Mosque teacher hit pupils

GUILTY ... Ibrahim Yusuf

A mosque teacher assaulted four pupils, including one with learning difficulties, with a two-foot long pipe because they were misbehaving in class.

A court heard the Accrington mosque had a written policy which urged staff to make sure the welfare of children was paramount and calling for them to be protected from abuse.

Married father-of-eight Ibrahim Yusuf, 52, of Preston New Road, Blackburn, pleaded guilty to four charges of assault. He was bailed for the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

Philippa White, prosecuting, said part of the incident at the Grimshaw Street mosque had been captured on CCTV, which showed Yusuf striking two of the boys, aged 11.

She said the boys’ teacher left them alone and there was some ‘minor misbehaviour.’ The defendant was teaching in another part of the mosque and saw and heard what was going on,” said Mrs White.

“He came over carrying a thin, flexible pole. As he walked among the children he hit four of them with the stick.”

She said one was hit on the arm and another on the lower back.

One boy was clearly upset when his mum collected him at 7pm and he had a red mark on his back.

When he was interviewed by police Yusuf said he had gone over to control the children and accepted he had a piece of plastic overflow pipe in his hand which he used as a “teaching aid”.

He said pupils often made complaints against mosque teachers to get out of going to classes but was aware punishment should be through exclusion or detention.

Bernard Horne, defending, said: “He does accept that he went into this classroom to get the children to stop misbehaving.

He also accepts he was waving this pipe around and it struck four of the children. The pipe is used as a pointing stick and to tap on the desk to get the attention of his class.

“There has never been any previous complaint about his behaviour towards the children and how he conducts himself. He has the ongoing support of the mosque and is very highly regarded in the community.”

He said Yusuf had been a mosque teacher for 36 years, the last 10 years at the Grimshaw Street mosque.
The mosque chairman Mr Sardar Ali defended Yusuf, insisting he was “the best teacher at the mosque”.
Mr Ali said: “He was holding the pipe but he was only using it to scare the children to behave.

He didn't hit them hard, he just tapped them, but all the teachers know that you can't hit them as that is against policy.

“If he’s not banned or cautioned then he will come back.

He can teach the Qu’ran by heart to the children.”

Hyndburn deputy council leader Munsif Dad said:
“Obviously it’s very inappropriate to hit anybody, particularly a child. This sort of attitude is totally unacceptable in any form.

“For an individual with that sort of experience it's unfortunate that he’s got himself in that situation.

“All mosques are professionally run to provide a facility for the Muslim community and the wider community in general and helping to build those bridges.

“Incidents like this happen very, very rarely and I don't think in that context it will affect the community."

Pakatan begins work on alternative budget

Christian groups demand proof of converting Muslims using aid

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 6 — Christian groups are calling for evidence behind two Malay dailies’ allegations that they are trying to convert Muslims through welfare aid.

Berita Harian and Harian Metro reported today that certain Christian organisations were hiding behind the guise of welfare aid by offering monthly cash allowances of at least RM1,000 to hard-hit Muslims and their families in an attempt to turn them into Christians.

The pro-Barisan Nasional newspapers’ allegations came after the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) and the police raided a multiracial dinner at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church in Petaling Jaya last Wednesday night, based on a report that the Christian-majority crowd was allegedly proselytising to Muslim guests.

“If you’re saying that Christians give RM5,000, now you convert, show the proof,” Council of Churches of Malaysia general secretary Rev Dr Hermen Shastri (picture) told The Malaysian Insider today.

“By making this statement, they’re trying to disrupt the good relations between the religious communities in the country by taking on the Christians,” he said.

Umno-owned newspaper Utusan Malaysia recently accused Christians of plotting to take over the government and claimed that the July 9 Bersih rally was funded by Christian organisations.

The controversial Jais raid has increased religious tension in the country, where churches were fire-bombed last year and Christians were barred from referring to their god as “Allah”.

Shastri pointed out that Muslims also did welfare work.

“As a result, some are being converted to Islam because they see the good work of the Muslims,” he said.
“If a person gives RM10,000 and you convert, that’s wrong. But if person is often in a home, then leaves the home, is impressed by Catholic sisters and becomes Catholic, what’s wrong with that?” asked the pastor.

National Evangelical Christian Fellowship chairman Rev Dr Eu Hong Seng stressed that Christians gave aid regardless of race or religion.

“We will help anybody and everybody and we don’t expect anything in return. Just because I help you doesn’t mean I want you to convert,” he said.

The pastor pointed out that he has yet to see someone converting to Christianity after receiving welfare aid from Christian organisations.

Berita Harian quoted a woman — who was detained during the Jais raid — as saying that Muslim participants were forbidden to believe in Prophet Muhammad, but were asked to follow Jesus’ teachings through talks and songs during the dinner.

“The church has got weddings, funerals. You mean, in my funeral songs, because a Muslim comes to pay respects to his friend who died, I must stop singing hymns? You come to my place of worship, that is what we do lah,” said Eu in response.

‘No’ to child refugees in Malaysia

Both the Malaysian and Australian governments, are being slammed for allowing '13 unaccompanied children' to be transferred to Malaysia under the refugee swap deal.

PETALING JAYA: News that 19 minors will be among the first batch of refugees to arrive in Malaysia from Australia on Sunday has sparked outrage against the governments of both countries.

The boatload of 54 Afghan refugees that was intercepted in Australian waters earlier this week are currently in Christmas Island.

They are expected to board a flight to Kuala Lumpur by tomorrow.

On Thursday night two senior Malaysian police officers flew into Christmas Island to inspect the process of selecting asylum-seekers for transfer.

The refugee swap deal between both countries was signed on July 25 amid strong protests that refugees arriving in Australia would be sent to a country with a shocking human rights record.

To date neither government has released any further information on where the refugees will be staying upon arrival in Kuala Lumpur or how they will seek employment and so forth.

There was also a glaring omission of children – accompanied or unaccompanied – in the agreement.
Therefore the latest announcement that a group of minors – 13 of whom are unaccompanied – will be part of this first group here has intensified criticism of the deal.

Suaram Project Coordinator, Andika Abdul Wahab, lamented that the biggest problem is that no one knows anything about the deal.

“The governments have said that the refugees will be placed in a community cente here but where is that centre?”

“Even our colleagues in Australia are in the dark.

“So there is a strong possibility that these 54 refugees will be temporarily placed in a detention centre instead,” he said.

Malaysia tight-lipped

Andika said Suaram was against the whole swap deal.

“Suaram is against this deal in its entirety because as long as these people are human they have their rights and Australia is in no position to kick them out.

Malaysia on the other hand should treat these people according to the Convention of the Rights of the Child which it ratified in 1995.”

Amnesty International Malaysia, which is closely monitoring the situation, also vented its frustration over the Malaysian government’s refusal to reveal any details on the deal.

“This is madness…The government has been so tight-lipped over everything.

“We don’t even know what time they are arriving on Sunday, whether its a commercial or chartered flight…nothing.”

“And the fact that children will arrive here is extremely very worrying because who will be responsible for their wellbeing?

“This whole deal is like “batuk di hujung tangga” (to not pursue something wholeheartedly),” said its executive director, Nora Murat.

Human rights lawyer, Andrew Khoo, had earlier told FMT, said that it would take a month for the details of the swap deal to be ironed out and for the arrangements to be fully operational.

But when contacted yesterday a surprised Khoo panned the Australian government for displaying negligence over the protection of children.”

“It is not in their best interest to be sent to Malaysia and Australia should have shown more moral and legal responsibility,” he said.

“I’m also very surprised that this first batch includes 19 minors.

“That’s a significant 20% of the boatload and very worrying.”

‘Children vulnerable in Malaysia’

Meanwhile Australia’s opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, has slammed his government for creating a Catch 22 situation.

Morrison, who had visited Malaysia in June and gave a thumbs down on the refugee conditions here, declared that the Australian government would fail regardless of its next move.

He pointed out that the government cannot give the same assurance that refugees would be protected in Malaysia as they are in Nauru.

“They know children are vulnerable in Malaysia, they know they can’t send them all there.

“And they only have to make one exception for that to become the rule for people smugglers.”
“And the government just doesn’t seem to understand that.

“They think they can just put out a YouTube video and say there won’t be blanket exemptions,” he told ABC news yesterday.

The Australian government will post on YouTube, images of so-called boatpeople being turned away and sent to Malaysia, in an effort to deter asylum seekers.

But Morrison argued: “Children are always going to turn up and they simply don’t have an answer, and the people smugglers will see right through that.”

Meanwhile Australian Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, has refused to confirm the fate of the minors but said that as of yesterday no decision had been made to let any of them stay in Australia.

Waytha’s UK legal suit to ‘clear’ ambiguity

Hindraf Makkal Sakhti's legal bid in UK is expected to reveal whether Article 153 of the Federal Consitution has been 'misused and abused'.

GEORGE TOWN: Hindraf Makkal Sakti’s impending US$4 trillion legal suit against the British government is expected to finally provide a ‘clear and unambiguous’ representation of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

Article 153 governs the special status of majority ethnic Malays and provides constitutional features to safeguard the interests, rights and benefits of minorities.

Speaking to FMT recently DAP assemblyman M Manoharan said the legal suit would disclose the correct information and real happenings that took place during the pre-independence talks on Article 153 and drafting of the Federal Constitution.

“We will have a clearer picture on majority special privileges, minority rights and on the so-called majority-minority social contract in the country.

“It will reveal whether the constitution has been misused and abused,” Manoharan said.

The Kota Alam Shah assemblyman called on Malaysians, especially all ethnic Indians, to back Hindraf’s US$4 trillion class action suit against the British government.

Notwithstanding as to whether it was successful or not, Manoharan argued that the suit would surely benefit all ethnic minorities in the country and not just Indians.

He claimed Malaysian Indians were the most discriminated and marginalised lot compared to other communities across the world.

“The suit would address many historical issues pertaining to Indian plight in the country.
“I am sure ethnic Indians and other minorities in Malaysia will see the light at the end of the tunnel,” said Manoharan.

No representation

Manoharan’s statement follows London-based Hindraf supremo Waytha Moorthy’s decision to re-file the British suit.

He originally filed the class action suit on Aug 31, 2007 in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of Malaysia’s independence.

His US$4 trillion suit was filed in the London courts.

The suit was to demand compensation for Malaysian Indians whose ancestors were brought in by the colonial government as indentured labour.

However, the suit was stalled following the Malaysian government’s clampdown on Hindraf and arrest of several lawyers, including Manoharan and the movement’s legal adviser and Waytha Moorthy’s brother Uthayakumar.

They were arrested and detained under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA).

The UK suit claimed that, after granting independence to Malaya, the British had left the Indians without representation and at the mercy of the Malay extremism practiced by Umno government.

Recently University Malaya Law lecturer Associate Professor Dr Azmi Sharom hailed the suit as an “incredible legal effort” that would push ethnic Malaysian Indian community issues to the forefront of international and domestic limelight.

He said he was personally moved by the enthusiasm shown by Waytha Moorthy to file the suit against the former colonial master.

In the past months Waytha Moorthy and his mini team of researchers have been  working overtime to obtain and study thousands of relevant documents in England’s archives.

The movement’s legal counsel in London, Imran Khan will lead a two-man delegation to Malaysia next week for a fact-finding mission to obtain first hand information on perceived injustices meted out on ethnic Indians.

Hindraf is organising a public forum on this at Hokkien Hall in Klang on Sunday Aug 14.

Manoharan said that Hindraf had been consistent and persistent in pursuing the suit to correct the wrongs done to the community by the British.

Sidelined and isolated 

He recalled that ethnic Indians were brought into the country mostly as indentured labourers by the colonial master.

He said that ethnic Indians have worked hard in many sectors, especially in rubber plantations for centuries to boost the country’s socio-economic status.

During the colonial period, he said Indians were also a dominant workforce in the civil service.

He noted that Indians have played a major role in building up the country since Francis Light stepped onto Penang shores in 1786.

He said ethnic Indians have owned and developed land and properties to make this country as their own.
He noted that despite this the Umno government was still treating ethnic Indians as immigrants and squatters after 54 years of independence.

“Working class ethnic Indians have been sidelined and isolated from mainstream development.
“We in Hindraf want to rectify the injustices done to Indians

“Like in 2007, all Indians should support this struggle,” said Manoharan, the former Selangor DAP chairman.

‘Umno must sack Razaleigh’

Pakatan Rakyat is aware of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah's 'fanatical devotion' to Umno's founding principles and know that he is 'unlikely to abandon Umno'.

COMMENT

The most practical thing Umno can do if it thinks Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is plotting some palace coup to overthrow the ‘emperor without clothes’, is to sack him from Umno. I repeat sack him.

Afterall Umno, the party which member of parliament Zahrain Hashim- who ‘received’ enlightenment and was delivered from the dark side into the loving embrace of Barisan Nasional- supports appears to have ignored the veteran and influential leader.

So if Razaleigh forms an organization of like-minded individuals to operate, why should Umno and Zahrain be unduly disturbed?

Is he just plain envious that the almost forgotten Umno veteran and the prime minister we never had is now enjoying filial respect and is held in reverence as he should be?

Tengku Razaleigh could in fact be the only person who can salvage Malaysia from rapacious business and the political oligarchs.

Or perhaps he is already sensing that the embrace of BN is actually the embrace of a female tarantula spider or the death ending embrace of female praying mantis?

While the Pakatan Rakyat would certainly welcome Tengku Razaleigh being with them, they are also aware of his fanatical devotion to Umno’s founding principles.

Razaleigh is unlikely to abandon Umno. So Umno must sack him.

Brownie points

As for Zahrain’s diatribes against Pakatan Rakyat, it should be dismissed.

He just wishes to score brownie points and endear himself to the supreme leader.

Judging from his (Zahrain’s) insecure position for the next general election, he had better worked out or worked up on some issues to gain prominence.

That is probably his only incentive behind his virulent attack on and allegations against Pakatan and Tengku Razaleigh.

In his latest diatribe he has challenged Nik Aziz to swear that he hasn’t met Tengku Razaleigh for the purpose of asking the latter to lead Pakatan.

To people like Zahrain, its useless to deny or insist that nothing of that sort took place.

The only way to argue with him is to actually say yes, such a meeting or indeed meetings took place.
If so then what?

Nik Aziz or whoever else is free to meet whomsoever they choose even the Pope himself.

Can we make the inference that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was seeking the Pope’s blessings when he met up with the head of the Catholic church?

Political opportunism

It’s a puzzle why Zahrain should begrudge the Pakatan even if they make overtures to the influential Razaleigh?

Isn’t it their aim to unseat the present ruling government and do it through democratic means?

I have to add the last part of the sentence in anticipation of irresponsible answers like – in that case we will defend our government by any means necessary.

It is this kind of attitude that served as one of the many motives behind the formation of Razaleigh’s Amanah which aims to defend the government though democratic means.

The same could not be said of the hawkish attitude and paranoia of Umno leaders. To them, the ends justify any means.

If power is held up by corruption, the emasculation of the judiciary, the creation of a servile police force and the practice of totalitarian practices than principles and ethics can and are sacrificed.

Principles are thrown out in favour of political opportunism.

These and not principles, appear to give the life which the BN now enjoys. So, the end of BN rule means the end of the life they have known all these years.

The writer is a former Umno state assemblyman and an FMT columnist.

‘Some laws have become a laughing-stock’

The Indonesian confrontation emergency declaration has not been revoked. Technically it means we are at ‘war with Indonesia’ despite the fact that thousands of Indonesians are here.

GEORGE TOWN: The country’s first emergency proclamation was invoked against the communist insurgency from 1948 to 1960. Since then there has been four others but sadly only the first one has been revoked.

Penang Gerakan’s legal and human rights bureau head Baljit Singh said Malaysians could not understand why the government still maintains the four proclamations of emergency.

“The crises justifying the proclamations have all passed. Putrajaya’s reasons to validate them are misplaced,” said Baljit .

The country’s has experienced five emergency proclamations by the King under Article 150 of the Federal Constitution.

The first emergency (1948-60) was against the communist insurgency and the second on Sept 3, 1964 was due to the Indonesian Confrontation.

Baljit, said the second proclamation had actually declared the country as ‘technically at war’ with neighbouring Indonesia.

This, he said, was amusing to Malaysians given the presence of the large number of Indonesians, both legal and illegal, in the country.

“We are now even giving bio-metric preferential treatment to Indonesians. Are we really at war with the Indonesians?”

The third was limited to Sarawak in Sept 14, 1966 following the dismissal of then Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan.

The fourth emergency was declared nationwide on May 15, 1969 in response to the May 13 civil unrest.
The final proclaimation on Nov 8, 1977 was limited to Kelantan to deal with the state’s political crisis.
Except for the first one, all other proclamations of emergency have not been revoked.

This in a way has resulted in the continued enforcement of the draconian Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) 1969 (EO, he said.

Short period of peace

Baljit said it was amazing that in the 54 years of independence, only a short spell of four years, between Aug 15, 1960 and Sept 2, 1964, a largely peaceful country like Malaysia was not subjected to emergency.

He called on the government to also repeal or review all draconian or draconian-type laws in line with universal concept of human rights and civil liberties.

The laws are EO, Internal Security Act 1960, Police Act 1967, Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958, Prevention of Crime Act 1959 and Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975.

Other laws are Official Secret Act 1972, Sedition Act 1948, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, Trade Union Act 1959, Immigration Act 1959, Societies Act 1966 and Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.

Crime prevention laws such as Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971, Arms Act 1960 and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act, 1975 are also said to have violated fundamental civil liberties.

“These laws were considered to have caused severe inroads and abrogated constitutionally protected fundamental human rights. It’s time for the government to either repeal or review all these legislations,” said Baljit.

Pengusiran Peguam Cetus Minat Kes Scorpene Di Perancis

US Precipitates India, Iran Oil Crisis

India looks for oil

A vigilant Washington seeks to stop payments for Iranian oil 

(Asia Sentinel) Last week, India’s Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals managed to make a US$100 million payment for Iranian oil – by transferring it through a third party bank in Istanbul.

That is because there is a continuing oil payment crisis between India and Iran, caused by the US government’s determined efforts to make sure as little oil money as possible seeps into Tehran. It also highlights New Delhi’s dilemma in trying to satisfy its growing energy needs, which are expected to double in the next decade.

Until last week, India owed Iran more than US$5 billion for oil imports as a result of US moves to isolate Iran, which Washington suspects of seeking to build nuclear weapons. .

But despite the move by going through a Turkish intermediary, India’s problems with doing business with Iran are far from over, given Washington’s resolve. The US has been applying intense pressure for more than a decade to block India from not only buying crude from Iran, OPEC’s second-biggest producer, but from joining an ambitious US$7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project proposed as long ago as 1966. India signed an agreement to join the pipeline project in 1999, but has since stalled under American pressure. In addition there is the matter of US$8 billion in proj4ected investment to develop Iran’s gas rich Farsi block. The US can impose sanctions if investments by any firm exceed US$20 million in a year in Iran’s energy sector.

There is little doubt that the international pressure on Iran, a country with a badly distorted economy in the first place, is hurting as the west grows more alarmed at Tehran’s bomb-making ambitions. Although the US doesn’t have the clout to bully the Eurozone nations to stop their purchases, Germany, the UK and the United Arab Emirates have refused to provide fuel for Iranian passenger jets. Major trading houses, accounting firms and energy companies have joined governments in the Iranian boycott although China has committed for purchases through 2011.

Last month, Iran threatened to cut oil supplies to India from Aug. 1 unless India paid up. India examined a variety of subterfuges including using multiple currencies including the rupee, to pay for the 12 million barrels of oil it imports from Iran every month before Mangalore Refinery resorted to the third-party bank scheme.

India, which imports nearly 80 percent of its crude oil requirements, needs all it can get to feed its ever-growing transport and manufacturing sectors. India’s crude imports in the nine months ended Dec 31 were more than 115 million metric tons, according to official data. India’s oil imports in April-May 2011 were valued more than US$20 billion. (It takes 7.3 barrels of crude to make up one metric ton.)

Fearing problems from the sanctions and other issues, Indian refiners MRPL, Bharat Petroleum, Hindustan Petroleum, IOC and Essar have recently begun backing away from Iran, beginning dealings with Saudi Aramco and Kuwait to seek alternative supplies. Over the past few months top-level meetings have been taking place between Saudi and Indian officials. Riyadh has said that it is willing to more than double the amount of oil it currently supplies to India and will sign a 30-year supply agreement, as it has done with other nations.

That has added fire to continuing problems between Tehran and Riyadh, which go well beyond OPEC oil supply strategy. Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest supplier, wants to boost the global supply to push prices down and Iran, needing the foreign exchange for its flagging economy, is not happy about that. Iran exports about 2 million barrels of oil per day. Iraq is the third-largest producer.

The latest events again underline that there is no immediate hope that India will join the gas pipeline project, a 48-inch pipeline that is projected to stretch 2,775 km from Iran to India and to deliver 55 cubic meters of natural gas per year.

While Iran is dealing with Pakistan bilaterally over the transfer of gas, the possibility is increasing that the pipeline will instead go to China.

That puts New Delhi in a dilemma. It needs to delay or opt out of the pipeline to keep Washington happy for US support at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, as well as hopes that will extend to a potential UN Security Council seat at some point. India is aware that there are strategic reasons for keeping China and Pakistan in check, but the potential loss of the gas – to China in fact -- to keep America happy is a Hobson’s choice.

There is also uncertainty over the investment in the gas-rich Farsi block by India’s state-owned oil firms ONGC, IOC and OIL to develop Iran’s gas rich Farsi block. US can impose sanctions if investments by any firm exceed US$20 million in a year in Iran’s energy sector.

India’s private sector major Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), which operates refineries that sell fuel to Iran, has already substantially curtailed such exports. RIL has invested US$3.6 billion in US shale assets and is wary of the political implications in Washington of the sale of anything to Iran.

The US is assisting India in its own domestic shale gas exploration. There are plans to auction blocks later this year. Although conversion of shale to energy takes up vast amounts of energy itself, and is ruinous to the environment, analysts say shale gas could be a game changer in India’s energy security plans given the projected failure of the pipeline and the falling output from India’s eastern Krishna Godavari basin. Presently, India has to import expensive LNG.

The west’s attempt to squeeze out Iran as an oil supplier to India can pose additional problems. In the absence of more choice and the existence of demand from multiple markets, Saudi Arabia is regarded as having little incentive to cut crude prices. It also introduces an element of uncertainty in oil supplies to India, as Riyadh could call the shots in any negotiations. Given such equations, India will need to calibrate its relations with Iran very carefully.

(Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist. He can be reached at sidsri@yahoo.com)

PSM six drop application

The Star
by M.MAGESWARI

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court has struck out the habeas corpus application by Sungai Siput MP Dr Michael Jeyakumar Devaraj and five other Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) members after they agreed to withdraw it.

Justice Su Geok Yiam struck out the application after their lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah discussed with the six during the hearing yesterday, described by a Senior Federal Counsel as merely “academic” since they had all been released from detention.

However, Sulaiman said the six did not agree to the reasons given by the Government, the Inspector-General of Police and the Home Minister in their preliminary objection against the application.

He said there was also no concession on their part in the 19 affidavits filed against them by the three respondents on July 29 but only served on them yesterday.

“My clients maintained that they have done nothing against the law and are of the view that unified public pressure had caused authorities to release them.

“They do not want to be thought of as guilty of anything wrong nor do they concede to anything alleged against them.

“Without prejudice to any further legal action arising from detention, my clients are reserving their rights,” he said.

On hearing this, Justice Su said: “This is a court of law. There is no prejudice and the counsels are communicating with each other.”

Earlier, Senior Federal Counsel Othman Yusof, who acted for the respondents, had raised the preliminary objection, saying that the application was academic as the six had been released from police detention on July 29.

He said the application was a remedy for a person detained unlawfully by the police or kept in custody under Home Minister’s order.

Senior Federal Counsel Amir Nasruddin also argued that the court could not make an order to release the six now as “it was just like the court that it could not sentence a dead man”, adding that the application had no merit.

Amir said the court also had no jurisdiction to hear the application as there was no course of action.

The six filed the application on July 6 on grounds that their detention was unlawful.

Besides Dr Michael, 56, the others are Sukumaran Munisamy, 50, Letchumanan Aseer Patham, 49, Choo Chon Kai, 33, Sarasvathy Muthu, 58, and Sarat Babu Raman, 25.

In the application, the six said they were detained by the police on July 2 under Section 3(1) of the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Prevention of Crime).

Bolivia: Akta baru yang memberi hak kepada Alam Semulajadi

Bolivia telah meluluskan rang undang-undang yang memberi hak asasi kepada Alam Semulajadi.
Sila rujuk ke rencana ini di laman Aliran:

The law would give nature legal rights, specifically the rights to life and regeneration, biodiversity, water, clean air, balance, and restoration. Bolivia’s law mandates a fundamental ecological reorientation of Bolivia’s economy and society, requiring all existing and future laws to adapt to the Mother Earth law and accept the ecological limits set by nature. It calls for public policy to be guided by Sumaj Kawsay or Vivir Bien (an indigenous concept meaning “living well,” or living in harmony with nature and people), rather than the current focus on producing more goods and stimulating consumption.
In practical terms, the law requires the government to make a transition from non-renewable to renewable energy; to develop new economic indicators that will assess the ecological impact of all economic activity; to carry out ecological audits of all private and state companies; to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to develop policies of food and renewable energy sovereignty; to research and invest resources in energy efficiency, ecological practices, and organic agriculture; and to require all companies and individuals to be accountable for environmental contamination with a duty to restore damaged environments.
The law will be backed up by a new Ministry of Mother Earth, an inter-Ministry Advisory Council, and an Ombudsman. Undarico Pinto, leader of the 3.5 million-strong campesino movement CSUTCB, which helped draft the law, believes this legislation represents a turning point in Bolivian law: “Existing laws are not strong enough. This will make industry more transparent. It will allow people to regulate industry at national, regional, and local levels.”

See the profound respect, even reverence, that certain far-sighted nations bestow on Nature?
Apa yang menghalang kami dari mengikut contoh ini?
P.S. As you can see, I am trying to reach out to more people by using some Malay. My bahasa is not the best around(!), so any corrections would be much appreciated. You may leave these corrections in the comments space below.