A wiser blogger had used various criteria like:
(my opinions in green)
1. Was the act non-consensual? Most unlike not as no evidences or force seem evident
2. Was it under duress e.g. pressure and threats to keep one's job, or to secure one's livelihood or security? I don' know the answer as I don't know who or what was involved
3. Was it a form of inducement e.g. in an employer-employee relationship which would result in benefits and advantages; or for political favours like good seat allocation, contracts, commissions etc.? I don' know the answer as I don't know who or what was involved
4. Did the Minister used his job privileges e.g. to get a free or discounted hotel room, used ministerial facilities e.g. official car, or dug deep into the public coffers to pay for that hotel suite? I don' know the answer as I don't know who or what was involved
Seem like it is hard to tell, so I think it is better to comment out what had been earlier been published. The only think I can see is one should not say one thing and do another.
Content below commented out unless some there are some compelling new developments that may cause me to reverse my decision.
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Natural Justice or Natural Law: Does it apply in Malaysia?
From Wikipedia: "Natural justice is a legal philosophy used in some jurisdictions in the determination of just, or fair, processes in legal proceedings. The concept is very closely related to the principle of natural law (latin: jus naturale) which has been applied as a philosophical and practical principle in the law in several common law jurisdictions, particularly the UK and Australia.
According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator."
It was reported in theSun that "The court also paved the way for Saravanan to carry on with his other aims, including to seek custody of the two children and conversion of the second child to Islam, when the court set aside the Erinford injunctions obtained by Subashini previously against Saravanan."
What exactly is natural justice or natural law? I am no lawyer, but a mere layman, and to a layman, it is natural that a child be subject to the authorities of both the father and the mother. In other words, a mother, to me, according to Natural Justice or Natural Law, a mother should have a say over the religious upbringing of her child or children until they grew to adulthood able to make decisions on their own.
Thus it would appear to me that it is very unfair that the mother have no say whatsoever over the religious upbringing of her child or children until they are old enough to make decisions on their own behalf. To me, it is also very unfair that children of such tender age should be converted to a religion from which they can have no escape when they reach adulthood. To me, it goes against Natural Justice or Natural Law. But who am I to say such thing. I am a mere layman, not a trained lawyer.
According to Roman law certain basic legal principles are required by nature, or so obvious that they should be applied universally without needing to be enacted into law by a legislator."
It was reported in theSun that "The court also paved the way for Saravanan to carry on with his other aims, including to seek custody of the two children and conversion of the second child to Islam, when the court set aside the Erinford injunctions obtained by Subashini previously against Saravanan."
What exactly is natural justice or natural law? I am no lawyer, but a mere layman, and to a layman, it is natural that a child be subject to the authorities of both the father and the mother. In other words, a mother, to me, according to Natural Justice or Natural Law, a mother should have a say over the religious upbringing of her child or children until they grew to adulthood able to make decisions on their own.
Thus it would appear to me that it is very unfair that the mother have no say whatsoever over the religious upbringing of her child or children until they are old enough to make decisions on their own behalf. To me, it is also very unfair that children of such tender age should be converted to a religion from which they can have no escape when they reach adulthood. To me, it goes against Natural Justice or Natural Law. But who am I to say such thing. I am a mere layman, not a trained lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)