Friday, 19 November 2010
Sore need for plurality in law
Sore need for plurality in law
Brave New World
Sore need for plurality in law
Brave New World
By AZMI SHAROM
Over the years, our courts as a whole have been steadily abdicating their duty to protect the citizens’ rights as stated in the Federal Constitution.
YOU may remember the Shamala case; the story of a Hindu man converting to Islam and then without the consent of his Hindu wife converting their two small children as well. The latest development in this saga is the Federal Court decision on the 12th of this month.
The roots of this case lie in the judgment of the High Court in 2004; the judge held that it was all right for one parent to convert their child without consent from the other.
His reasoning was based on Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution which states: “The religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian”.
He noted that the article says “parent”, not “parents”. This is an overly simplistic literal interpretation of the article, for if taken to its logical conclusion what it can lead to is a child being converted by one parent one day and then converted again by the other parent the next day.
Surely this ridiculous situation was not what the article intended and surely it can be implied that the word “parent” means both parents.
He then proceeded to give custody to the mother but on the condition that she will not expose the children to her Hindu faith. Again, this is another strange ruling. It places an unreasonable condition on the mother.
After this decision, the mother left the country with her two children.
Meanwhile, her lawyers appealed to the Court of Appeal asking the court to decide, among other things, on the constitutionality of one parent being able to unilaterally convert their children.
The Court of Appeal agreed to allow the case to go straight to Federal Court, the highest court in the land, to decide the matter on the grounds that it will save time and effort as whatever its decision, one of the parties will appeal to the Federal Court anyway.
The Federal Court decided not to make a judgment on the constitutional issues as the mother and the children were now out of the country and therefore whatever it decides will come to naught as she is not within its jurisdiction.
The Federal Court judges made clear their displeasure that this woman had left the country in contempt of the court and was now seeking a decision from the very same court; something they were not going to do.
With all due respect to the court, I am of the opinion that this entire situation is the result of our courts as a whole steadily over the years abdicating their duty to protect the citizens’ rights as stated in the Federal Constitution.
And now using a technicality, albeit a legally sound one, they are once again side-stepping an important constitutional question.
Time and time again, we have seen our courts hide from their responsibility to uphold the Constitution whenever cases involving Islam appear.
They either do it by stating that such matters belong in the jurisdiction of the Syariah court, even though the Syariah court has no jurisdiction to answer questions regarding the Constitution, or they come out with a ruling like the High Court decision in this particular case.
The courts have lost track of the fact that this is a secular country and that its citizens have rights as stated in our secular constitution. They have bent over backwards, for reasons unknown, to allow Islamic matters to be above and beyond the limits placed within the Constitution.
In this way, they have ignored the fact that this country, being a multi-religious and secular one, needs a high degree of plurality in order to avoid injustice.
> Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
It must be the snake-oil that stinks .....
“An idealist believes the short run doesn't count.
A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter.
A realist believes that what is done or
left undone in the short run determines the long run.”
~Sydney J. Harris
“Our aim is to have a buffer of about maybe 20 MPs
to defend the government
in case Pakatan takes over the government,”
~Haris Ibrahim, Pakatan could face supporters in next GE
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage,
concludes that it is also more nourishing.
~H. L. Mencken
A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter.
A realist believes that what is done or
left undone in the short run determines the long run.”
~Sydney J. Harris
“Our aim is to have a buffer of about maybe 20 MPs
to defend the government
in case Pakatan takes over the government,”
~Haris Ibrahim, Pakatan could face supporters in next GE
An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage,
concludes that it is also more nourishing.
~H. L. Mencken
==================================
Yah- I read that.I also read that Tony Pua was right about what Haris proposes (athough it wasn't 50 seats, as Tony Pua said). Haris WANTS "only" 20 seats- So why don't the activists just nominate someone from the three parties to represent them?
Oh yes- I forgot. These guys Haris proposes, should not be subjected to any party discipline/agenda, nor would they be subjected to any ideological discipline. In short, they should subcribe to any party agenda/manipulation to get what they want.
In other words- Haris wants 20 seats for those who are on their own, possibly with no significant track record of political activism and have already made their money (has about RM0.5 Million to spare)!! This thing is said on the back of saying that "he's providing a pool of candidates to contest where they cannot find better candidates within the three parties?
That too, he wants them to contest "where PR cannot offer better candidates" so that, "We don’t want to see another Perak".
Look at how ridiculous his stand is. He wants to make sure another "perak" doesn't happen, by having candidates who will "defend the Government" but:--
1. He cannot guarantee that these guys will toe any line.
2. He cannot guarantee that they would not succumb to being bought over/ jump ship.
3. He cannot guarantee that they'll even stand up for the Peoples' declaration.
Very niiice ..... In short- what he wants (WITH NO GUARANTEES), is a "de-facto mosquito party" of "independents" supported by the PR to "act as a buffer" - which will abide by no discipline, to challenge an embryonic force that has thus far, (despite all its flaws), has successfully threatened the BN juggernaut and clipped their wings!
They say that politics is a game of "perceptions".
Haris's denial that "It has nothing to do with Zaid" when he was supporting Zaid all along. and RPK's recent comments in "support" of Zaid in his latest column on NHB, would cast a doubt on the minds of many voters- if not just outright confuse them.
Quite a perception- (that 3 parties don't even have 20 guys of calibre among their thousands)- to go into an election, hoping to win, huh?
It is not that I disagree with his opinion about having an alternative candidate pool, so that we have "credible forces in the parliament"......
Aaah, so it is about-"effective representation" in the Parliament, is it?
Hello friend- get real la brader .... Do you even realize that the Parliament is at best, a talk-shop?
IT IS INEFFECTIVE AND ALMOST POWERLESS in the face of the manipulations of the Federal Constitution and religion by UMNO!!!
This is- which come as a surprise to many- The parliament ineffective by design!! If you don't believe me- just ask Mahathir ....
That begs the question- what do you hope to achieve with these 20 "lawmakers", who have created the perception that the three PR parties do not even have this number of guys of calibre to represent them, should you fail to reach Putrajaya, or have a flimsy majority at best?
It is just that I believe that this optimism of a "3rd force" in parliament and assessment of the Malaysian voter mindset is bordering on naivete. You want lawmakers to be effective in parliament, you need to be able to control sentiments on the street. As long as we have apathy on the streets- the executive will overide the parliament!!
Public perception- that is the key... and that is where the "3rd force" thingie will have to do its job!! Anything else, and we will be saddled with the same problem all over again.
We have a system that borders on Fascism- with a "gagged media", impotent judiciary, an Attorney General who doesn't care if he looks ridiculous, indisciplined police-force, scandals galore in the Auditor-General's report, child abduction for the sake of conversion is legalized through the religious courts and where he cannot walk the streets with his friends without violating the "Police Act" (if he doesn't have a permit) - and here is Haris, trying to speak of a blooming democracy- with an effective parliament!!
The way I look at it- this "3rd-force" thingie should concentrate on creating awareness - enough to push politicians to respond to demands made in parliament and in the media. Until that happens, those who hope to bring about the perfect democracy in the perfect parliament, is nothing short of Delusional!
In short, I think somebody is pushing his idealism a little too much, too far, too soon- and who knows- maybe even hoping that the whole thing would fizzle out, if nothing happens!!
But then again- if the PR parties are willing to provide seats for private citizens who wish to "defend the Government" - who am I to so anything about that ....
Indeed- as RPK says, "Who are the real Trojan Horses?".... but maybe he should've added the word "unwitting" to it.
Something just doesn't seem right......
It may not be Zaid or UMNO farting with glee here - but something sure doesn't sound too right here, and smells to the high heavens (in the so-called "3rd force" issue which the salesman is peddling .... ).
Yup- it must be some snake-oil somewhere .....
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Fatal shooting of 3 persons including a 16-year-old boy in Glenmarie
Fatal shooting of 3 persons including a 16-year-old boy in Glenmarie
The dead were Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shafie, 16, Mohd Khairul Nizam Tuah, 20, and Mohd Hanafi Omar, 22. Although one of the dead persons was a sixteen year old boy, acting Selangor police chief Datuk A.Thaiveegan has made the incredible claim that all the dead were "seasoned criminals". The police allege that the dead suspects were part of a gang known as "Geng Minyak" which preyed on petrol stations. They further allege that the suspects when cornered rushed at the police with machetes and that the police shot them all dead in self-defense.
We find this story by the police to be quite unbelievable. If the suspects were only armed with machetes and not firearms, why was it necessary to shoot all of them dead? Were any warning shots fired? It beggars belief that men armed with machetes would rush into a hail of bullets.
We note that there is disturbing similarity in the justification given out by police after almost every fatal police shooting in recent memory. In almost all cases, police claim that the suspects fled and police gave chase. The suspects then attacked police and the police opened fire killing all instantly. No suspect in such situations ever seems to survive. Subsequent to the shooting police claim to have discovered weapons in their vehicle and accuse the dead of being involved in all sorts of crime. Of course, by then none of them can defend themselves.
Even 14 year police shooting victim Aminulrasyid Amzah was accused of being a parang wielding criminal. This standard police version which is trotted out after every shooting is extremely improbable, to say the least. It should be noted that international policing norms require that firearms only be discharged to protect life and that clear warnings be given with adequate time to comply. Are these rules being observed and complied with by the Malaysian police force?
We seriously doubt it, going by previous cases. We also note that the authorities continue to refuse to make public even the police guidelines on discharge of firearms. Why all this secrecy?
We call for an immediate independent investigation into this latest shooting, with the findings made public. We reiterate the call for a Royal Commission to investigate all police shootings over the past decade. We call upon the police force to adhere to international guidelines on policing and to eschew all unlawful actions in the name of crime prevention.
LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY
In almost all cases, police claim that the suspects fled and police gave chase. The suspects then attacked police and the police opened fire killing all instantly. No suspect in such situations ever seems to survive. Subsequent to the shooting police claim to have discovered weapons in their vehicle and accuse the dead of being involved in all sorts of crime. Of course, by then none of them can defend themselves.
By Lawyers for Liberty
Lawyers for Liberty is gravely concerned over the shooting to death of three alleged suspects by police during the early hours of Saturday 13th November 2010 at Glenmarie, Selangor.The dead were Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shafie, 16, Mohd Khairul Nizam Tuah, 20, and Mohd Hanafi Omar, 22. Although one of the dead persons was a sixteen year old boy, acting Selangor police chief Datuk A.Thaiveegan has made the incredible claim that all the dead were "seasoned criminals". The police allege that the dead suspects were part of a gang known as "Geng Minyak" which preyed on petrol stations. They further allege that the suspects when cornered rushed at the police with machetes and that the police shot them all dead in self-defense.
We find this story by the police to be quite unbelievable. If the suspects were only armed with machetes and not firearms, why was it necessary to shoot all of them dead? Were any warning shots fired? It beggars belief that men armed with machetes would rush into a hail of bullets.
We note that there is disturbing similarity in the justification given out by police after almost every fatal police shooting in recent memory. In almost all cases, police claim that the suspects fled and police gave chase. The suspects then attacked police and the police opened fire killing all instantly. No suspect in such situations ever seems to survive. Subsequent to the shooting police claim to have discovered weapons in their vehicle and accuse the dead of being involved in all sorts of crime. Of course, by then none of them can defend themselves.
Even 14 year police shooting victim Aminulrasyid Amzah was accused of being a parang wielding criminal. This standard police version which is trotted out after every shooting is extremely improbable, to say the least. It should be noted that international policing norms require that firearms only be discharged to protect life and that clear warnings be given with adequate time to comply. Are these rules being observed and complied with by the Malaysian police force?
We seriously doubt it, going by previous cases. We also note that the authorities continue to refuse to make public even the police guidelines on discharge of firearms. Why all this secrecy?
We call for an immediate independent investigation into this latest shooting, with the findings made public. We reiterate the call for a Royal Commission to investigate all police shootings over the past decade. We call upon the police force to adhere to international guidelines on policing and to eschew all unlawful actions in the name of crime prevention.
LAWYERS FOR LIBERTY
N.Surendran
Fadiah Nadwa Fikri
Monday, 15 November 2010
Zaid- The Track Record of a "tenacious fighter"
(continued from The "3rd Force" Conundrum .... and more bla,- Pt. ...)
You really don't know what you speak of, do you?
How do you know what the person is made of?
Simple- just look at his track record ....
Firstly, remember that a man is the product of his past- the things he stood for. He does not "suddenly" come to his senses, and then walk on in glory as usual- he usually has to acknowledge his mistakes, give up his past and usually plead for another chance in humility.
Then learn to differentiate between the person and his words. Words come easy, especially for politicians.Remember that ideas he speaks of don't necessarily have to be what the the person is made of.
Now I don't care if he has stables full of horses, drinks Henessy on-the-rocks, has camels, catamites or a harem to service his lust ... or has the habit of sucking his thumb in bed, for that matter- even if it's wrong according to UMNO's NEP,"social contract", NKRA, ETP, PPP or whatever else.
All that matters is his "track record".
So let's talk about Zaid's track record of "Idealism" where "Rule of law" or justice is, okay ...
Yeah, yeah- in those 23 yrs of Zaid's Umno membership, I'm sure the media was so full of this tenacious fighters staements in protest against Mahathirs crony-capitalist policies, piratization, racist polity and the rape of the Federal Constitution ......... NOT!!!
Here is a man who apparently "sacrificed a lot" in UMNO, for 23 yrs (aka the Mahathir yrs) when he made his fortune- order to become a Cabinet Minister, by "giving up" a "successful" law practice which thrived as a result of patronage.
Yes- I'm sure his record is that of a "tenacious political fighter" ... until the gravy-train dried up.
Here is a man who speaks of justice- when he formed or (helped form) the Muslims Lawyers' Association (of which he was the President as a lobby group for his political Master, Mahathir- during the challenge against Mahathir's "rule by law".
This is the very man who suggested that the Bar Council President should be the Minister of Law!!
Here is the man who saw that he couldn't work with Umno, and seeing sentiments on the ground, saw that PKR had "potential"- so, upon being "sacked" from Umno, claimed that he "didn't have the money for a new party" (now he has the money, okay), started affiliating himself to PKR.
So he went around, apparently hammering a deal on "formalizing" a written constitution/understanding among the main parties, so as to register this coalition as a Formal Coalition (I donno if the "gas-stove" like thingie is the agreed symbol, though ...)- but nothing has come off all the exercise, I gather. Of course, of course- it is the "ROS" which is giving all the problem ....
The Hulu Selangor by-election was a setback for this selfless, horse-riding/breeding/keeping/whatever idealist of a patriot- what a humiliation for a high & mighty idealist, to lose at an election wherein he should've won hands-down!! We all know what happened- and so does he ... and everything changed .... but it remained under wraps, and the high-flung idealistic "rule of law" rhetoric continued to drool from this "statesman" to the adoring fans of his in his stable.
But anyways- all that changed when "Elections" ("for what it is worth"- being the first) were announced within PKR-
Zaid - a FRESHIE in the party, just learning to play marbles in the electoral pact that went miles ahead without him in 12th GE- suddenly wants the No.2 post!!
He does that, while he raves, rants & whines about the flaws in the system (which did not even exist during his idealistic glory years in UMNO!!)
I could go on about this "tenacious political fighter", guys- but I think my coffee is getting cold, and I wouldn't waste good coffee on this Mr "Principled Politics". I'd rather bet on my pet Beagles- Chopper & Mojo - than this guy.
Take care, all you Zaidophiles ....
(NOTE TO HARIS IBRAHIM:- I donno if you include yourself among these gullible, impessionable, idealistic/altruistic juveniles, Haris- but judging from the above quote, surely many would, or would like you to).
"Saya berharap Haris Ibrahim dan rakan – rakannya
dapat menjadi tulang belakang kepada pembentukan kuasa ketiga ini
dan menyokong Zaid Ibrahim untuk mengetuai kuasa ini."
-Shen Yee Aun, Demi Malaysia, Haris Ibrahim Harus Membantu Zaid ....
===============================
Now let me move on to what Yee Aun mentions so boldly above, (but then again says, "3rd force is not about Zaid Ibrahim." )- Yee Aun and all those political juveniles who dream of "Mr. Principled Politics leading the third force", wake up, will you!!dapat menjadi tulang belakang kepada pembentukan kuasa ketiga ini
dan menyokong Zaid Ibrahim untuk mengetuai kuasa ini."
-Shen Yee Aun, Demi Malaysia, Haris Ibrahim Harus Membantu Zaid ....
===============================
In the recent past, many mistook me for a Zaidophile- simply because I agreed with many of the ideals Zaid Ibrahim spoke of. Some were quite surprised that I said I rooted for Azmin in the PKR elections.
(Just for the resord- I'm no member of any political party, okay)
Agreeing with an opinion does not mean that one has to be supportive of the persons leadership qualities- that is if he had such a quality in the first place.If at all, I disappointed them- too bad guys- I make no apologies. Maybe you should learn to draw the lines between a man, his words and his politics.
(Just for the resord- I'm no member of any political party, okay)
Agreeing with an opinion does not mean that one has to be supportive of the persons leadership qualities- that is if he had such a quality in the first place.If at all, I disappointed them- too bad guys- I make no apologies. Maybe you should learn to draw the lines between a man, his words and his politics.
You really don't know what you speak of, do you?
How do you know what the person is made of?
Simple- just look at his track record ....
Firstly, remember that a man is the product of his past- the things he stood for. He does not "suddenly" come to his senses, and then walk on in glory as usual- he usually has to acknowledge his mistakes, give up his past and usually plead for another chance in humility.
Then learn to differentiate between the person and his words. Words come easy, especially for politicians.Remember that ideas he speaks of don't necessarily have to be what the the person is made of.
Now I don't care if he has stables full of horses, drinks Henessy on-the-rocks, has camels, catamites or a harem to service his lust ... or has the habit of sucking his thumb in bed, for that matter- even if it's wrong according to UMNO's NEP,"social contract", NKRA, ETP, PPP or whatever else.
All that matters is his "track record".
So let's talk about Zaid's track record of "Idealism" where "Rule of law" or justice is, okay ...
==================
"I was in UMNO for over 23 years. I have gone through a lot. I got suspended, got dropped as a candidate, lost election over 10 year- period before I won but I did not resign. My record is that of a very tenacious political fighter ...."
-Zaid Ibrahim, The "Principled" Politician
======================
======================
Here is a man who apparently "sacrificed a lot" in UMNO, for 23 yrs (aka the Mahathir yrs) when he made his fortune- order to become a Cabinet Minister, by "giving up" a "successful" law practice which thrived as a result of patronage.
Yes- I'm sure his record is that of a "tenacious political fighter" ... until the gravy-train dried up.
Here is a man who speaks of justice- when he formed or (helped form) the Muslims Lawyers' Association (of which he was the President as a lobby group for his political Master, Mahathir- during the challenge against Mahathir's "rule by law".
This is the very man who suggested that the Bar Council President should be the Minister of Law!!
Here is the man who saw that he couldn't work with Umno, and seeing sentiments on the ground, saw that PKR had "potential"- so, upon being "sacked" from Umno, claimed that he "didn't have the money for a new party" (now he has the money, okay), started affiliating himself to PKR.
=================================
"I will have to find a seat somewhere.
If I have to form my own party, I will do it. Maybe not a big party.
I will do what I feel. I am a issue related politician,
I will support the PM if I feel so and I am free to criticise BN
or the opposition or anyone."
~ "Mr Tenacious Z"
==========================
This is the man, who upon joining PKR at the height of its popularity post-308, claimed that he wishes no political posts, and only wanted to "serve for the good of the people"- but cannot be a team player, to achieve those very goals he speaks of.If I have to form my own party, I will do it. Maybe not a big party.
I will do what I feel. I am a issue related politician,
I will support the PM if I feel so and I am free to criticise BN
or the opposition or anyone."
~ "Mr Tenacious Z"
==========================
So he went around, apparently hammering a deal on "formalizing" a written constitution/understanding among the main parties, so as to register this coalition as a Formal Coalition (I donno if the "gas-stove" like thingie is the agreed symbol, though ...)- but nothing has come off all the exercise, I gather. Of course, of course- it is the "ROS" which is giving all the problem ....
The Hulu Selangor by-election was a setback for this selfless, horse-riding/breeding/keeping/whatever idealist of a patriot- what a humiliation for a high & mighty idealist, to lose at an election wherein he should've won hands-down!! We all know what happened- and so does he ... and everything changed .... but it remained under wraps, and the high-flung idealistic "rule of law" rhetoric continued to drool from this "statesman" to the adoring fans of his in his stable.
But anyways- all that changed when "Elections" ("for what it is worth"- being the first) were announced within PKR-
Zaid - a FRESHIE in the party, just learning to play marbles in the electoral pact that went miles ahead without him in 12th GE- suddenly wants the No.2 post!!
He does that, while he raves, rants & whines about the flaws in the system (which did not even exist during his idealistic glory years in UMNO!!)
I could go on about this "tenacious political fighter", guys- but I think my coffee is getting cold, and I wouldn't waste good coffee on this Mr "Principled Politics". I'd rather bet on my pet Beagles- Chopper & Mojo - than this guy.
Take care, all you Zaidophiles ....
(NOTE TO HARIS IBRAHIM:- I donno if you include yourself among these gullible, impessionable, idealistic/altruistic juveniles, Haris- but judging from the above quote, surely many would, or would like you to).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)