Why are the bloody MPs keeping. This treason of the highest order an unforgiveable betrayal of trust voters reposed in themThis has been morally degrading and has turned politics predatory. But things still remained functional. Till prosperity threw up a body of people whose progress in life has little to do with state patronage and who thus resent being subjected to poor governance and extortion.
I always thought that nobody is invincible and untouchable except the Almighty! The question that invariably accompanies this would be: What “hold” has the AG on Jib? Something to ponder over
One can drive a very large truck of suspect cargo through the door marked ‘patriotism’. Once the integrity of the nation is invoked and the spectre of social and communal unrest is seen as being at stake, the state buys for itself a lot of room for actions that might have otherwise seemed unpalatable. In that sense, the decision to impose some kind of regulation The purpose in introducing this law is to gag the opposition and civil society critics of the regime. The recent exemption of Umno Youth from being prosecuted under Section 114A by the police is proof this legislation is directed at silencing the enemies of the regime. There is a third way of repealing Section 114A of the Evidence Act. Press the reset button on GE13 and begin anew as a nation to rebuild and restore our twisted legal system and broken down state institutions.
The contentious Section 114A of the amended Evidence Act can be abolished via a constitutional challenge, said Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee.
In an email response, he said Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the federal constitution state that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law’, and that everyone has equal protection of the law.
Furthermore, under Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, every individual is innocent until proven guilty when charged with a penal offence.
“Our Federal Court (has) reiterated that our criminal justice system stands on the twin pillars of the burden of proof lying with the prosecution and the common law principle of presumption of innocence. (These) together safeguard the guarantee of the right to a fair trial,” Lim said.
He explained that the argument with Section 114A is that it goes against the presumption of innocence, and that it is harder to prove guilt in case of offences involving the Internet.
This is because of free access leaves the network host responsible any inappropriate action.
Another way of resolving the situation, Lim said, would be by asking Parliament and Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail (right)to persuade the authorities and the government’s chief legal adviser to remove the amendment from the statute books.
According the Star, the Bar Council had met Abdul Gani last Friday at his office in Putrajaya.
Section 114A was introduced as an amendment to the Evidence Act in April.
It presumes that any person or organisation whose name is carried together with any online publication is the author of that content.
If the person or organisation is not the author, it is up to them to prove innocence. The same applies to network owners whose Internet connectivity is used by others for ‘illegal’ activities.But instead, the government has chosen to act with staggering incompetence and transparent dishonesty, in deciding to use this discretion by trying to block a reported 300 items that include websites and 21 twitter handles, many of which have nothing to do with Assam or what happened thereafter. As persuasive the list of those blocked is a bizarre one, as it includes journalists and politicians among others, and the names indicate that the Government ‘s intentions are mala fide in that there is a clear attempt to muzzle dissent as well as plain stupid given that there are some on the list who by the widest stretch of imagination, cannot be seen as a threat to anything, let alone something as lofty as the integrity of the nation. What the state has effectively done is to confirm all anxieties that existed about its real intentions. That it has a fundamental discomfort with criticism and a deep hostility towards any attempt to ridicule its actions and that it will use any excuse it gets to launch an attack on the freedom of expression on the Internet. Besides, even if the attempt had been honest in trying to stop rumour-mongering, the actions taken were hardly likely to have the desired impact. The digital world is too agile and inventive for the lumbering machinery of the government to match up to, and would easily bypass these crude attempts at blocking the flow of information.But there is an issue with social media that needs some introspection. When all readers turn broadcasters, what happens to the rights of those who are being written about? Earlier the freedom to expression was effectively outsourced to mainstream media and while it strove to represent public opinion, it did not allow the public to express itself directly, except in highly controlled ways. Getting a letter published in the Letters to the Editor space, for instance, was often a heroic struggle. Traditional media is governed, on paper, by a set of guidelines and rules that attempt to provide protection to those impacted by what they publish or broadcast and legal redress is available to those that feel aggrieved by the same. In reality, particularly in India, the act of going to court and pursuing a case of defamation is so difficult, expensive and time-consuming that the right for redress often remains theoretical. The protection, such as it is exists, comes because news organisations have some internal guidelines about what they will or will not publish, and imperfect as they increasingly might be, at least they exist.
Gani, squeeze najib’s balls harder and the matter would be put to restt Silence is golden for all. Najib will do nothing since AG has Najib’s marbles in his hand on many issues including Altantuyu & submarine controversy.
a nation led by thieves and plunderersEx-Attorney-General Talib should aim his questions to not only Gani, his successor, but also the Government led by Datu Seri Najib. ” Elegant silence ” on the part of all Ministers and AG is not an option. The loss of territory, Pulau Batu Puteh , is of national interest, urgent and important. The poor show at the International Court of Justice is a shame. How could our leaders treat this sovereignty of Pulau Batu Puteh so very lightly? And most surprisingly, the Home Minister requires a Police Report while the SD is a sworn statement by ex-CId man! Is the HM trying to erase the issue from the public domain? Undoubtedly, this is a hot potato; nobody like sto touch it! But the peopel of Malaysia, and especially teh HRH the Sulktan of Johore, have a strong interest By calling the AG by the ex-AG is barking up the wrong tree! He should have directed the issue to the PM .Talk to the father, and not the son o r the servant, please! Note that you could not hookwink the ICJ ! MPs speak out. Why are they so silence? Does it means treason is accepted to all BN representatives? Malaysians have to remember this when the vote in futur
Abdul Gani Patail guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked :debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil:The biggest irony of our times is that people perceive all politicians as ‘thieves’ but at the same time they are also forced to elect them to Parliament again and again to rule the country. And, these ‘thieves’ pick up people similar to them from all walks of life and every profession to build a nexus they need to loot the country. Do we have any choice?As expected, Majority in the corporate sector is also neck deep in corruption. The entire ruling class is corrupt. This class includes not only politicians but also those in media, social activists, academia, intellectuals, corporates and all privileged ones who always prefer to be on the right side of the power. Scams have taken place in every regime. All parties take help of corrupt, criminals, and communalism. We have also seen how they ganged up to defeat Najib readying reference to Agong to remove Abdul Gani Patail’. Politicians know that the issue of corruption will not affect their electoral prospects, hence they continue to be brazenly corrupt. Mahathir is putting all the blame of corruption under on the Team Najib and Rosmah, making space for Team Mahathir to take over before the next G14 elections. It’s corruption and misrule. But at the same time public memory is short. Hence, Mahathir is trying to offset his losses through resigning. It is being projected as a `tough stand’ taken by Najib against corruption.Veteran newsman A Kadir Jasin believes that there is more than meets the eye with regard to Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s resignation as Petronas adviser.Veteran newsman A Kadir Jasin believes that there is more to what meets the eye with regard to Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s resignation as Petronas adviser
The deputy consul general Devyani Khobragade case that has led to outrage in India and evoked an unsympathetic reaction in the United States is a classic case of where most people can’t see the wood for the trees. A large section of the international press and the American society has described the Indian fury in racist, sanctimonious and orientalist terms and many commentators in India have resorted to defensive logical fallacies such as the deputy consul general’s unaffordability to hire domestic help on her salary in the US.
Both these analyses are flawed because the case is neither about cultural sensitivities nor bourgeois sensibilities of Indians. The Indian state would not have bothered itself to come in defense of, if instead of Ms. Khobragade, it were an Indian IT professional accused of visa fraud and human trafficking in the US.The Indian disappointment is centered around diplomacy and diplomacy alone. The entire Khobragade episode is about international relations between, in President Obama’s words, two “close allies and partners” which expect diplomatic courtesies and pardons for violations and transgressions under international treaties and due to bilateral tacit understanding.
Though it is a disgrace that a representative of the Indian state abroad has brazenly violated the law of a foreign country with admissible evidence of mistreating her own domestic employee Ms. Sangeeta Richard but like it or not, Ms. Khobragade is not an ordinary Indian who could have been judged and treated like any Non-Resident Indian violator of the US laws. Yes, the Orwellian idea ‘all are equal but some are more equal than others’ applies to state diplomats more than any other professional or any other community in the world. And it is not necessarily a contemptuous disparity.
A lot of diplomats work in hostile and dangerous political environments of the host countries. Indian and Pakistani diplomats in each others’ countries, for example, work under tremendous adversarial circumstances. They are often accused, rightly or wrongly, of breaching the native law. But what prevents their prosecution and further deterioration of international relations is the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular relations. In other words, Vienna conventions remain the pillars on which diplomacy is pursued across the world. To reject them is to reject diplomacy. The loss of faith in the idea of diplomacy is the loss of faith in the art and practice of mediation, negotiations, arbitration over strategic issues including conflicts between nation-states. That surely is not what any nation-state would vote for in a globalized world that is so economically interdependent and so closely connected right now.
Ms. Khobragade, deputy consul general in Indian consulate in New York represents the Indian state in the US and hence should have remained immune to the laws that are extended to ordinary citizens. She was entitled to diplomatic immunity under the 1963 Vienna Conventions of Consular Relations (VCCR) treaty at the time of and after her arrest. Not only was her immunity withdrawn but she was subjected to humiliating strip and cavity searches, DNA tests, lodged with drug addicts- a “standard” treatment given to terrorists and hard core criminals. That’s not what the US does to diplomats or expects any other country to do to its diplomats. Remember Raymond Davis? When the US was protesting Raymond’s arrest in Pakistan, its major argument for his release was diplomatic immunity. It is a different matter altogether that the US eventually made alternative arrangements to rescue Raymond once it was revealed that he had been a CIA contractor.
If American diplomats and I emphasize on diplomats, can get away with anything including murder under the Vienna treaties on diplomatic and consular relations, does America really have the moral and legal authority to hold accountable the diplomats of other countries? If this is an unfair question because the US domestic law supersedes the international law when it comes to violations committed by foreign diplomats in the US, then the international community might as well revoke all the diplomatic immunity across the world and scrap the Vienna conventions. That, though, is a preposterous idea because diplomats and consuls by the very nature of their job deserve immunity.
A case for diplomacy, however, is not a case for absolute diplomatic impunity. Neither American diplomats nor the rest of the world diplomats should get away with serious crimes like murder or rape. The Vienna international treaties should be reviewed by the member countries that are bound by them. Perhaps, the signatory countries should make it mandatory that they try their own diplomats for crimes committed abroad. But until the international community reviews and amends the Vienna treaties, only American diplomats cannot claim entitlement to absolute diplomatic immunity. The rest of the world’s diplomats are entitled too. The Indian outrage against the US mistreatment of an Indian consular general, therefore, should be seen in this context. It is a justified indignation felt by Indians because the US went out of its usual way to insult and maltreat a symbol of the Indian state.
But Indians should not expect sympathy for their anger when they try to defend the accused with inane arguments like Ms. Khobragade could not pay her employee more than what she earned herself. An Indian’s unaffordability to hire domestic staff abroad does not grant him or her the moral right to violate a foreign country’s domestic laws. Violation of the US visa law and the US minimum wage law by Indians is not unusual. Such violations are in accordance with the behavior of a fringe among Indians in America. Their casual approach to the US law emanates from the native mindset of Indians who are habitual of working around and bypassing the system or are used to preferential treatment due to their power and position at home. This attitude, at times, might even lead them to mistake diplomatic immunity for absolute freedom to violate laws. But most Indians behave themselves in the US after realizing the heavy penalties one is to pay for violations in a highly law-enforcing and egalitarian country. Indian diplomats too need to remember that any act of transgression on their part is a blot both on the Indian state and society.
AG’s consent paves way for exit of Justice Ganguly
Attorney general G E Vahanvati on Friday okayed the Centre’s move to start the process for Justice A K Ganguly’s removal from the post of West Bengal Human Rights Commission chairman by sending a presidential reference to the Supreme Court on the ground of “misconduct”.
Vahanvati’s late evening opinion endorsed law minister Kapil Sibal’s view that a strong case for initiation of removal proceedings against Justice Ganguly was made out after a three-judge fact-finding panel of the SC recorded that prima facie the retired judge appeared to have shown “unwelcome sexual behaviour” towards a law intern in a Delhi hotel in December last year.
With Justice Ganguly digging in his heels despite demands for his resignation from members of Parliament and political parties, the government decided to take recourse to the removal process provided under Section 23(1A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
Section 23(1A) says, “The chairperson or any member of the state commission shall only be removed from his office by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed on that behalf by the Supreme Court, reported that the chairperson or such member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed.”
Vahanvati said, “In my opinion, a clear prima facie case is made out (on alleged prima facie misconduct of Justice Ganguly) which justifies an inquiry under Section 23(1A) of the Protection of Human Rights Act by sending of a reference by President to the Supreme Court.”
The question creating some doubts in the government was whether the three-judge committee’s views constituted enough grounds for sending a presidential reference for initiation of inquiry by the Supreme Court into alleged grounds of misconduct, which is the alleged sexual harassment of the law intern.
Vahanvati’s opinion endorsing initiation of removal process was based on the SC’s judgment on a PIL seeking a direction to the Centre to send a presidential reference to the apex court as part of the process for initiation of proceedings for removal of Justice K G Balakrishnan as chairperson of National Human Rights Commission.
Addressing the legal doubt on what was the “standard required for the President to make a reference to the Supreme Court”, he said as per the law laid down by the SC in Justice Balakrishnan’s case, the President could send a reference if there existed a prima facie case of misconduct.
Vahanvati said the facts of the case relating to Justice Ganguly certainly fell within the “prima facie misconduct” standard laid down by the apex court and opined that the President would be well within his powers to send a reference on this issue to the apex court.
On the basis of the TOI story on the law intern’s allegation against Justice Ganguly, the three-judge committee had recorded statements of the girl, the retired judge and also affidavits submitted by her.
After an expeditious fact-finding exercise, the panel gave a report to Chief Justice P Sathasivam on November 28. It had concluded, “The committee is of the considered view that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual nature) by Justice (retired) A K Ganguly with her in the room in hotel Le Meridien on December 24, 2012 approximately between 8 pm and 10.30 pm.”.readmore Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah with Abdul Ghani Patail as bedfellow Judiciary will be sizzling hot
