MOTION : This House Would Abolished Parties Based on Ethnicity

GOV

Prime Minister

Stance : They wanted to restrict the country in Asia whose the parties are based on ethnicity where those parties are shaped only in particular ethnicity cause it only disturb the democracy to determine any policy

Problems: In status quo, there’ll be a debate between the parties which based on ethnicity to determine the solution whenever they need to make an agreement,just only because they glorify their ethnicity. It will be hard to global out the solution

Proposal (mechanism) :

Arguments:Example in a company where there’s a diversity, whenever there’s a party which is shaped based on ethnicity, it will make the arrogance among the people. Parties which based on ethnicity is a bad idea ,because it will cause the fragmentation. As we all know that whenever there’ll be an election, some people will abuse their voting rights. They only want to choose a person whose the same ethnicity. Then again, some countries in Asia are filled by some of major ethnicity. It means that the people which are elected wont use their obligation to voice the needs of many people (only their tribes). It will be very hard to determine any policy too in a parliament.

Deputy Prime Ministers

Rebuttals : there’ll be an unbalanced situation where there may be some ethnics in parliament who want to fight only for the needs of their clans.

Arguments : policy must not based on ethnicity needs, the policy that have been brought must to fulfill the individual needs.

Govt Whip

Rebuttals1. The idea of choice in a democracy country2. the idea of the needs of party that sometimes can harm another clans sides

Opp

Leader of Opp

Stance : why are the combination of ethnicity are needed in a party where every ethnics have the same right to fight for their rights in a same parliament? That’s the diversity of politics. we’re talking about the representatives who have been expert to fight for the rights of people. It can be mentioned as cadres of clans.

Rebuttals : parties which based on ethnicity are shaped for only the same reason (the same purposes and interest). Should we ban the people who have the right to participate in parties just only because their majority of interest and historical ? we’re talking about the people who have been expert for fighting their rights. This people have been expert if it’s reviewed from the historical’s sides

Arguments: a good parties can be success if in those parties there’s an existence of the collective work. A party are shaped with the same vision and mission . It doesn’t matter if there’re cadres of clans. They are exist in a parliament to flatten the development of parties and to flatten the rights of the diversity of tribes in their nation. It can be mentions as a preventing way to decrease the separatism movements. Deputy Leader of Opp

Rebuttals : the absence of parties that based on ethnicity has the function to gather the rights of the representatives clans in parliament. The minority and the majority are exist in a parliament to check the unbalanced policy . it’s also impossible to fulfill the whole needs of people, so that we’re looking for the special needs that can be gathered as the majority policy soon.

Arguments1. The representative of people that based on ethnicity can be mentioned have the function to fight for their clans needs (The

operational), and we can be gathered as a united asia. (ex : Malaysia where there’s a majority and minority parties which based on ethnicity. It has been proven that each of the parties can fight for their ethnics needs.2. There’s an exclusive value for letting the election function just because of the fear of any movementsOpp Whip

Rebuttals:People with the same ethnic choose the parties with the same ethnic too with them because they make a promise to fulfill their needs. It means that the needs of people can be presented in a parliament

Kirim ke andreartosp@yahoo.com sebelum pukul 00.00 hari minggu dan seninTELAT DENDA SERIBU PERMENIT