Brave New World (The Star)
8 August 2012
To the layman, what PKR's Rafizi Ramli as well as former bank clerk Johari Mohamad did was for the greater open great when they unprotected the scandal involving millions of ringgit that came from open coffers. So why take to court them?
__________________________________________
IN the past dual weeks the integrate of authorised oddities have come to light. The first is with courtesy to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) as well as the second is with the University as well as University Colleges Act (UCCA).
The WPA has come in to concentration since of the detain as well as charging of Rafizi Ramli as well as Johari Mohamad underneath the Banking as well as Financial Institutions Act (Bafia).
The subject upon many people's thoughts is: Why have been they being charged since what they did was to display certain promissory note papers that unclosed the National Feedlot Centre scandal? In alternative words, shouldn't these dual group be stable by the WPA?
Let's break down the authorised situation in this case.
On the face of it, Rafizi as well as Johari did crack the Bafia. Rafizi unprotected in isolation promissory note papers as well as this is in contravention of territory 97 of Bafia, whilst Johari is accused of aiding him as well as this falls foul of territory 112.
To the layman, however, what they did was not for in isolation benefit though for the greater open good, exposing the scandal that involves millions of ringgit that came from open coffers. Why afterwards should they be punished?
Now, here is where the authorised oddity comes in. If we look during territory 6 of the WPA, we find that the chairman can make the avowal of report as well as he could be stable if that avowal is not specifically taboo by any written law. Rafizi's avowal is obvio! usly tab oo by the Bafia.
Secondly, according to territory 6 of the WPA, this avowal ought to be done to an enforcement agency, that Rafizi did not do as he done the avowal to the press.
Therefore, it does appear that the cha! rging of these dual group does not go opposite the minute of the law.
Whether it goes opposite the suggestion of the law as well as of new pronouncements done by the Government that they have been opposite corruption, is an additional story altogether.
I would disagree the territory 6 sustenance that the avowal contingency not be specifically taboo by any law is cryptic as well as should be removed from the WPA.
From my understanding, even if Rafizi had gone to an enforcement agency, for example the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, he would still be unprotected as the alarm ventilator since the report he is disclosing to them is taboo by the Bafia.
Yet, in this case, the unclosed report is critical as it can assistance in the conflict opposite corruption.
I submit that what is critical is not either the avowal goes opposite any laws; what we should be focusing upon is the outcome of the disclosure.
That is to say, if the avowal exposes the serious crime or evidence of corruption, afterwards the actuality that by disclosing the report the alarm ventilator is in crack of the law should not be the factor.
If the movement of the alarm ventilator is for the open good, afterwards this should be the counterclaim opposite any law he might have broken.
Taking rapist law as an example: if we hit the man, afterwards we have committed the crime. However, if we hit him since he would stab my mom if we did not, afterwards we have the counterclaim underneath the law.
With this in mind, it struck me as bizarre that the Attorney-General has seen it fit to take to court Rafizi as well as Johari.
From my argument above, there is the shortcoming in the law, particularly the WPA.
What these dual group did was in th! e open i nterest. There is no likelihood that the crack of the Bafia in this case is starting to means any serious implications.
After all, the usually people who have anything to fear have been the corrupt.
So, if there have been concerns that foreigners won't put their money in the banks, we would contend they do not have anything! to fear ! if they have been not corrupt.
Now, to repair the WPA will take time. But surely, until that is done, the A-G can make use of his option to simply not take to court these dual group in this sold case. Does he not wish to quarrel corruption?
The second authorised oddity is the ostensible counterbalance in the UCCA.
The Deputy Minister for Higher Education pointed out that the nice UCCA allows university students to join domestic parties, yet during the same time it does not concede any celebration domestic wake up upon campus.
I determine with the Deputy Minister; this is the rather odd state of affairs. However, we do not consider it is the biggest emanate with courtesy to the UCCA.
From my decades long knowledge with university students, joining the domestic celebration is not high upon their list of priorities.
After all, what kind of domestic nerd have been we to wish to join the domestic celebration during the age of 19? The usually thing we will knowledge from you do so is the detriment of seductiveness from the opposite sex.
No, from the domestic context what is some-more critical is their ubiquitous right to expression, assembly as well as association.
It would be cross to contend that the UCCA has not been improved by the new amendments. For example, there is now the presumption that the tyro can join any group unless it is bootleg or unless the university says they can't. In the past, they could not join any organisation during all without the express accede of the university.
However, these improvements have been rather shallow. Dig the little deeper as well as we will see that stude! nts can still be severely punished by the university for exercising their constitutional rights.
This is since the universities have disciplinary rules that do not apply oneself the students' constitutional rights. They all have really broad "offences" such as spoiling "the great name of the university" in their rule books.
So, if students take partial in the perfectly authorised proof for example, the university disciplinary house can still pu! nish them! for "spoiling the great name of the university".
And this discipline house can really disrupt their lives. They can postpone or even ban the tyro with immediate effect.
This means that even if the tyro goes through the appeal process, he might have already squandered the semester or even longer.
The low mark takes outcome prior to the appeal routine can run its course.
Therefore, the university still has distant too most energy as well as saying as it is doubtful they will rage this energy with the apply oneself for human rights as well as the Federal Constitution, the emanate of the UCCA goes most serve than either the tyro can call celebration domestic flags from his dorm window.
8 August 2012
To the layman, what PKR's Rafizi Ramli as well as former bank clerk Johari Mohamad did was for the greater open great when they unprotected the scandal involving millions of ringgit that came from open coffers. So why take to court them?
__________________________________________
IN the past dual weeks the integrate of authorised oddities have come to light. The first is with courtesy to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) as well as the second is with the University as well as University Colleges Act (UCCA).
The WPA has come in to concentration since of the detain as well as charging of Rafizi Ramli as well as Johari Mohamad underneath the Banking as well as Financial Institutions Act (Bafia).
The subject upon many people's thoughts is: Why have been they being charged since what they did was to display certain promissory note papers that unclosed the National Feedlot Centre scandal? In alternative words, shouldn't these dual group be stable by the WPA?
Let's break down the authorised situation in this case.
On the face of it, Rafizi as well as Johari did crack the Bafia. Rafizi unprotected in isolation promissory note papers as well as this is in contravention of territory 97 of Bafia, whilst Johari is accused of aiding him as well as this falls foul of territory 112.
To the layman, however, what they did was not for in isolation benefit though for the greater open good, exposing the scandal that involves millions of ringgit that came from open coffers. Why afterwards should they be punished?
Now, here is where the authorised oddity comes in. If we look during territory 6 of the WPA, we find that the chairman can make the avowal of report as well as he could be stable if that avowal is not specifically taboo by any written law. Rafizi's avowal is obvio! usly tab oo by the Bafia.
Secondly, according to territory 6 of the WPA, this avowal ought to be done to an enforcement agency, that Rafizi did not do as he done the avowal to the press.
Therefore, it does appear that the cha! rging of these dual group does not go opposite the minute of the law.
Whether it goes opposite the suggestion of the law as well as of new pronouncements done by the Government that they have been opposite corruption, is an additional story altogether.
I would disagree the territory 6 sustenance that the avowal contingency not be specifically taboo by any law is cryptic as well as should be removed from the WPA.
From my understanding, even if Rafizi had gone to an enforcement agency, for example the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, he would still be unprotected as the alarm ventilator since the report he is disclosing to them is taboo by the Bafia.
Yet, in this case, the unclosed report is critical as it can assistance in the conflict opposite corruption.
I submit that what is critical is not either the avowal goes opposite any laws; what we should be focusing upon is the outcome of the disclosure.
That is to say, if the avowal exposes the serious crime or evidence of corruption, afterwards the actuality that by disclosing the report the alarm ventilator is in crack of the law should not be the factor.
If the movement of the alarm ventilator is for the open good, afterwards this should be the counterclaim opposite any law he might have broken.
Taking rapist law as an example: if we hit the man, afterwards we have committed the crime. However, if we hit him since he would stab my mom if we did not, afterwards we have the counterclaim underneath the law.
With this in mind, it struck me as bizarre that the Attorney-General has seen it fit to take to court Rafizi as well as Johari.
From my argument above, there is the shortcoming in the law, particularly the WPA.
What these dual group did was in th! e open i nterest. There is no likelihood that the crack of the Bafia in this case is starting to means any serious implications.
After all, the usually people who have anything to fear have been the corrupt.
So, if there have been concerns that foreigners won't put their money in the banks, we would contend they do not have anything! to fear ! if they have been not corrupt.
Now, to repair the WPA will take time. But surely, until that is done, the A-G can make use of his option to simply not take to court these dual group in this sold case. Does he not wish to quarrel corruption?
The second authorised oddity is the ostensible counterbalance in the UCCA.
The Deputy Minister for Higher Education pointed out that the nice UCCA allows university students to join domestic parties, yet during the same time it does not concede any celebration domestic wake up upon campus.
I determine with the Deputy Minister; this is the rather odd state of affairs. However, we do not consider it is the biggest emanate with courtesy to the UCCA.
From my decades long knowledge with university students, joining the domestic celebration is not high upon their list of priorities.
After all, what kind of domestic nerd have been we to wish to join the domestic celebration during the age of 19? The usually thing we will knowledge from you do so is the detriment of seductiveness from the opposite sex.
No, from the domestic context what is some-more critical is their ubiquitous right to expression, assembly as well as association.
It would be cross to contend that the UCCA has not been improved by the new amendments. For example, there is now the presumption that the tyro can join any group unless it is bootleg or unless the university says they can't. In the past, they could not join any organisation during all without the express accede of the university.
However, these improvements have been rather shallow. Dig the little deeper as well as we will see that stude! nts can still be severely punished by the university for exercising their constitutional rights.
This is since the universities have disciplinary rules that do not apply oneself the students' constitutional rights. They all have really broad "offences" such as spoiling "the great name of the university" in their rule books.
So, if students take partial in the perfectly authorised proof for example, the university disciplinary house can still pu! nish them! for "spoiling the great name of the university".
And this discipline house can really disrupt their lives. They can postpone or even ban the tyro with immediate effect.
This means that even if the tyro goes through the appeal process, he might have already squandered the semester or even longer.
The low mark takes outcome prior to the appeal routine can run its course.
Therefore, the university still has distant too most energy as well as saying as it is doubtful they will rage this energy with the apply oneself for human rights as well as the Federal Constitution, the emanate of the UCCA goes most serve than either the tyro can call celebration domestic flags from his dorm window.
POSTED BYELANOR'S ASSISTANT
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment