Indonesia enacted a very signicant law that that will soon turn to be one of the most profound causes of the country’s continued trade decit. In-donesia disallowed the export of raw minerals, such as ore and bauxite, in hope that the country stops its de-pendence on natural resource-inten-sive and low value added exports and shifts to shape higher value of its export commodities. Beside National issue, there is another thing to focus on. It is the world’s fear of havin second phase of “cold war”. See how we analyze current condition to answer “will we go back to that anx-ious era again?

One of the main obstacle in British Par-liament Debate system is nding the best extention that is different but out-weight the importance of opening team arguments. In this edition we will tell you how.

“Classics” is a term to refer to three big English debate competitions in Indone-sia. Craving for more information? We will spoil you in the feature section.

Hi Debaters! Welcome to the sixth Volume of Our Newsletter which is tributed to EDS UI’s Sweet Seventeenth Anniversary. Along with this newsletter, our members and alumni are expressing their best wishes for our dearest, the oldest debating soci-ety in Indonesia. In this rst newsletter of our new pres-idency, Ms Gabriel Charlotte Wajong’s, issues about beneciation, and interna-tional relation are discussed. As well as quick facts from The Classics Three Com-petitions and tips to create extensions are sincerely presented by our dedicated con-tributors. We hope you enjoy this sixth volume of Newsletter!

External DivisionEDS UI 2015

Websiteeds.ui.ac.id

Twitter@eds_ui

FacebookEnglish Debating Society UI

Editor In ChiefGayatri Kancana

Managing EditorRatna Gandana

EditorsAyu Gayatri & Imam Tauq

Layout and DesignTerry Muthahhari

PublicationImam Tauq

“EDS UI has given me a lot, and I wish the bigger and the older this communi-ty gets the more more knowledge be shared, more friendship be built, and more people can be enlightened the

way I have always been”.

“Happy birthday, EDS UI. We are a candle for a reason; we burn for other people. Keep contributing to the soci-ety, keep doing whatever you are doing because you are doing great. I love you and I hope you can ignite more candles of passion in other people's hearts. OOnce again, happy birthday!”

“Happy birthday to EDS UI! feel so blessed to be associated with such

an incredible club”

By Dennys Victor

HOW TO MAKE AN EXTENSIONEspecially in BP Debate

hat I will usually do is start by obviously identi-fying what the motion is about just like any other debate. Athough it might seem redundant, try to list down the potential arguments that the opening half might bring. TThere's still an opportunity where the opening half would miss out on the important and basic ques-tion of the motions

W

After mapping out the basic questions about the motions, move on see the debate from a dif-ferent perspective either from ana-lyzing a different actor that is in-volved in the debate that wasn't analyzed by the opening half. Or you can also analyzing a different perspective, say the motion is about legalizing abortion. the opening might have already talked about rights perspective and that an individual should be able to decide what she can do with her bodbody.

The opening can also analyze that the fetus is not a human being yet thus its rights can be less prioritized compared to the woman's rights. the closing can analyze on how by legalizing its a form of protection from unsafe prpractices of abortion that would otherwise continue to happen in the current status quo because it's not supervised and properly handled compared to a legal ser-vice that is supervised and only uses the best equipment with trained professional doctors.

Another way to build an extension is to give a deeper and a more de-tailed explanation from the case already bring brought by the opening half.

Although it may not be applica-ble at all times. it's worth to note that some arguments from the opening half may still lack the im-portant logic, it's where we can ex-ploit it by giving a better explana-tion.

This also means that it isn't enough to provide new examples. The line of logic needs to be further elaborated and more in depth analysis. do not be afraid to inte-grate your rebuttals and argu-ments as one. As it can be more time efficient. Like mentioned in BP all ideas be it arguments and rebut-tals are all still counted as a contri-bution. So do not hesitate to do so

In winning BP it's all about contribution so what matters is not only explaining the exten-sion but also explaining it why it matters most in the debate. You don't only have to defend or refute the motion but you alsoalso need to outshine the opening teams even if you are on the same bench.

Revisiting Down-streaming: Is it the Right Policy for Indonesia’s Development?

By Elghaky Bimardhika

On January 2014, Indonesia enacted a very signicant law that that will soon turn to be one of the most profound causes of the country’s continued trade decit. Indonesia disallowed the export of raw minerals, such as ore and baux-ite, in hope that the country stops its dependendependence on natural resource-inten-sive and low value added exports and shifts to shape higher value of its export commodities. The law is aimed at en-couraging raw minerals producers or mining companies to not just export natural resources straight away, but add value to them rst before exporting it. This policy forces mining companies to manufacture raw minerals into some-thing with higher-value, such as steel plates, and invest in smelter facilities. As a consequence, instead of exporting iron ores, which have low value-added, Indonesia expects to export steel plates, which have high value-added. This policy is commonly known as down-streaming or beneciation, stem-ming from its aim to favor downstream or value-added industries.

Despite being very contro-versial and is called as one of the reasons of the continuance of the country’s trade decit, the policy stands to this day. Before proceeding even fur-ther, it is important to comprehend the concept of val-ue-added. Value-added is the difference between a rm's rev-enue and its operating cost, ex-cluding payment for labor. It is largely composed of two things: wage payment and business surplus (return to ownership of capital. With that being said, value-added thus measures how much wealth a production process can create. The higher the value-added, the greater the welfare of the laborlabor (because of higher wage payment) and the greater the prot or surplus of the capital owner becomes.

Yet there is a caveat here. Creation of high value-added is only possible if the tech-nology employed in the production process is sophisticated and the labor force is well educated, resulting in high labor-productivi-ty. This is why low value-added commodities (agricultural products, mining commodities, clothing, etc.) are produced with low level of technology and low level of labor education whereas high value-added commodities (aerospace, electronics, chemical manufac-turing, etc.) are produced with relatively higher level of technology and more educat-ed workers. As a consequence, low value-added sectors are mostly labor-intensive (employ large amount of workers and rela-tively fewer capital) while high value-added sectors are mostly capital-intensive (employ large amount of capital and relatively fewer workers). It is no wonder, then, high-value added sectors have higher labor-productivity (because there are fewer workers but higher value-added). Criteria of low val-ue-added sectors are mostly found in up-stream industrie

while high-value added sectors are mostly found in downstream indus-tries. As gure 1 has shown, oil rening sector has gross value added (GVA) which is at least twice of paddy farm-ing or textile, clothing, & leather sector. Yet workforce size of oil ren-ing sector is 235 times lesser than paddy farming and 43 times lesser thanthan textile, clothing, and leather sector. Oil rening sector is also nearly three times more capital-intensive than paddy farming and more than three times more capital-intensive than textile, clothing, and leather sector (measured from respective sec-tor’s return to capital). While the total wage in oil rening sector is three times higher than paddy farming’s total wage payment and one and a half times higher than textile, cloth-ing, and leather’s total wage payment

an indication that oil rening sector requires more educated human capital and thus obligates them for higher wage payment. In gure 2, it is shown that the labor productivity (GVA per worker) of oil rening sector is over 500 times of paddy farming’s labor productivity and 85 times over textile, clothing, and leather sector’s labor prproductivity. Because of the sector’s relatively higher productivity, each worker in oil rening sector is paid 750 times higher than workers in paddy farming and 65 times higher than workers in textile, clothing, and leather sector. Needless to say, the business surplus (capital return per worker) is incredibly unequal between the sec-tors.

From this simple standpoint, it is very easy to argue that the government should enforce down-streaming. One can easily say that down-streaming leads to higher value-added production, greater wealth for both workers and capital owners, and greater productivity. In the case of Indonesia, higher value-added exports migmight be one of the remedies for the current ac-count decit problem. It is also important for In-donesia to advance to higher value-added pro-duction to upgrade its industrial technological ca-pability, since most of Indonesia’s productions are natural resource low value-added commodities. For developing countries in general, it is crucial add value otherwise rich countries will transform the low value-added commodities to high-end products and export it back to the same poor countries which supply them with raw materials; leaving the rich countries to capture the greatest wealth. Everything seems to t in perfectly. Yet if examined closer, the idea might not seem so stra-tegic after all, neither in terms of creating wealth nor reducing current account decit.

Indonesia has one of the largest middle income popula-tion and robust private con-sumption which serves as an attraction for foreign direct in-vestment in downstream in-dustries (which mostly producgoods that are directly con-sumed by nal consumers). There should be no worries that the policy will fail to develop downstream industries. Greater concerns should be raised on the opportunity costs of the policy, which are too huge to ignore.

By March 2013, Indonesia has 28 million of people living in poverty. Although that is merely 11% of the total popula-tion and the recent trend sug-gests that the poverty rate will continue to decline, that is still a huge number in absolute terms. Indonesia also has 7 mil-lion of people being unem-ployed as of August 2014. Again, that is merely 6% of the total workforce and the trend continues to decline. Nonetheless, these two facts remain a huge homework for Indonesia.

Not to mention, Indonesia’s unemploy-ment rate might be understated because the government set a very loose criteria for someone to be considered ‘employed’. Under this condition, what is needed is rapid expansion of job opportunities because it will allow people to have income to fund their daily living and struggle out of poverty. Although much of the reasons why people are unem-ployed stem from structural causes, such asas lack of education or proper healthcare, down-streaming will only serve to worsen the problem. Favoring down-stream industries will only create relative-ly fewer job opportunities because the more you go downstream, the greater the requirements for capital and technology and the lesser the necessity for labor. At this rate, downstream industries will only favor capital owners and business owners; many of whom are middle to upper income group individuals.

But isn’t it good to create such vast amount of wealth rapidly? Growth will be extraordinarily high and if we are concerned about pover-ty, the government can always tax the rich or businesses higher and redis-tribute the tax income to the poor. Sadly, that is not so simple. Taxing businesses higher would go against the principle of favoring downstream industries in the rst place and there are so many issues in tax redistribu-tion that it requires another topic alone. Yet consider a simple fact as gure 3 shows us that Indonesia’s income in-equality (as measured by Gini coeffi-cient) is rising in the last several years. This is an indication that while Indo-nesia grows rapidly, not all parts of so-ciety enjoy the growth equally. The growth of the middle income and upper income group has eclipsed that of the lower income group. Under this condition, not only a proper system of income redistribution is necessary, but also a means that will allow the lower income group to narrow that gagap. Down-streaming is absolutely not the answer because it will only widen the gap. As explained above, the surplus that business owners can have in high value-added businesses is three times of the low value-added businesses yet at the same time it absoabsorb 200 times lesser employment than low value-added businesses.

One can easily argue that the labor wage in high value-added sectors is inexplicably higher than low value-added sectors and thus pro-vides the workers with huge amount of wealth, just like the owner of the business. Yet we must remember that this high wage is only reserved for handful amount of people while the large majomajority will remain unemployed. This alone already increases inequality. Not to mention, even in high value-added sectors alone, the amount of wealth that business owners can make is four times of the amount of wealth the workers can make. Comparing the number with low value added sectors where the busi-ness owners only make 1.5 times more than its workers (textile, clothing, & leather), then we have a clear portrayal of how favoring down-stream industries when there are widespread poverty and unemployment will only worsen inequality.

Another problem lies in the argument that down-streaming is necessary to upgrade Indo-nesia’s technological capability. Unless Indone-sia upgrades its technological capability to produce sophisticated goods, it will always sell raw materials to more advanced countries and buyback the goods in more sophisticated forms. The government seems to insist that In-donesia should have more assembly factories for high-end products, such as automotive and electronics, despite the fact that the business environment is not competitive to support such factories

This argument assumes that Indone-sia’s only chance in winning in global trade is through high-end products. Nothing is further than the truth. This disregards the fact that the pattern of global trade in manufacturing has changed over the last several years. MMany countries now, instead of ex-porting nal products to one anoth-er, sell components and parts, and input materials to one another, before it nally settles in the nal as-sembly factory in one place.

This is known as global supply chain. A product’s production chain is now no longer located in one country, but dispersed to many countries, each with their own specialization. For ex-ample, production chain of Dream-liner Boeing 747 is run by 10 different companies in different nations before making its way to the nal as-sembly line in Seattle, USA. A compa-ny in Brazil made one part while a company in China made another part and then all parts are shipped to Seattle. Brazil produces one particular part because it has competitive advantage in producing it while China produces another part be-cause it has competitive advantage in producing it.

Finally, USA imports all the parts and put all the parts together into an airplane because they have competitive advantage in strong currency and sophisticated technology. Does this mean China’s and Brazil’s technology stuck at produc-ing parts? No, they may be able to produce air-plane on their own. Yet that might not be as profitable or as competitive as producing airplane parts.

It is only a matter of nding competitive advan-tage and capitalizes it to gain the most out of it. Indonesia does not seem to use this simple con-cept of international economics very well. It in-sists on having more assembly factories despite the fact that the supporting industries, such as components & parts and input materials, are not well developed. Under such condition, it has to import large amount of input materials which creates downward pressures on the currency and subsequently on trade balance. The problem might be solved if the manufacturing industry succeeds in turning those imported materials to competitive nal products, yet that is not the cascase. Many impediments, such as poor infra-structure, hinder competitive production pro-cess

As a consequence, many of Indo-nesia’s nal products are not pre-ferred in the global market. It is no wonder then, Indonesia’s manu-facturing export share in total export continues to declines and the total export grew only marginally while import grows in a strong and stable rate, leading to trade decit problem.

It would have been a lot better if Indonesia had focused on devel-oping components & parts indus-try rst because the cost of pro-duction is much cheaper and the capital requirement is much lower before leaping to electronics or automotive industry which re-quires greater infrastructure sup-port or on revitalizing agricultural productivity so that agricultural production can meet domestic de-mands which would support the development of food-processing industry later on. With such strate-gy, Indonesia would be in better position to penetrate global market and participate in the global supply chain. Unfortunate-ly, Indonesia’s components & parts industry is amongst the least developed now and despite the fact that more than 30% of workers are employed in the agricultural sec-tors, the productivity remains low

Favoring downstream industry also means the government is picking winner. Forcing upstream industry to conduct local beneciation means forc-ing them to sell below the international price, thus serves as an implicit subsidy to downstream industry. Now that the iinternational price of commodity al-ready fell, the local price of commodity will fall even further than that. Unless the government provides incentive to invest in smelter facilities or other raw materials processing facilities, this will hurt upstream industry very seriously. So far, the case has been made that down-streaming induces inequality, erases greater workforce absorption opportunity, and deepen the trade decit. Yet at the end of the day, down-stream industries are still the best option to rapidly add value. After all, al-though China and Brazil only produces airplane parts, China is still the world’s leader in the production of computer and other electronics goods while Brazil is one of the major players in de-fense industry

Qatar is one of the world’s greatest oil ex-porters, but has one of the most sophisti-cated nancial and business hubs in the Middle East to compensate not having its own oil renery. Australia also exports large quantity of iron ores, yet does not build many iron smelters and invest on infrastructure and education instead. All countries eventually need downstream industries. But at what point do the big transformation from upstream industries to downstream industries has to start? The big transformation should start when there is not much unemployment tto worry about. For as long as unemploy-ment is a huge lingering problem, la-bor-intensive industries are more needed and down-streaming to pursue greater growth is a bad idea as it only leads to greater inequality. If invest-ments to labor-intensive industries can grow rapidly, labor will be absorbed with haste. When the demand for labor is very high, labor wage will continue to grow at high rate as well, thus providing the needed welfare for workers.

The country will also enjoy very com-petitive export of labor-intensive goods, which are mostly intermediate goods needed in the global supply chain. This will continue until it comes to a point where the unemployment is very low, idle labor is scarce, and labor wage is very high. Under suchsuch condition, it would no longer be prot-able to invest in labor-intensive industries and businessmen will automatically shifts to capital-intensive industries. This strategy keeps the economy in full-employment. Indonesia enjoyed such ideal condition before the late 1990s Asian Financial Crisis (AFC). As gure 4 shows, unemployment rate was in historic low in late 1980s and in the early 1990s and real wage grew at com-pound annual growth rate (CAGR) 6.4% from 1991 to 1996, the highest real wage ggrowth in Indonesia’s history. Manufactur-ing industry, as one of the main absorbers of employment, reached one of its highest employment shares in 1994. Indonesia also enjoyed competitive export at the same period. Export grew at CAGR of 9% between 1991 and 1998. Yet the disaster of AFC caused many in-dustries to collapse and many workers laid off. Unfortunately, instead of reviving its la-bor-intensive industries, Indonesia chose to focus on downstream industries to catch up growth in the aftermath of the crisis. This did not go very well as unemployment rose shasharply in post-crisis period and real wage only grew by CAGR of 1% from 2002 to 2007.

While the value-added of manufac-turing industry continues to grow, manufacturing share of employ-ment did not make any signicant progress in post-crisis period . The same goes for export which only grew by CAGR of 6% between 2006 and 2013. The growth of labor-intensive in-dustries is also hampered by other structural factors, such as rigid labor regulation, which deters the private sector to make investments in la-bor-intensive sectors. Labor educa-tion is also another issue, which seems to be lacking of priority in the overall development strategy. If crisis did not occurred, maybe the natural process of transforma-tion from labor-intensive to high val-ue-added capital-intensive industry would take place. But it did happen and under such circumstances, the government should have focused on patiently developing its human capi-tal and setting the right mix of labor policy instead of leaping straight to the next stage of development. In-vestments would surely ourish to labor-intensive sectors because ev-eryone knows how competitivIndonesian labor could be.

Gini coefficient is the most common measure for income inequality which ranges between 0 and 1, with 1 being per-fectly unequal society and 0 describes perfectly equal soci-etyAssembly factory is a factory which produces nal goods which can be directly used by nal consumers.As of August 2014, manufacturing employment share is at 13.3%. The 1994 level is still one of the highest in Indone-

The government of Indonesia should have realized that the nation holds such a huge potential in its workforce because it has one of the greatest productive population in the world. However, instead of that, what happens is that the govern-mement decided to pick winner, in-stead of allowing the transformation naturally. So, is the chance to make amends entirely off the table? Fortu-nately not. Indonesia is expected to enjoy demographic bonus soon enough. Yet again this opportunity will only pass if Indonesia does not set the right policy to address social andand demographic issues, especially education and inequality. Indonesia should also massively invest in infra-structure development, because it is a sector which absorbs large amount of workforce and promises more competitive production process for high value-added business-

U.S. – Russia Relations: Cold War II? By Monica Dwiyanti

arious events that took place in 2014 ma in 2014 marked the worst rela-tions between United States of Ameri-ca (U.S.) and Russian Federation after the Cold War. Washington and Moscow seem reluctant to talk and civil war in Ukraine adds the ame to the tension. The issue has grabbed huge attention as the two countries are considered to be powerful players in international arena and thus the conict between two may has world-wide impact. This article tries to examine major events that contribute to the U.S.-Russia bad relations and thethe estimation of U.S.-Russia future re-lations One of the most prominent events that worsened the relations between U.S. and Russia is the annexation of Crimea. A referendum in Crimea was conducted on March 2014 following Russian invasion. As the result, Crimea became the part of Russia. However, thethe referendum is deemed to be ille-gal by the United Nations General As-sembly. The U.S. sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution that affirms Ukraine’s territorial integ-rity. Afterwards, U.S. and European

Union (EU) imposed sanctions over Russia inter alia restricting transactions and travels of Rus-sian individuals and corporations. Consequently, the nancial sector of Russia is severely hit. The afore-mentioned sanction has triggered Russia to launch count-er-sanctions in form of travel bans on American officials. The count-er-sanction does not stop there as Russia also banned fruits, vegeta-bles, meat, sh, milk, and dairy imports from U.S. This response denitely exacerbated the ten-sion between U.S. and Russia. Another key event that indi-cates the bad relations between U.S. and Russia is the intensied war of words between Barrack Obama and Vladimir Putin. The war of words between Obama and Putin could be seen on ObamObama’s speech in the United Na-tions. Obama listed Russia as one the primary threats to the world along with Ebola & Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The state-ment surely instigated strong r

V

plies from Putin. Putin publicly ac-cused the U.S. to intervene the domes-tic affairs of other countries. The war of words become a very interesting el-ement in analyzing the relations be-tween two countries because it shows how both countries intend to shape the public’s perspective on the ongo-ing issues. Statement or speech can also be used as strong means to gain public supports. The bad relations between U.S. and Russia do not only happen at high-prole issues but also to educa-tional sectors. Numerous academic ex-change programs were closed in 2014 by either U.S. or Russia. The initiatives to close the programs include Kennan Institute’s Moscow office and Future Institute’s Moscow office and Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) program that allows Russian students to spend a year in U.S. Although U.S used the lack of funding as reasoning to close the program, many experts and ob-servers saw it as the sign of U.S. losing interest in Russia. The action to close interest in Russia. The action to close scholarly exchange between students in Russia and U.S. disconnected Rus-sian and American people even more. The move is not so good for both coun-tries because it denies the opportuni-ty of dialogue between people from two countries. Disappearance of op-portunity to communicate and inter-act might add the tension between U.S. and Russia.

The next question that pops up after reviewing the bad rela-tions between U.S. and Russia is whether the world faces Cold War II. The question is worth to be discussed as 2015 has wit-nessed some symptoms of Cold War between U.S. and Russia. Andrei Kortunov, the general di-rector of the Russian Internation-al Affairs Council (RIAC) stated that he does not see any optimis-tic grounds about U.S. and Russia relations. Relations be-tween these two big countries are expected to be worse in 2015. The chance of ameliorated relations is very small as long as Crimea remains part of Russia. Furthermore, Russia- North At-lantic Treaty Organization (NATO) tension also escalated. NATO conducted large-scale ma-neuvers in Europe as the re-sponse to Kremlin’s testing on military capability. Both Russia and NATO has increased their mil-itary training, drilling different scenarios of potential military conicts since the start of events in Ukraine. This situation is paral-lel to the tension between NATO and Warsaw Pact during Cold War. Both defense pacts per-formed joint exercises involving troops from member countries

to prepare planned responses in the event of war. The questions whether we are in the Cold War II and whether the The questions whether we are in the Cold War II and whether the relations between U.S and Russia will get better are open to so many answers. However, there are several points to be considered. First, as the Cold War is associated with the usage of nuclear weapons, it is in-teresting to analyze whether the nuclear deterrence will remain the core issue in the U.S.-Russia relations. Since the war of nuclear weapon creates so-called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the use of nuclear weapons is unlikely. However, it does not mean that the of nuclear weapons is unlikely. However, it does not mean that the physical contacts between Russian and American military are impossi-ble. The escalated tension between NATO and Russia as well the war of words between Obama and Putin are the strong sign of this possi-bility. Second, the issue of Islamic State also adds the complexity of U.S. and Russia relations. We are still unsure whether the issue of Islam-ic State will remain the common threat for both countries. It is surely not an easy task for U.S. to involve in the war with Russia as well as combating the Islamic State. The Cold War II is denitely not good news for the world today.

That is very interesting

CLASSICS In 1998, Universitas Indone-sia offered to be host of JOVED. They got the rights to host. During its preparation, Universi-tas Indonesia thought that En-glish Debate competition should not be exclusive only to people in Java. All students in In-donesia must also feel the expo-sure. Universitas Indonesia then took iniative to broaden the competition to be nationwide. Universitas Indonesia then hold Indonesia Varsity English Debate for the rst time in the history.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

Universitas Indonesia wontotal of 30 titles of classics.Followed by UGM on total of 6 titles, ITB on 5 titles.

The History Year of 1997 is an important year for debaters from Indonesia. On that year, Indonesia participated for the rst time in All-Asian Intravarsity in Nanyang Technological University Singapore. Indonesia has two team, one from Universitas Indonesia (UI) andand another from Universitas Para-hyangan. Both team felt the urge to bring parliamentary debate to Indo-nesia. At that time, parliamentary debate was a new thing especially Indonesian’s government aban-doned all activities that include critical thinking.

They went back to Indonesia. When they were in Indonesia, team from Universitas Parahyangan decid-ed to establish the rst Indonesia debate competition with interna-tional system. Universitas Parahyan-gan then hold Java Overland Varsity English Debate in 1997. This debate was aimed for students from Java island only.

It has been almost two decades since the rst edition of classics. There have been many changes hap-pening in classics from changing debate style to more up to date issue. Through council meeting, Indonesia debating community is looking for thethe best shape of classics. At this sec-tion, there will be explanation on the changes in classics, the controver-sies, and others issue When JOVED was conducted for the rst time, JOVED did not use Asian Parliamentary style. Instead, JOVED was using Australian Parlia-mentary style. It did not last long. During JOVED 2007 council meeting, Indonesia debate community altered JOVEDJOVED to be competitive debate with Asian Parliamentary style. From 2008 upwards, JOVED is well known with its Asian style.

During IVED council 2008, the system was changed. It is strengthened with IVED consti-tution. Second, there was change on tabulation system. Previously we used pull up system but now, we impose semi-pullsemi-pull up system. During IVED 2014, there was a case where one of UI team, UI B, got 2nd highest score on prelimi-nary competition. However, UI team did not manage to break because insufficient VP. The reason was tabulation always pull them up and meet team with higher VP. It became disad-vantages for UI team. Third, there has been new addition of novice category in IVED. It was added in 2011 on IVED Makassar. Fourth, IVED 2014 gave new award, Best Reply Speaker. It is given to put reply speech more on consideration. Lastly, was during IVED 2015 regarding A-Core. After IVED 2015, the constitution adds breaking as judgejudge and speaker in previous IVED as eligibility to be A-core

IVED even made longer list of changes that happen since the rst edition of IVED in 1998. First, IVED started using break-slide system during preliminary competition. Pre-viously, IVED used power match to determine match up in preliminary ccompetition. It was seen as unfair for team with high rank because 1st rank will meet 2nd rank.