification with the country. As specified in the rules, this debate will be argued in what best fits the interests of Malaysia. Therefore, the central idea of the debate can be narrowed down to "Will this resolution help the State of Malaysia?" My side intends to prove that Malaysia will benefit from having the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements united with the rest of the country.
Return To Top | Posted:
I sincerely thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. I would like to praise him by building up such a good case.
I will make my opponents’ case clearer by dividing them into a few points.
1. +Eventual unification with Malaysia is made more likely, given that the region of Patani and its people are mostly of the Malay ethnic group, and influenced by Malay culture+
This shouldn’t be the reason why Malaysia should help. Just because they are the same race does not mean that they should help. I would like to point out that the people of the country (Malaysia) is mostly religious that is Christians, Muslim, Buddhist and Hinduism. My opponent did not know that the PULO is not religious. You can see it here. The religions of PULO and Malaysia are different.
‘The main thrust of PULO is not religious but rather ethnic and nationalist’
2. + Two of the ethnic groups, the Malay and Dayak, have strong ties with the nation of Malaysia +
Nope. I don’t think so. An Indian living in Malaysia is having strong ties with Indians from US. That is not the reason why US should help. This is not ‘a’ reason yet for Malaysia to help. They can be the same race but they are having different ideology. They (PULO) are terrorist. Malaysia doesn’t terrorist you can see that a terrorist from Malaysia which is ‘Chin Peng’ is not welcomed here.
‘Chin Peng died at the age of 88, inBangkok, Thailand. Prior to his death, he was living in exile in Thailand and had not been permitted to return to Malaysia contrary to one of the conditions of the 1989 peace agreement.’
Again, I would like to note that half of my opponent’s case is irrelevant to the debate. The money and resource will be part of my case.
Malaysia won’t be a ‘suitable’ country to help.
1. PULO is a violence group.
‘In 2004 the group conducted bomb attacks on urban targets as well as conventional guerrilla attacks on Royal Thai Military posts and convoys; village, tribal, and government leaders; Buddhist, priests; and government civil servants such as teachers and officials. The group typically utilizes small-scale bombings, or drive-by shootings to carry out terrorist violence.’
Malaysia is not a violence country. So, Malaysia won’t help. The PULO has rejected democracy and used violence to achieve their whatsoever objective. So, do you think helping PULO is good? I have proven that PULO is bad and why we should not help them. This is not morally right for Malaysia to help. If Malaysia does help, then Malaysia will have to fight with other countries. Then, by that time Malaysia will have to back off.
2. The Muslims do not want to separate the South
‘The largest problem is stability in the region. It is known that the majority of Thai Muslims do not want a separate state. Therefore, Thailand must focus on providing stability in the south, mainly by enforcing laws on terrorist punishment.’
To summarize this, that is the ideology from PULO that they want to separate.
Problems of Malaysia.
Malaysia is facing economy crisis which is not known to other country. I will explain. My opponent claims that Malaysia has money in his previous round. I will debunk that statement. By constantly providing money to the secessionist movement large amount of money is needed. But, now the DEBT problem will come into play.
1. Debt crisis.
We can see that the debt is increasing over time. Thus, it is not advisable for Malaysia to give a hand. Helping others will indeed not benefit Malaysia but will be a problem for Malaysia to do so. WE can see that it would not be economically better for Malaysia to help in the long run.
Also, we can see that in the case of MH370.
‘At the time of Flight 370's disappearance, Malaysia Airlines was struggling to cut costs to compete with a wave of new, low-cost carriers in the region. In the previous three years, Malaysia Airlines had booked losses of:RM1.17 billion (US$356 million) in 2013, RM433 million in 2012, and RM2.5 billion in 2011.Malaysia Airlines lost RM443.4 million (US$137.4 million) in the first quarter of 2014 (January–March).The second quarter—the first in the aftermath of Flight 370's disappearance—saw a loss of RM307.04 million (US$97.6 million), which represented a 75% increase over losses from the second-quarter of 2013.Industry analysts expect Malaysia Airlines to lose further market share and face a challenging environment to stand out from competitors while addressing their financial plight.The company's stock, down as much as 20% following the disappearance of Flight 370, had fallen 80% over the previous five years, which contrasts with a rise in the Malaysian stock market of about 80% over the same period.
Many analysts and the media suggested that Malaysia Airlines would need to rebrand and repair its image and/or require government assistance to return to profitability.The loss of Flight 17 in July greatly exacerbated Malaysia Airline's woes. The combined effect on consumer confidence of the loss of Flights 370 & 17 and the airline's poor financial performance ledKhazanah Nasional—the majority shareholder (69.37%)and a Malaysian state-run investment arm—to announce on 8 August its plan to purchase the remainder of the airline, therebyrenationalisingit.’
2. Malaysia is not stable and still dependent.
Countries involve in the search of MH 370.
An official with the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority says the missing plane did not enter Chinese airspace. The Chinese Defence Ministry and Foreign Ministry didn’t immediately respond to questions on radar information. China has deployed nine navy ships and civilian patrol vessels and a variety of fixed wing and rotary aircraft, along with a team of experts dispatched to Malaysia.
A P-8A Poseidon, the most advanced long-range anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare aircraft in the world, has been searching in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy also has deployed the destroyer USS Kidd with two MH-60R helicopters.
Indonesian air force spokesman Hadi Tjahjanto says military radars on Sumatra island found no trace of the jetliner and that data requested by the Malaysian government had been handed over. He says that search efforts have shifted from the Malacca Strait to the corridor stretching from northern Sumatra to the Indian Ocean.
The director general of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority, Muhammed Yousaf, says radar recordings shared with Malaysia found no sign of the jetliner.’
We can see that in the case of MH370. Malaysia gets help from other country in the search of the missing plane. With that being said, Malaysia is ‘incapable’ and ‘need help’ from other country.
Conclusion: We can see that there is a heavy problem with Malaysia being a country to ‘help.’
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Speak Round
Helping the like minded
- Kalimantan and Patani form natural barriers between other nations
- Malaysia has access to abundant resources and trade ports
- It is the right thing to do, and Malaysia could use some honor
- The Malay Muslim community is strengthened by the reunification with its separated peoples
Return To Top | Posted:
I would like to thank my opponent for setting up such a good case despite he is not free and post it in the last day.
+Helping the ‘like-minded’+
Like minded is defined as =having similar tastes or opinions. =
The word ‘like’ does not mean that it is ‘right’. The word does not imply what they are thinking is right but only same. The minority of the nation thinks that stealing is good. (This implies that they, the minority, think alike) But, in fact, it is bad for humans to do so. We, the majority, all know very well that stealing is a criminal act. And, whoever does that shall be punished or jailed. We cannot, for sure, just, because of the minority thinks it is right and then we shall follow that. I, again, have proven that we shall not help them because they are very violence. If we give supplies like money, food and so on to a violence group, they might become stronger and able to cause harm to other nations to achieve their goals (No one can guarantee that won’t happen). Later on, it will be a threat to other countries which are peaceful.
+This is why there are 195 governments, and not one universal government+
We have to look at the majority voice in a country. My opponent thinks that little countries’ decision can outweigh or is better than the rest. We cannot claim that the part of something is better than the whole. There are so many governments also show that 195 brains/minds are better than one. We cannot have one united government because each country is having different types of democracy and policy like America-Dictator.
+ Malaysia should help the endless struggle+
Helping does not mean ending. No one not even me or you can say that if we have helped them to achieve their goals, then they might come out with new goals like taking on other countries. Would you dare to prove that this will never ever happen? If we help one side then we cannot ensure that the other side will satisfy with the result. Or, the other way, the PULO achieves what they have been wanting for so long and the other side starts war again. This will not be a good and sufficient reason for Malaysia to help.
+ PULO and the KBLF refuse to harm a single citizen +
If they refuse to harm any single citizens, then why would they be war? War involves people fighting with each other. Then, what I state earlier is right that they are violence and causes a lot of trouble to the country. Citizens refer to the people who live in certain area. In this case, it means the Patani’s people. As I have stated earlier, the ‘priest’ and ‘teachers’ are harmed. Don’t tell me that a priest and a teacher is not a local citizen. Thus, the statement made by my opponent is wrong and has no value to be trusted. Lastly, they also do some small scale bombings, we cannot assert that a small scale bomb will not harm or threatens others’ life.
P 1: A bomb can kill.
P 2: They use some small scale bombing.
C: The citizens can still be killed/injured due to the bomb.
I try to prove that bomb still can kill no matter how big and small it is. Thus, they are still violence because the ways they take still harm people. BOMBING is a violence act.
+ How about we try to resolve this conflict by giving recognition+
Just now, my opponent says Malaysia should supply money and so to them. Then, we give them recognition. Giving recognition is something like agreeing what they are doing is right. They have played dirty tactics and harm citizens. My opponent says that it is because of the desperation causing them to play dirty tactics. I don’t agree what it is being said.
P 1: Either a human is desperate or not.
P 2: If a human is desperate, then he will harm people.
P 3: If a human is not desperate, then he still harms people.
C: In both case we can see that desperation will not affect the desire to harm people.
Desperation is not the main factor if causing a person. ‘Purpose’ is the main factor. Their purpose is to harm the whole country who does not agree with them.
+ Malay peoples looking to be reunited with their homeland +
I have proven that the majority of the people do not want to have a separate state. It is PULO’s personal idea that they should be separated. Thus, this is somewhat personal and we must follow the norm. We are living in a democracy society not a terroristic world. Just because of one’s idea, we put the whole world in danger. Would it be beneficial? And, there is no any proof that it is Malay peoples’ homeland. The state is near to Malaysia does not mean that they are directly related to Malaysia. This is a very bare reason and it is unsupported by any explanation.
+ No one is claiming Malaysia should declare war on Thailand and Indonesia +
Yes. But, it is possible to have war with them when Malaysia is helping PULO out. We cannot ignore that possibility.
+Kalimantan and Patani form natural barriers between other nations. +
Would it be economically better if they are separated? Separation from its nation would hamper their advancement of technology and so on. Why don’t we just put them under the same nation rather than separating them? Forming natural barriers won’t ensure that there is no any riot.
+Malaysia has access to abundant resources and trade ports. +
Abundant resources and trade ports cannot be a reason. By that time, will PULO or any other groups from Patani wants the resources from Malaysia by bombing in order to reach agreement? PULO still can be a threat to Malaysia and other country since they have done VIOLENCE before because the other country is not giving them what they want. Can we ensure the safety of the local people? Or, can anyone make sure it?
+ The Malay Muslim community is strengthened by the reunification with its separated peoples+
Not necessarily. I have proven that the majority of them do not wish to separate. If they wish why don’t the majority of them agreeing with the secessionist movement. This means and shows that they are not wanted to be reunited with the people. The people, themselves, still, remains unsupported with the secessionist movement.
As a whole, the resolution is negated thoroughly.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Speak Round
Unfortunately this debate snuck up on me. My rebuttals might not be extremely thorough because of that. At this point I'm completely done with PULO. I brought up PULO as a subpoint, but this debate is becoming completely dominated by PULO. The affirming position does not need PULO to prove Malaysia should help nearby secessionist movements.
It really doesn't matter how Malysia helps these secessionist movements. Just that they help them wisely and efficiently. If arming militias doesn't suit people, I really see no reason why media broadcasting and international recognition wouldn't have an even stronger effect.
Therefore we must accept that Malaysia should help Kalimantan and Patani achieve unification with the state, simply because Malaysia should do the right thing. It has been proven that Kalimantan and Patani deserve secession and eventual unification with the state. It is up to a true hero to give them that freedom.
Return To Top | Posted:
P 1: The resolution is being shared.
P 2: Either Pro or Con can fulfil the resolution.
C: Either of us will win the debate.
The resolution is what best fits the interests of Malaysia. So I will be arguing that they have no interest in joining with Malaysia or Malaysia has no interest in helping case. My opponent needs to prove both cases. Why so? It is because they are correlated. If either case has been negated by me, then the whole resolution still fails and not yet fulfilled. If they wish to join Malaysia but Malaysia has no interest in agreeing to help them. Thus, the resolution still cannot be fulfilled. If Malaysia wishes to help but they don’t want to receive the help. It is a futile effort. On the other hand, my opponent intends to prove that Malaysia will benefit from having the Kalimantan and Patani secessionist movements united with the rest of the country. My opponent needs to prove both positive effects from these two countries. I have proven that PULO in Patani will cause a bad harm to Malaysia. Still, the arguments are not refuted. As I have proven in my case, mainly. I have proven that PULO is a bad group which has caused harm and terrorise some part of the Thailand. With that being said, the PULO is a threat to Thailand because they are still a part of Thailand. If it has become a part of Malaysia or a separate state, no one will doubt that things will happen to the neighbouring country. In addition, we can see that PULO does some small scale bombings because they are still being kept controlled under the laws of Thailand or the government of Thailand. Or, we can say that they are suppressed by the country. Imagine if they have gone out of hand. What will happen? War, stealing, criminals or even more.
2. My case:
What was said by opponent is still insufficient to debunk my case.
I will define what the word –should- mean according to free dictionary.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should
-Used to express obligation or duty
-Used to express probability or expectation
Malaysia has the duty to help or probably would help the secessionist movement. These have been negated by my points that Malaysia isn’t a suitable country to help in Round 1. My opponent completely ignores whatever that I have said and they are not refuted in any previous round. This means they are true and valid about Malaysia. A person can only fulfilled his duty if he/she can help but because of problems of Malaysia in round 1 too, they cannot carry out the duty. I would probably help them if I can. But the thing is that I cannot because of circumstances that I am in, limitations of myself and so on. So, Malaysia won’t help because of xyz in round 1. This has clearly shown that it is not advisable for Malaysia to do so. Money and resources can’t be provided by Malaysia. I have seen that Pro asks Malaysia to give recognition to these movements because it is an honourable thing to do. How honourable it is? Yes, Malaysia can give but does it help any of these secessionist movements? It is an honourable thing to help ISIS. No because ISIS has conducted violence and inhuman things. I know this is like comparing apple to oranges. Pro needs to prove that these movements are positive and a respectful thing for Malaysia to help.
Does Malaysia really have interest? My opponent still not yet proves that Malaysia has any interest in that matter or has he? He only claims that they have strong connection with Malaysia. What makes them having strong connection? The race. My opponent has shown that. So, neither has the Patani and Kalimantan have interest in that particular subject matter was proved by him.
P 1: A and B have same interest.
P 2: A is a Christian whereas B is a Muslim.
C: Interest in human is not because of race or religious force.
I don’t see any interest of Malaysia or their interest.
I have proven that helping does not mean ending. If we help one side then we cannot ensure that the other side will satisfy with the result. The main reason is the Malay does not want to have a separate state in the south. This might lead to another possible war, bloodshed, etc if they are separated. To illustrate this:
R 1: A leads to secessionist movement as they want a separate state.
R 2: B leads to no secessionist movement because they do not want a separate state.
Is it possible that secessionist movement will still occur if the state is separated? I would dare to assert that it is possible to happen. Again, there would be war or even violence group behave like PULO. This is still not the best solution for A or B if the state is separated/ not separated. A and B stands in contradictions. If we help A, then B won’t satisfy. Then we must also help B again, and then A still won’t satisfy. The same problem will continue to happen and can never be evaporated because they are in contradiction position. If my opponent can achieve both benefits the people of Thailand, secessionist movement, and even Malaysia, then he has met with his resolution. There still be war. My opponent has not given any evidence to proof that they want a separate state. It is mainly that secessionist movement. And, I have proven that they will hamper the advancement in round 2.
5. Pro’s case
· Kalimantan and Patani form natural barriers between other nations
· Malaysia has access to abundant resources and trade ports
· It is the right thing to do, and Malaysia could use some honor
· The Malay Muslim community is strengthened by the reunification with its separated peoples.
· The affirming position does not need PULO to prove Malaysia should help nearby secessionist movements.
· The National Revolution Front, is the largest patani secessionist organization, and the largest advocate for joining with Malaysia
· It really doesn't matter how Malysia helps these secessionist movements
· Just that they help them wisely and efficiently. If arming militias doesn't suit people,
· media broadcasting and international recognition wouldn't have an even stronger effect.
· resolve this conflict by giving recognition to that these movements even exist.
I consider this as my Pro’s point in the previous and 2nd round. Maybe I have missed out some. I just want to summarize that PULO is also one of the groups which have done bombing and others. If Malaysia admit or give recognition to one of those movements, then they also must agree on what PULO has done so far as they are involved in the secessionist movement. Unless, my opponent shows that they are not violence. I have shown that violence movement of some will not entirely benefit either position.
6. National Revolutionary Front:
<On February 22, the rebels captured the country's second-largest city,Cap-Haïtien. By February 25, nearly the entire north was in rebel hands, and the rebels were threatening to attack the capital,Port-au-Prince. Aristide left the country under protest on February 29, and the rebels announced that they would welcome foreign peacekeepers in Haiti.>
See. Until they achieve what they want only satisfy.
7. It is very unlikely that an actual war will develop between Malaysia and Thailand. At the end of the day, secessionist groups will be the enemy, and Malaysia just a helping hand.
This sentence fails because Thailand does not agree with violence and Malaysia is not a violence country. Thailand disagrees with the secessionist movement. Since Malaysia, Thailand and so other countries in ASEAN are having the same ideology in the sense of peace. If Malaysia were to help that means that they are not agreeing with what Thailand is doing at the current time. Malaysia is involved in that secessionist movement, so Malaysia will be part of them. Involvement means joining. This will leave the people of Malaysia and economic unsafe. Let’s say if they decide to exile all the secessionist movement. Malaysia is involved. Can the people of Malaysia allow entering Thailand? Or, either way. This will lead to great economical droppings.
8. Helping the like-minded
My opponent needs to show that what they are thinking is right and acceptable by the majority.
<Thailand's military junta putg new security measures in place on June 22, 2014 in a bid to calm the country's restive southern region, where fighting with Muslim separatists had claimed more than 5,000 lives in the past decade. The most frequent targets of insurgent attacks are ethnic Thai Buddhists and ethnic Malay Muslims in the provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala. Brutal attacks on teachers and state officials by insurgents have led to accusations of extra judicial killings by authorities, perpetuating a cycle of violence…. Although the majority of the country's Muslims were ethnically Malay, the Muslim community also included the Thai Muslims, who were either hereditary Muslims, Muslims by intermarriage, or converts... In the past, the Muslim separatist groups in southern Thailand, as well as the Communist Party of Thailand, dabbled in drug trafficking to raise funds to support their political and operational objectives. As of 2000 there was little if any data linking indigenous terrorists to drug trafficking in Southeast Asia… During 2000, authorities responded with military force and legal action to separatist activity in the south. In February 2000, security forces dealt a severe blow to the New Pattani United Liberation Organization, a Muslim separatist group, when they killed its leader Saarli Taloh-Meyaw. Authorities claimed that he was responsible for 90 percent of the terrorist activities in Narathiwat, a southern Thai province. In April 2000, police arrested the deputy leader of the outlawed Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), another southern separatist group, in Pattani. The case was still pending before the court at the end of 2000. Authorities suspected Muslim separatists conducted several small-scale attacks on public schools, a government-run clinic, and a police station in the south.… In 2004, the Thai government officially recognized attacks in Thailand as terrorist acts performed by the various insurgent groups that were in the country. Massive killings occurred throughout the mid to late 2000s and as of 2010, nearly 4,000 people had been killed due to insurgent violence.>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/thailand2.htm
9. Has Malaysia met those requirements (eligible) to help?
10. Malay peoples looking to be reunited with their homeland
There isn’t any proof for us to believe this idea. How about those Singaporeans looking to be reunited with Malaysia?
I would like to place a big gamble on the Resolution part. Pro must resolve the matter by showing that he has fulfilled the requirements of the duty of Malaysia.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Speak Round
Return To Top | Posted:
My opponent has not met with his resolution of this debate. Onto the voters now. Thanks for reading. Just judge the arguments which are presented in the earlier rounds.
Return To Top | Posted: