By Sharlotte Khit
The ASEAN committee started debating on the issue of combating malnutrition and stunting ASEAN in countries after lunch. The mainsubmitter of the resolution to solve the issue was the dual delegation of Cambodia. (The ASEAN committee consisted of dual delegations) The debate was very fruitful and brought up many important points. The delegate of Singapore gave a speech urging delegates to vote for the resolution, stating that it tackles the issue by encouraging economic growth and increasing maternal education to improve infant care. However, there were concerns over the resolution only being a short-term solution for malnutrition with the possibility of countries plummeting back into poverty in the long run and being unable to repay loans. One delegate emphasised the fact that most ASEAN nations are still developing and struggling themselves, and so were unable to follow through with some suggestions from the resolution. Furthermore, there were concerns over stimulation of economic growth in ASEAN countries that were not open to the world yet, as well as the fact that countries would not share their resources because they want to develop themselves first. An amendment was proposed by the delegate of Malaysia to insert “According to the International Labour Organisation Maternal Protection Convention”, to subclause 4a, which concerned revision and improvement of maternity leaves. with the delegate of Thailand commending the amendment, stating that clause 4 was too vague and needed to be clarified. Another delegate speaking for the amendment was the delegate of Laos, who argued that maternity leaves needed to be prolonged. With nine votes for and three votes against, the amendment passed. Immediately after, another amendment was proposed by the delegate of Brunei to strike clause 7, which concerned nutrition screening. The delegate of Brunei stated in her speech that the clause was implausible for developing countries. Delegates who disagreed with this amendment stated that striking the clause, which was the only clause in the entire resolution that dealt with nutrition screening for children and adults, would leave the resolution vague. The amendment did not pass, with only two votes for and ten votes against the amendment.
The ASEAN committee started debating on the issue of combating malnutrition and stunting ASEAN in countries after lunch. The mainsubmitter of the resolution to solve the issue was the dual delegation of Cambodia. (The ASEAN committee consisted of dual delegations) The debate was very fruitful and brought up many important points. The delegate of Singapore gave a speech urging delegates to vote for the resolution, stating that it tackles the issue by encouraging economic growth and increasing maternal education to improve infant care. However, there were concerns over the resolution only being a short-term solution for malnutrition with the possibility of countries plummeting back into poverty in the long run and being unable to repay loans. One delegate emphasised the fact that most ASEAN nations are still developing and struggling themselves, and so were unable to follow through with some suggestions from the resolution. Furthermore, there were concerns over stimulation of economic growth in ASEAN countries that were not open to the world yet, as well as the fact that countries would not share their resources because they want to develop themselves first. An amendment was proposed by the delegate of Malaysia to insert “According to the International Labour Organisation Maternal Protection Convention”, to subclause 4a, which concerned revision and improvement of maternity leaves. with the delegate of Thailand commending the amendment, stating that clause 4 was too vague and needed to be clarified. Another delegate speaking for the amendment was the delegate of Laos, who argued that maternity leaves needed to be prolonged. With nine votes for and three votes against, the amendment passed. Immediately after, another amendment was proposed by the delegate of Brunei to strike clause 7, which concerned nutrition screening. The delegate of Brunei stated in her speech that the clause was implausible for developing countries. Delegates who disagreed with this amendment stated that striking the clause, which was the only clause in the entire resolution that dealt with nutrition screening for children and adults, would leave the resolution vague. The amendment did not pass, with only two votes for and ten votes against the amendment.