Board of Executives 2021: A (Quarantined) Year in Recap by English Debating Society Universitas Indonesia

A (quarantined) Year

in Recap

EDS UI NEWLETTER

VOL 14

A TRIBUTE Honoring the life of Derril Pramana Tungka and Boby Andika Ruitang

N ARTICLE ABOUT LOVE

INDEPENDECE DAY

EDS UI 2021 EVENTS

by Victoria Lindy (FISIP 2019)

by Aditya Manggala (FISIP 2020)

SUPERSEMAR AND ITS RELEVANCE INTO TODAY'S INDONESIA

Our events in 2021

by Zarifa Emily (FISIP 2019)

SUHARTO: THE BANE OF INDONESIA'S FEMINISM by Eugenia Leonetta (FH 2017)

25 31

EDS UI 2021 AFTERGLOWS

BOARDS OF EXECUTIVE EDS 2021

In this year’s presidency, we lost 2 of our beautiful souls;

The two will never be forgotten May their legacy lives forever on

Derril Pramana Tungka and Boby Andika Ruitang

HONOURING THE LIFE OF

Derril Pramana Tungka

Boby Andika Ruitang

approaching the heading

an article about

Just like everything else in debate, there’s no one exact rule on how to approach any headings/motions. I think having the adaptability to adjust to different wordings and context provided is a good skill to set a starting point of approaching the motion. Using what we know to further explore the urgencies, likelihoods, and possibilities can do wonders to our speech. You might first analyze the feeling of individuals in different contexts/scenarios, the reason why such feelings can occur, why different expectancies of relationships are normalized, and the good or bad it might cause. Luckily, love and relationships are based on feelings, which everyone has, and that means you can always get most answers by asking none other than yourself.

e v o L

by Aditya Manggala (FISIP 2020) From Moonlight to La La Land, Yummy to Cardigan, Joker to Avengers, romance stories are always somewhere within the lore of our entertainment and almost any art forms. We’re instinctively attracted to the idea of having unconditionally loving, forever caring, and indubitably loyal relationships. We can relate ourselves to heartbreaks and struggles of finding, establishing, and keeping those relationships. Discussions regarding love are highly personal, yet universal. Pondering upon love is ultimately about learning how one feels and how we achieve happiness. And debate is one of the best mediums to philosophize and reason anything about love and relationships.

For example, in the motion THR the popular narrative that family love should be unconditional, team Proposition can start by asking “why do we regret it?”, the answer, you might find, by asking “how is family love supposed to be?”, “why was it expected to be unconditional?”, or “what is the bad impact of expecting unconditional love?”.

Maybe the answer for team Proposition is family love’s narrative should be conditional because each member of the family has their own responsibilities they need to fulfill, for example the parents have to provide a healthy and secure environment for their children, the kids then need to also respect the parents by keeping family honor. You might then argue that the popular narrative of unconditional love completely disregards these obligations and provides no accountability for every member of the family. You can even further say that this is wrong, because the basis of any relationship is trust and responsibility thus the lack of accountability is unfair, and exactly because family is generally the closest relationship anyone will have, we need to put extra accountability in fulfilling the responsibilities. You might say that from a child's personal view, having to constantly love your parents despite the shortcomings is burdensome because society and your parents might somehow punish you for being ungrateful or asking too much. All these are barebone argument possibilities and should be developed even more. The point is, these basic questions can be a possible departure point of your train of thoughts, just by asking yourself and how you might feel.

Other than preference or value judgement debates, one might encounter policy debate that somewhat relates to relationships. Two examples I had encountered are THW Ban Superheroes in falling in love and THBT governments should proactively promote singlehood. In the first motion, you might find your arguments when asking “why is it so bad that they fall in love?” and answer that by asking “how do humans/superheroes act when they fall in love?” and say as team proposition that love can make someone irrational, and superheroes just have too much power at hand which risks people's safety. Or as team opposition you can say that this is bad because you would further discriminate superheroes (cough cough X-Men lore), and love is actually needed for motivation. For the second motion you might say that it’s justified to promote singlehood, because the basis of looking and having a significant other is socially constructed and people don’t exactly need it because having such relationship is just like any proper relationship. And the government should do it considering how overpopulation is a massive and urgent worldwide issue. Again, these are barebone possible arguments that should be accompanied with basic debate structures and explanations, such as setups.

Many debaters find relationship motions really approachable. The reason is quite obvious; everyone either has an experience or has heard of others’ experiences, which provides us some level of ability to give reasons and relatable examples. But just like any headings in debate, the approach to relationship motions should not just rely on case per case, individual, personal, specific scenarios, but also translate it to a bigger scale; how society thinks. The answer relies on other important contexts, such as society norms, religions, generational differences, etc. In my limited experience, I have learned that research on this matter can be just as important and useful as spending hours on US Politics, Arab spring, or the International Banking system. Especially because it’s likely that you’ll often get the heading due to its constant relevance to society and its problems.

CONTEXTS AND ARGUMENTS TO PREPARE Here are several tidbits of information you might find useful as contexts in running arguments.

Religion, Cultural Norms Remember that in a society, nothing exists within a vacuum. And that means we can’t forget the things influencing society the most. Please do question and fact check the statements here. Religious teachings about children should always respect parents are generally more known rather than the opposite, although parents' responsibility also exists in it. Religious teachings tend to support marriage and highly discourage divorce. It sets marriage as one of life’s checkpoints/goals, which supports the narrative of long lasting marriage as a norm. Some teachings support poligamy. Although some polygamous marriage are consensual, much of them are not. Even, the validity of such consents are debatable. Existing norms can influence anyone, either by shaping mindset or by community pressure. Examples of this: underage marriage, pragmatic marriage, fear of having divorce.

Hookups, Long/Short-Term Relationships Hookups aren’t exactly new to human civilization, but the emergence of hookup apps and social media definitely made changes on its form. Moreover, there’s no doubt that recently there’s been a rise of hookup culture. And thus one question rises; “is love/relationship supposed to be loyal and long lasting?” This has created motions such as THR Hookup culture. Possible reasons why hookup culture exist/ why people opt into hookup More recent generations tend to see marriage or long term relationships as a hassle, just too many things to consider with too many risks, such as commitment, financial and social burden. This is especially true because the rise of property price makes it hard for younger generations to own a house. Sexual needs still exist. An escape from inability to find a significant other Opposition to hookup culture A poor practice of hookup culture can breed more cases of rape, possibly promoting rape culture. Hookup culture undermines the role of feelings/emotions in relationships, even though feelings will always exist. This could possibly mean the happiness you get from hookup won’t be as optimal or even harmful because hookup partners only see each other as a sexual object

the take-away Love is a complex idea, but yet, there’s still science in it. Science that involves society, relationships, contemporary norms, and struggles of an era. The topic is generally fun due to how personal it is. We’re not just constructing arguments to get speaker scores, we’re discovering ourselves and others to challenge norms and seek happiness however we might find it. This article is not in any way perfect and should not be used as a rigid guide. There are lack of explanations and possibly factually wrong statements due to my shortcomings and limited capability. I am open to any inputs and I encourage anyone that reads to do their own research. Thank you for reading this far, and may all of you be loved. References https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/hook-up-culture-is-sexist/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3377712/is-monogamy-a-realistic-relationship-ideal/

by Zarifa Emily (FISIP 2019) 8

it was the incumbent government’s bias that drove all the narrative that we listened, the educational textbooks that we studied, even the movies that we saw every September 30, were all framed, dictated, propagated to be in favor of what they desire. Soeharto accused Soekarno and the Communist Party to be the lead behind the G30S chaos, and that’s exactly what the infamous movie of G30S PKI, that he forced us to watch every year, always tells us. Humans are subconsciously influenced by the things they hear everyday, so the minds of the majority of Indonesians are already wired into buying the only narrative that they have heard for the 32 years of the New Order, with very limited to no counter perspective from the media and opposition.

March 11 is one of the crucial dates that shaped the history of Indonesia; it marks the day Soeharto claimed legitimacy on his behalf or what we know now as the beginning of the New Order. It was 55 years ago, yet the whereabouts of the document remains a controversy; which one is the authentic one and which one the copies, given that there are 3 versions of it now, and where do they keep the original one, all is missing from this country’s history profile nor its biggest museum. Indonesia was still in a state of total shock after the tumultuous Gerakan 30 September 1965 chaos during March 1966 when Surat Perintah Sebelas Maret took part in. It was said to be the then president, Soekarno’s instruction to Lieutenant General Soeharto, who was then acting as Panglima Angkatan Darat, to take immediate control in restoring national defense stability. However the implementation of the said document was way beyond the line. It remains unclear until now to what extent did Soekarno ask Soeharto for; just to restore the national stability, or a green light to take over his whole power as the highest man in the government? Soeharto assumed the latter, and so did his 32 years of reigning in power begin that day, even when all our eyes were and are still blindsided with no truth.

Quoting Robert Cox when he talked about theories, I think narratives are also made for some purposes and for some people, which exactly explains why the narrative that we heard all through the New Order is in line with how Soeharto perceived the turns of events. This is not to say that their narrative is wrong, maybe they do have some parts of the truth, but exactly that narratives are never right or wrong, it’s dangerous to only be presented with one over the years, because they make it seem like everything about G30S was cut and dry; the men behind, the motives, the victims- when the reality has so much more shades of color. Then again, it’s a topic for another day, but there are even 4 versions of G30S that doesn’t involve PKI nor Tjakrabirawa as the main actor but that rather involve the United States and CIA, so this shows that the movie doesn’t depict the entire, ultimate truth. This approach, blaming communism and Soekarno, has been entrenched in the majority of Indonesian minds that they subconsciously set it as the truth, when in fact, history is simply created by the winner, so then what happens to the truth of those less fortunate that they lose? Don’t they deserve some part of the truths too?

What happens when we do not recognize what actually truly happened during one of the biggest turmoils of Indonesia’s history? Why does it still matter now?

This short article will talk about the impact of the uncertainty of Super Semar in the current Indonesia’s nation building, with 2 main issues; (1) why the reality of history should not be perceived only through a single political lens, and (2) how it leaves a permanent disadvantage into today’s society

Truth only becomes a truth when it is talked about, because only being mentioned is not enough for the public to process it as a truth. Here’s some part of the other truths that have long been forgotten; 2 things that the New Order erased from history, making it look like a strange thing to talk about, let alone acknowledging their existence; (1) Indonesian intellectual exiles during the 1965-1966s, and (2) Indonesian 19651966 mass killings; both happened only on the grounds of the military’s assumption that they’re communist, and the military wasn’t fond with that ideology. I’m talking about the number of Indonesians that are being stripped off of their citizenships and couldn’t find their way back to Indonesia and whose passports were disbanded following Soeharto’s order. They were the generation whose in the early 1960s were sent abroad by President Soekarno to continue their studies, as Indonesian representative in an organization or as a diplomat, who later when Soeharto took power, they fell under the suspicion of Soeharto’s regime that since they were sent by Soekarno and majority were studying in a communist country like Moscow and Czechoslovakia, they were assumed to be as pro-communism and a threat to the country hence they can’t go back here. They’re the brilliant generation that we lost because of an unfair, baseless assumption.

is the bigger deal as it involves killing lives. It’s the 1965 massacres that even the majority of highschool history books never talked about. In 2017, the US government released a declassified embassy paperwork, part of US National Archives and Records Administration, revealing that US diplomats were documenting tens of thousands of killings by the military and paramilitary groups of suspected members of PKI, ethnic Chinese, teachers, activists, artists. It was said that starting in October 1965, Indonesian army officials, led by then-Major General Soeharto, giving free rein to a mix of soldiers and local militias to kill anyone they considered a communist. The same person that took advantage of the Super Semar to reign in power. So the first answer to the main question, why history shouldn’t be perceived within only one perspective, is because it’s very easy to frame it as an absolute truth, when it is not. When one of the most crucial parts in our history has only been perceived within one single lens, it has the potential for a misguided policy and misguided approach. One of the most prevalent examples is recently, Indonesian police officers are hell bent on eradicating the whole discussion on communism and Marxism. Even a harmless academic discussion regarding the school of thought that Karl Marx wrote. But more than that, it is leaving those innocents, the victims in those tumultuous years of 1965-1966 unfair because their truths have never been given a space to be told, or even a room for them to exist. They deserve a better reconciliation on their part and the Indonesian government has never done this. Even in October 2012, then-Coordinating Minister of Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto justified the mass killings as a necessary defense against the PKI. Without truth, no reconciliation can come into being, but it’s needed to address these crimes against humanity; to acknowledge their lives and to apologize. Because ignoring things does not exempt us from our dark mistakes. Constantly demonizing communism and its theory is not only putting our nation-building process on a stagnancy because we are not open to discussions, but it also exaggerates polarization in our country. Take a recent example when there was a rumour saying Joko Widodo is a member of the Communist Party, irregardless that this was a mere rumour, it’s a sign of polarization having its root in how we perceive communism. For as long as Indonesia hasn’t yet tolerated a free market of ideas, some people can always twist it for their benefit because we are still chained by Soeharto’s framing that that particular word is still a threat that can tear our country apart.

: o t r a h e o S f o e n a B T he s ' a i s e n o d In m s i n i Fem

A good nation-building requires an openness, an inclusivity of knowledge, a free market of school of thoughts. One will finally have a sense of community, not because they shield their communities from every other existing ideology and treating different ideologies as threats, but because they are able to discuss it and to still know that there’s common ground between every Indonesian, and not to allow that perceived threat (that requires further reexamination of all the New Order’s claims that started with Super Semar) be the reason we see division. And this is why the uncertainty of Super Semar is still relevant today. It holds a big portion of the perceived truth that shaped our reality and values of today. We might or might not know whether or not the Communist Party is the one to blame for all the instability during the 1960s like what Soeharto picturized to us, we may never know either. But all of this is never about taking sides. We should not let the illusion of an unchecked truth divides us as a nation, and chain us into a certain fear that comes from nowhere but a politician’s propaganda. Polarization might still exist, but at least we don’t add another fuel to the already polarized minds. But more than anything, the Indonesian government owes it to those innocents who were killed for a groundless assumption, a reconciliation and acknowledgement. And if we can’t rewrite the history nor eradicate the decades-old narratives from the New Order, we owe those innocents who were killed and the intellectual exiles who were thrown away from this country, a room for their truths to coexist. References Bevins, Vincent. “What the United States Did in Indonesia,” October 21, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archiv e/2017/10/the-indonesia-documents-and-theus-agenda/543534/ Dewi, Dinda Silviana, and Iswara N Raditya. “Kontroversi Sejarah Supersemar Yang Diperingati Setiap 11 Maret.” Tirto.id, March 11, 2020. https://tirto.id/kontroversi-sejarahsupersemar-yang-diperingati-setiap-11maret-eEjg. Kine, Phelim. “Indonesia: US Documents Released on 1965-66 Massacres.” Human Rights Watch, October 28, 2020. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/18/indone sia-us-documents-released-1965-66massacres. “Kisah Para Eksil 1965: Mereka Yang 'Dibui Tanpa Jeruji'.” BBC News Indonesia. BBC. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/berita_indon esia/2015/09/150928_indonesia_lapsus_eksil _bui.

eugenia l 11

) 7 1 0 2 H e o n ett a (F 12

Indonesia’s feminist movement and women’s rights (or lack thereof) hasn’t always been this hopeless, where the people, both men and women, reject powerful, unapologetically assertive women as leaders. Quite unexpectedly, the feminist movement in the preindependence era was unabashedly loud with the formation of Young Javanese Girls Circle, Wanita Oetomo, Aisyiah, Poetri Indonesia, and many other groups. They fought for education for women, welfare for orphans and widows, and abolishment of child and forced marriages. Even as the Japanese colonies disbanded these movements, these women continued to1 operate in secret, only reestablishing their groups after independence.

One has to wonder then, why Indonesia’s feminism has turned for the worse. The root of feminist movement’s regress can be traced all the way back to Soeharto’s administration. Soekarno’s administration was quite accommodating towards the growth of feminist movement - groups that are formed both before and after independence were allowed to operate as they used to, and they were able to push for legislations on gender equality (Law No. 80 of 1958), albeit the law being imperfect. There are legislations they failed to push though, one of which is a regulation on polygamy that would be fair for women. On the bright side, when Soeharto took over, Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage is finally passed, and although there are still a lot of flaws, it does make polygamy fairer for women.

Unfortunately, that is probably the last progress the feminist movement made during Soeharto’s era. That era is mostly known for its authoritative government, its close ties with the military, freedom of speech being taken away, and the subsequent disappearance of people who criticized the government. But on top of all that, Soeharto did two things to dismantle the steadily growing power of feminism.

He was subtle; he let women think that they had a semblance of power and progress to avoid being confronted with massive protests. He didn’t ban any women-based organizations, he scapegoated one specific organization - Gerakan Wanita Indonesia (Gerwani), arguably the biggest Indonesian feminist movement at the time, who claimed to have 1.5 million members by 1963. Soeharto strengthened not only the narrative that Gerwani is affiliated with PKI - that these wild communist women had abused the generals, danced naked and castrated them before the PKI murdered them, but also that Gerwani is the manifestation of everything “wrong” for women - they are chaotic (because they rebelled against patriarchy), loud (because they were 2 vocal against discrimination), sexually deviant (because they advocated for sexual liberation), and a threat to order and society (because they refused to be controlled by men).

First, is weakening established women-based organizations. We should give some credit to Soeharto, the man is clever - he didn’t outright deny women of their rights, ridicule feminist movements and women of power or commit sexual assault like Trump did.

After that propaganda spread like wildfire, Gerwani had to disperse as massacres of suspected communists and their affiliations started. The regress of feminist movement though, is not only in the form of losing a major organization, it’s that being vocal and assertive are qualities women are forbidden to have, else they’d be dubbed “radical”. Still on the quest of weakening women-based organizations, Soeharto then started co-opting mass organizations. 1 Muhadjir Darwin, “Gerakan Perempuan di Indonesia Dari Masa ke Masa”, Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Gadjah Mada, Vol. 7, No. 3, Maret 2004, hlm. 285-291 2

Amber Woodward, “Historical Perspectives on a National Heroine: R.A. Kartini and the Politics of Memory”, Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection 2015

Persatuan Wanita Republik Indonesia (Perwari), one of the largest women-based organizations, and 22 others are made to join the political party Golkar. These organizations lost their autonomy, forced to follow the agendas of the political party. They can no longer organize their own protests, advocating bills for women can only happen after Golkar finished their main agendas. One good thing that happened is the establishment of the Ministry of Women Empowerment (back then it was called Kementerian Muda Urusan Peranan Wanita) in 1974. However, that too, was tokenistic and a ruse, because he chose incompetent politicians as the head of the ministry politicians who are insensitive of women’s basic needs and created artificial programs that barely grazed the surface of women’s issues. Out of the 31 years of Soeharto holding office, only two regulations benefitting women can be credited to his administration, the Law on Marriage in 1974, and a three-months paid leave for pregnant women.

The second detrimental thing Soeharto did is domesticating feminist movements and feminist icons. Again, subtlety is key here. He co-opted all the women-based organizations he didn’t like, but he created a replacement in the form of Konco Wingking organizations. During this time, the state, with what is called by Julia Suryakusuma3 as “State Ibuism”, defines women so that they “do not exist in their own right, but in relation to something or somebody” . Specifically with the establishment of Konco Wingking (that roughly means “a husband’s companion”) organizations, women exist to complement men - they exist in relation to their husbands. Among others, some famous Konco Wingking organizations include Dharma Wanita (for the wives of civil servants), Persit Kartika Candra Kirana (for the wives of military men), Persatuan Istri Dokter Indonesia (for the wives of doctors), and Persatuan Istri Insinyur Indonesia (for the wives of engineers). These organizations completely took away women’s identity, and a woman became only as valuable as the support she shows to her husband. In Dharma Wanita, for example, their position in the organization is determined not by their merit, but by their husband’s rank in government. Women who refused to play into this archetype, refused to be docile and elegant, would then be paralleled to Gerwani and PKI. The domestication of feminist icons would probably be the biggest, most successful propaganda Seoharto created, because that is still how the current society view icons like Ibu Kita Kartini - a poise aristocrat whose day we celebrate by wearing kebaya, a tight batik sarong that restricted one’s steps, and konde. We know that Kartini’s biography is extracted from her personal letters to her close friend. What we don’t know is that Soeharto’s administration altered her letters and reframed it to fit the ideas of the perfect woman constructed by the New Order. Kartini, who wrote in her letters that she would never marry, was adjusted so that she seemed to say she would never want to be forced to marry.

Her biography focuses on her fighting for education rights despite having a loving family (a picture of perfect domestic harmony, just like what the New Order wants to promote). Her biggest sacrifice comes at throwing away her chance to study in Holland for the sake of her family, especially her sick father - the biography conveniently leaving out that part of the reason is because Abendanon, the husband of her pen pal and curator of her letters, heavily advised her against it for the “corrupting” influence of Europe. Soeharto bestowed the title “Mother” of the Nation to Kartini, something immortalized in the lyrics of the national song, “Ibu Kita Kartini, Putri sejati, Putri Indonesia, Harum namanya.” The real Kartini though, one we can get to know from Pramoedya Anata Toer’s biography “Just Call Me Kartini” (Panggil Aku Kartini Saja) published during the Old Order, is a radical woman who refused to conform to the patriarchal ideals during her era.

The attempt at domesticating female national heroes is also apparent by only creating a designated day and song to celebrate Kartini, and not two other national heroines Cut Nyak Dien and Ceut Meutia, both of whom are armed fighters from Aceh whose contributions to Indonesia’s independence came with the use of a sword, not a pen. These two things Soeharto did seem to pass the public’s eye without much outrage, mostly because he relied on tokenistic representations - doing just enough to appease the general society, but not enough to create any meaningful progress. Twenty-two years and five presidents later, the feminist movement in Indonesia has significantly grown, but stunted nonetheless. Feminism is still a radical concept to half of the population, seen as a bad Western influence trying to permeate our revered Eastern culture. The Sexual Violence Eradication Bill (RUU PKS), said to be pro-prostitution and free sex, was taken out of last year’s National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) priority list. Marital rape is still legal, and the rate of sexual violence only continues to increase in the midst of the pandemic. It’s true that we can’t guarantee how advanced the feminist movement in Indonesia would be if it weren’t for Soeharto, and Soekarno also had his flaws, but the dismantling of this movement would not have been so successful if it weren’t for the incredibly cunning nature of Soeharto’s administration with their tokenistic women-based organizations and heavily-feminized heroines. We have a long way to go to make up for all those lost years, and the feminist movement in Indonesia will continue to be stagnant if we don’t learn from these tactics and continue tolerating tokenistic female representation and policies.

Julia Suryakusuma, “State Ibuism”, Sex, Power, and Nation: An Anthology of Writings, 1979-2003 (Jakarta: Metafor Pub, 2004), hlm. 162

She is concerned not only about education, but also women’s rights in marriages (women at that time had to quit school at the very young age of 12 to begin a customary period of seclusion prior to an arranged marriage), poverty of her fellow colonial subjects, the custom of polygamy, and class systems. Instead of writing about her “loving” family, Toer’s biography focused on the commoner’s background of Kartini’s mother, Ngasirah, and how the inequalities she had to go through by being in a polygamous marriage inspired Kartini’s ideologies. Ironically, despite being known as a “Mother”, she was only a mother for a very short period, as she passed away in 1904 due to complications following the birth of her first child.

INDEPENDENCE DAY

Perhaps then, the measure of an independent nation in our time remains the same as it was in the past, i.e. how much can what we truly want and achieve as a nation be the result of our own aspirations as peoples, and not influenced, either by persuasion or coercion, by other nations and their peoples. Thus, take a brief moment to inquire then if we were ever truly free. My answer is that we probably weren't and can well never really be, but then now with the advent of information technology which has hopefully birthed a generation of better informed people, living in a world with better respect for human rights and the rule of law, we can take the measure of freedom we have now, i.e. for the most part the freedom from fear and do with it what we will. On an individual scale, perhaps we can choose to contemplate whether everyday we are working to fulfill our needs or are we under the control of compulsive hedonistic behavior? Are we motivated by an endless search for money? Are we safe with a roof over our heads and food on the table but jealous of other people's possessions? Do we want to look back in forty years time to find that we wasted so much of our youth on these behaviors? Moreover, on a community level, are we working towards the betterment of other people?

by Victoria Lindy (FISIP 2019) When people talk to me about independence, a lot of topics come to mind. First, there is gratitude; towards the brave men and women who have decided that the ability of this nation to seize its own future, is a worthy enough cause that they, probably young themselves, have forgone their guarantee to a life of any kind by putting themselves - mere skin and bones, body and soul, hopes and dreams included - on a very real battlefield with nothing much besides their wish that we could have a chance at a full weight of ours. Perhaps, this is what they meant by merdeka atau mati. Either independence or death. However, there is now the question of what it means to be an independent nation in the twentyfirst century, a time where globalization has become such a deeply intertwined fibre in our existence as a modern human society, that one can sometimes wonder how free a nation can truly be. Apart from the everyday reality of an interconnected culture, there is also specifically the fact that in the course of our development as a global capitalist civilization, how much can Indonesia's future actually be without the influence of more powerful nations, particularly developed ones who have had the time as well as the financial and political resources at the expense of our colonization, to mature into developed countries who now control (still) the majority of our resources?

Are we rallying behind the have-nots because a step away from capital does not negate the fact that there are those at the bottom of the social ladder who face great difficulty climbing up. In a modern society, those without university degrees do not have a good chance at white collar occupations and may well be stuck with blue collar jobs for the rest of their lives. What are we doing about this? Are we putting our privilege to good use? What are we doing besides donating? Do we donate and then feel as though we have done the world a great service? Remember that blue collar occupations lay the foundation for the existence of white collar jobs, and as much as you feel you have earned what you keep, momentum for upward social mobility continues to severely be determined by birth lottery, so you probably should not feel as if you have. Last but not least, I would like to leave you with the reminder that while independence day is a cause for celebration, it should also be a moment of awakening. What does it mean to be independent in your world? Does your independence give you a chance at a full weight of life and its possibilities, or does maintaining it counterproductively limit your options? This is the time our ancestors fought to their deaths for. How are you using it?

BE Bonding

EDS UI 2021 Events January - December

excited!!

January 20th, 2021 The Board of Executives Bonding is the first program of the Internals division which was intended for members of the EDS UI 2021 Board of Executives to get to know each other and strengthen the relationship among members. This year, the Board of Executives Bonding was held at the Zoom Meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The series of events contained introductions of each member and playing various games.

Our programs throughout 2021

JFF

TRAP: Quarantraining 4.0

April, 17th 2021

May, 8th 2021

TRAP is an annual debating seminar and workshop, the first of its kind in Indonesia. This year's TRAP was divided into two sessions which are general session and private session that are filled with amazing debaters across Indonesia. The 50% profit of TRAP were proceeded to UNICEF as a donation to help children worldwide fighting COVID-19.

JFF (Just For Fun) Debate is an enjoyable debating tourney with fun motions for high school students in Indonesia. JFF also have mini games and awards for the participants. This year, we had 63 participants in total.

EDS UI Inauguration and ODTC

NEWBIES

September, 25th 2021

October, 16th-17th 2021

The inauguration day is the last series of members' selection which is a mandatory activity for new members of EDS UI. The inauguration event included an introduction to the Board of Executives, inspiration talk from outstanding EDS UI members, games about a case and members responding to arguments. On the other hand, ODTC is a One Day Training Camp for EDS UI new members.

NEWBIES is an annual debating competition held by EDS UI for university students. As the name suggests, this debate competition celebrates new debate enthusiasts who started debating in varsity.

Korea WUDC 2021

EDS UI 2021 Afterglows UI A Open 2nd Runner Up

AEO 2021

UI B Open Semifinalist

Breaking Adjudicator

UI B EFL Semifinalist

UI A

Eugenia Leonetta (Open 3rd Best Speaker) Farah A. Balqis (Co-4th Open Best Speaker)

NOVED

Elgard Mario W. (Co-6th Open Best Speaker) Justin Gabriel W. (Co-8th Open Best Speaker)

2021

Co-2nd Runner Up

UI B Open Prequarterfinalist

UI C

Everine Jeaquin Lo

Open Prequarterfinalist

UI D UI A Champion

Novice Semifinalist

Eugenia Leonetta (Varsity Overall Best Speaker) Farah A. Balqis (2nd Varsity Best Speaker)

UI E

Purposeved

2021

Open Quarterfinalist

Justin Gabriel W. (6th Varsity Best Speaker) UI B 1st Runner Up Frederick Roland A. (4th Varsity Best Speaker)

UI C Grand Finalist

Breaking Adjudicator

Cecilia Tiara Liong Moh Daffa Aditya ( 7th Varsity Best Speaker)

UI A STTALS AP 2021

UI A 1st Runner Up

Joan Bidadari A. (2nd Overall Best Speaker) Grace Viona ( Co-3rd Overall Best Speaker) Chika Argata H. ( Co-3rd Overall Best Speaker)

NUDC 2021

Open Semifinalist

Breaking Adjudicator

Elgard Mario Wiandika Kezia Ascencio Widayat

Kezia Ascencio W. (3rd Open Best Speaker) Elgard Mario W. (6th Open Best Speaker) Cecilia Tiara Liong Joshua Glorius H.

Agnes Patricia Frederick Roland Aristito Joan Bidadari A. (2nd Novice Best Speaker) Hezron Kowardi (3rd Best Speaker)

Justin Gabriel Wibisono Christoper Salendu Erwin

Julvin (Co-5th Best Institutional Judge) Aditya Manggala (Co-5th Best Institutional Judge) Kezia Ascencio W. (Overall Best Speaker) Elgard Mario W. (2nd Open Best Speaker)

Cecilia Tiara Liong

ALSA E-comp

2021

UI A Open 2nd Runner Up

UI B Open Prequarterfinalist

Breaking Adjudicator

UI A

KDMI 2021

Open Octofinalist

Breaking Adjudicator

UI A SECTION

2021

Grand Finalistt

Breaking Adjudicator

UI A Champion

NEWBIES

2021

Justin Gabriel W. (Varsity 5th Best Speaker) Frederick Roland A. (Varsity 4th Best Speaker) Crescencia Melissa Christopher Salendu Erwin Chika Argata Halim Joan Bidadari Annandale

Cecilia Tiara Liong Raynathan Christopher Deavina Christy (2nd Open Best Speaker) Ricky Hendrika (5th Open Best Speaker)

Julvin Joshua Karel Riantoputra Cintya Amanda Labetta

ABP 2021

ACC 2021

NEO 2021

UI A Open Quarterfinalist

UI A Open Runner Up

UI A Grand Finalist

Elgard Mario W. (EFL 9th Best Speaker) Kezia Ascencio W.

Raynathan Christopher ( Co-10th Best Speaker) Widyan Grani Pramestiparamitha

Hezron Kowardi (Co-4th Overall Best Speaker) Julvin

Hezron Kowardi (Overall Best Speaker) Albert Julio (Co-2nd Best Speaker)

Joshua Glorius Eileen Monica (Co-3rd Overall Best Speaker) Mayta Ciara S. (Co-3rd Overall Best Speaker) Diva Faustina (Co-7th Overall Best Speaker)

Nathalie Grace C. (Co-7th Overall Best Speaker) UI B Haiqa Sabrina Octofinalist Yousra Ghada Sofyan

UI C Octofinalist

Bianca Fabiola Zafira Hanin Atina Rahmania Nabila Keishafa Lutfiah

BOARDS OF EXECUTIVE

EDS UI 2021

President Ricky Hendrika (FH 2019)

Secretary Treasury 29

Alvin Nathanael (FH 2018)

Victoria Lindy (FISIP 2019) 30

Training and Development

aisduernyt PTrrees Elzi Sirkan Ricky Hendrika (FT 2019) 2019) (FH

Secretary Jason S. (FMIPA 2019)

Secretary Alvian N. (FF 2019) 31

Co-Head

Logan Gunadi (FISIP 2019)

Agnes Patricia (FPsi 2019)

Staff

Julvin (FEB 2020)

Kai Riantoputra (Fpsi 2020)

Justin Gabriel (FH 2020)

Projects

Co-Head

Veigy Pruedensia (FISIP 2019)

Audina (FIB 2019)

Internals

Co-Head

Crescencia Melissa (FT 2019)

Staff

Albert Julio (FISIP 2020)

Gizscha V. (FH 2019)

Inggit R. (FIB 2020)

Chika A. (FEB 2020)

Co-Head

Cintya Amanda L. (FH 2019)

Staff

Hezron Kowardi (FPsi 2020)

Joan Bidadari (FMIPA 2020)

Febi Ghela (FISIP 2020)

Joshua Glorius (FISIP 2020)

A (quarantined) Year

Externals

in Recap externals

Co-Head

Annisa Noza Salsabila (FISIP 2019)

Zarifa Emily (FISIP 2019)

Annisa Noza Salsabila Zarifa Emily Aurellia Naomi Cecillia Tiara Decynka Sheila Ian IImanuel layout and design

Staff

Cecilia Tiara (FIB 2020)

Aurellia Naomi (FISIP 2019)

Decynka Sheila (FMIPA 2020)

Ian Imanuel (FT 2019)

Annisa Noza Salsabila

contributors Aditya Manggala Eugenia Leonetta Victoria Lindy Zarifa Emily