The law as an impersonal device – the impersonality adds neutrality for the diffusion of conflict.
By ordering society through an impersonal medium we are better able to rationally resolve disputes without the dispute lingering on.
Any personalised attempt at resolution of the conflict/dispute where one party perceives a less than favourable outcome constitutes an affront to that party and results in a continuation of hostilities. An impersonal resolution through the medium of rules where the rules have been set out and agreed to beforehand may still result in a resolution which the party may find unpalatable or less than desirable. But, at least the party would be rationally obliged to accept the resolution as the outcome of a process that he had agreed to be a party to.
Can this process of impersonal nature of a rule be used as a device to test the ‘proper’ nature of a law. A law that is personal is ‘improper’ and ought to be repealed or reformed. A law that is ‘proper’ may remain, subject to other ethical considerations. Is this a workable model for testing the desirability of a law? And, to take it a step further, is this a workable model for testing the validity of a law?
The proposition is this: if rules serve the function of being a medium for the impersonalisation of a dispute, then, unless the rule is impersonal, it does not have the pedigree of a rule.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Friday, May 02, 2008
virgin birth
Did the first thought originate from a virgin birth?
or was she mere excrement and not a child?
and did subsequent ones arise from a copulation of thoughts?
how do I make sense of this orgy in the city of nought?
or was she mere excrement and not a child?
and did subsequent ones arise from a copulation of thoughts?
how do I make sense of this orgy in the city of nought?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
For Eli
I just heard a really powerful poem. It's called 'For Eli'.
It's a the following link: http://www.andreagibson.org/poems/poems_foreli.html
It is on youtube as well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOb2YlTJkw
truly incredible stuff.
It's a the following link: http://www.andreagibson.org/poems/poems_foreli.html
It is on youtube as well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOb2YlTJkw
truly incredible stuff.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Of Rice and Lies
Concerning Former American President Jimmy Carter's visit to the Middle East and in particular his meeting with Hamas, the American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said this:
"We counseled President Carter against coming to -- against going to the region, and particularly against having contacts with Hamas." "We wanted to make sure that there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that Hamas was somehow a party to peace negotiations."
The Carter Centre has now released the following official statement:
Jimmy Carter is a man I admire a great deal. A rare politician who has his heart in the right place. He works tirelessly for the common good of humanity even though he is not in office.
Rice, on the other hand, is mixing with the wrong crowd.
I guess it is clear as to which of their statements, I think, is the truth.
"We counseled President Carter against coming to -- against going to the region, and particularly against having contacts with Hamas." "We wanted to make sure that there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that Hamas was somehow a party to peace negotiations."
The Carter Centre has now released the following official statement:
President Carter has the greatest respect for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and believes her to be a truthful person. However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true. No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President Assad or leaders of Hamas.
Before leaving on the extended visit to monitor an election in Nepal and then to visit Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, President Carter placed a telephone call to Ms. Rice to describe his itinerary and to inform her of his intended conversations. She was in Europe and her deputy returned his call. They had a very pleasant discussion for about fifteen minutes, during which he never made any of the negative or cautionary comments described above. He never talked to anyone else.
Jimmy Carter is a man I admire a great deal. A rare politician who has his heart in the right place. He works tirelessly for the common good of humanity even though he is not in office.
Rice, on the other hand, is mixing with the wrong crowd.
I guess it is clear as to which of their statements, I think, is the truth.
Olympics & Politics
There are many of us sports fans and purists who just love to see a sporting event unfold dramatically with lots of on the field and off the field stories to digest. But, there is one sporting event that always seems to attract off-the-field drama of a different kind. The Olympic games seem to be pursued by politics all the time.
Now, it is China's turn to face the music. Hosting the Olympics is a matter of pride for any nation. Certainly in the case of this emerging power, it is an opportunity to showcase the arrival of China as a nation of significance economically and politically. But, it was inevitable that in this Olympic year some political issue would have grabbed the limelight.
I was having a conversation the other day with a friend about mixing politics with sport. This friend was insistent that the Tibetan issue should be kept out of the Olympics and the torch relay should not have been marred by the disrespectful pro-Tibet groups.
I believe that we are not in a position to dictate which way politics would flow. Whenever there is an issue that deserves to be highlighted it is inevitable that groups involved in politics would pick whichever medium enables them to exhibit their message as widely and as effectively as they can. There is simply no point in insisting that politics should not be mixed with sports. Whether the organizers of the sporting event like it or not and whether fans like it or not, the political groups will simply attempt to hijack the event in the desparate attempt to get media attention.
The torch relay presented the perfect opportunity for pro-Tibet activists to make a point about their cause all around the world. If the Olympic committee intended to avoid politics, they should have simply cancelled the relay. This wouldn't have been a case of losing out. It would simply have been a security issue. And the political issue that they are so worried about would not have received the kind of airing that it got.
The point i'm making is that we cannot keep politics out of the Olympics or plead that it be kept out. It is going to always seek the platform that would give it the most limelight. The Olympics is the most ideal sporting event for that.
Now, it is China's turn to face the music. Hosting the Olympics is a matter of pride for any nation. Certainly in the case of this emerging power, it is an opportunity to showcase the arrival of China as a nation of significance economically and politically. But, it was inevitable that in this Olympic year some political issue would have grabbed the limelight.
I was having a conversation the other day with a friend about mixing politics with sport. This friend was insistent that the Tibetan issue should be kept out of the Olympics and the torch relay should not have been marred by the disrespectful pro-Tibet groups.
I believe that we are not in a position to dictate which way politics would flow. Whenever there is an issue that deserves to be highlighted it is inevitable that groups involved in politics would pick whichever medium enables them to exhibit their message as widely and as effectively as they can. There is simply no point in insisting that politics should not be mixed with sports. Whether the organizers of the sporting event like it or not and whether fans like it or not, the political groups will simply attempt to hijack the event in the desparate attempt to get media attention.
The torch relay presented the perfect opportunity for pro-Tibet activists to make a point about their cause all around the world. If the Olympic committee intended to avoid politics, they should have simply cancelled the relay. This wouldn't have been a case of losing out. It would simply have been a security issue. And the political issue that they are so worried about would not have received the kind of airing that it got.
The point i'm making is that we cannot keep politics out of the Olympics or plead that it be kept out. It is going to always seek the platform that would give it the most limelight. The Olympics is the most ideal sporting event for that.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I missed the century
What a pity! When I viewed my profile yesterday morning, there were 97 views: 2 more than the last time that I checked and blogged about it. So, there was someone else who had checked it out.
So, I thouhgt to myself.... 3 more to go and I will hit the century. Guess what, my profile views hit 109 last nght when I checked again. 12 views - by persons other than myself. There are people out there reading my rants? Interesting.
But, I have been deprived of my bat raising opportunity. All I can do now is throw my hands up in the air because of the fact that the century has gone totally unnoticed by me. :-(
So, I thouhgt to myself.... 3 more to go and I will hit the century. Guess what, my profile views hit 109 last nght when I checked again. 12 views - by persons other than myself. There are people out there reading my rants? Interesting.
But, I have been deprived of my bat raising opportunity. All I can do now is throw my hands up in the air because of the fact that the century has gone totally unnoticed by me. :-(
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
95 times
My profile has been viewed 95 times. That must be the number of times that I have hit my own profile to view how many times my profile has been viewed. I am going to hit a century (just five steps away).... I must not forget to raise my bat and salute the crowd (in this case, my self-congratulatory ego).
Public and International Law Committee
Following closely on the heels of my blog's renaming from the clumsy 'withandwithouteyes' (that nobody was really reading) to the succinct 'article14' (an attempt at cyber CPR for that unrealised Constitutional right), the Law Society of Singapore has announced the formation of the Public and International Law Committee.... a sort of Human Rights Committee minus teeth and any other sharp objects or objects that, though not sharp, may be sharpened or though not sharpened, may be able to inflict the damage (or a fraction thereof) that could be inflicted by sharp objects or any damage.
Ok... That's clearly not in keeping with the plain English drive...
Incidentally, my blog's name change did not in any way, shape or form (or formless form) influence the Law Society. I have no idea what motivated the Law Society.
Let us hope some constructive work from the Committee.. For now, although it has not been launched yet, this is my favourite committee within the Law Society. That does not say much since I haven't thought of any committees with the Society that I can think of as a point of comparison.
Somehow, I don't think the Committee is going to be all that great. Judging from the inaugral lecture that they have arranged, I can't help but suspect that it will serve as a forum for a competing thesis for human rights based on the less than human values as evisaged by the 'uniquely' Asian perspective. A thesis that human rights is not for us because we are Asians. :-) presumably, the result of that equation would be that we Asians are not humans... well, whatever, nevermind
Anyway, it always helps to be hopeful... that is the way to keep one's sanity... It also helps to be cynical.... that is the way to avoid disappointment... The key to dealing with the work of this Committee and how it would unfold is to follow the middle path between hope and cynicism.
Good luck to the Committee. I wonder what their views are on indefinite detention without trial. That's a good place to start.
Ok... That's clearly not in keeping with the plain English drive...
Incidentally, my blog's name change did not in any way, shape or form (or formless form) influence the Law Society. I have no idea what motivated the Law Society.
Let us hope some constructive work from the Committee.. For now, although it has not been launched yet, this is my favourite committee within the Law Society. That does not say much since I haven't thought of any committees with the Society that I can think of as a point of comparison.
Somehow, I don't think the Committee is going to be all that great. Judging from the inaugral lecture that they have arranged, I can't help but suspect that it will serve as a forum for a competing thesis for human rights based on the less than human values as evisaged by the 'uniquely' Asian perspective. A thesis that human rights is not for us because we are Asians. :-) presumably, the result of that equation would be that we Asians are not humans... well, whatever, nevermind
Anyway, it always helps to be hopeful... that is the way to keep one's sanity... It also helps to be cynical.... that is the way to avoid disappointment... The key to dealing with the work of this Committee and how it would unfold is to follow the middle path between hope and cynicism.
Good luck to the Committee. I wonder what their views are on indefinite detention without trial. That's a good place to start.
Walter Woon - Attorney General
I'm rather late in posting this. But, the appointment of Walter Woon as the Attorney General warrants some comment. This is a legal mind within the Singapore landscape that I admire deeply. I view him as a man of tremendous intellectual honesty from what little I have read about him over the years and the comments that have emanated from him.
Definitely, congratulations are in order. My only hope is that his intellectual honesty would engender the introduction of some fresh air into Singapore's legal climate.
Of course, I can't help but note some irony in all of this. If I remember correctly (and I may be wrong as I am working purely from memory, which is not too efficient these days), there was long time ago that Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the then Attorney General's statement regarding an alleged offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Chan Sek Kiong was then the Attorney General. During the 1997 elections, the Workers' Party had alleged that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and BG Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a polling station on polling day and had thereby committed an offence. Surprisingly, the PAP leaders did not deny their presence there (realising, I presume, the futility of attempting to deny the undeniable). It was then left to the Attorney General to diligently lay down an interpretation of the offence of loitering under the Parliamentary Elections Act that is perhaps the furthest that the elasticity of logic be pushed to without losing its pedigree as logic.
The AG stated as follows:
7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".
8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.
9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."
10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be sad to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix. (Editor's note: Diagrams not available).
12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.
The full text is available here:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
I must say that the argument of the AG is not without logic. I'm merely saying that I am reminded of Professor Kingsfield from Paper Chase: "Man has an infinite capacity for rationalization".
Now, for the reason why brought this up (and here I may actually be mistaken and might add my own quotable quote: man has an infinite capacity to be mistaken): If memory serves me right, Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the AG's argument... as being either intellectually dishonest or unintelligent.... something to that effect... the 'intellectually dishonest' bit has stuck in my head... i do remember that he said 'either ______ or intellectually dishonest' or 'either intellectually dishonest or ________.'
maybe the comment has been immortalised by being grafted onto the net somewhere... I must google it to find out.
Anyway, the point of this exercise is this... What an irony. Walter Woon is now the AG. Chan Sek Keong is the Chief Justice. How would the intellectually honest perform? We shall watch as it unfolds.
Definitely, congratulations are in order. My only hope is that his intellectual honesty would engender the introduction of some fresh air into Singapore's legal climate.
Of course, I can't help but note some irony in all of this. If I remember correctly (and I may be wrong as I am working purely from memory, which is not too efficient these days), there was long time ago that Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the then Attorney General's statement regarding an alleged offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Chan Sek Kiong was then the Attorney General. During the 1997 elections, the Workers' Party had alleged that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and BG Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a polling station on polling day and had thereby committed an offence. Surprisingly, the PAP leaders did not deny their presence there (realising, I presume, the futility of attempting to deny the undeniable). It was then left to the Attorney General to diligently lay down an interpretation of the offence of loitering under the Parliamentary Elections Act that is perhaps the furthest that the elasticity of logic be pushed to without losing its pedigree as logic.
The AG stated as follows:
7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".
8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.
9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."
10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be sad to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix. (Editor's note: Diagrams not available).
12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.
The full text is available here:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
I must say that the argument of the AG is not without logic. I'm merely saying that I am reminded of Professor Kingsfield from Paper Chase: "Man has an infinite capacity for rationalization".
Now, for the reason why brought this up (and here I may actually be mistaken and might add my own quotable quote: man has an infinite capacity to be mistaken): If memory serves me right, Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the AG's argument... as being either intellectually dishonest or unintelligent.... something to that effect... the 'intellectually dishonest' bit has stuck in my head... i do remember that he said 'either ______ or intellectually dishonest' or 'either intellectually dishonest or ________.'
maybe the comment has been immortalised by being grafted onto the net somewhere... I must google it to find out.
Anyway, the point of this exercise is this... What an irony. Walter Woon is now the AG. Chan Sek Keong is the Chief Justice. How would the intellectually honest perform? We shall watch as it unfolds.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Contemplating the 'rule' - thoughts in draft
A rule is a tool for the diffusion of conflict. It is an impersonal external reference point, which eliminates the emotional dimension of a dispute between individuals. This impersonalisation of a dispute assists in the creation of order, stability and tranquillity. It does not ensure the creation of the same but merely prods the social organism in that direction.
A retrospective law does not appear fair or just because it fails to some degree to provide an impersonal external reference point. A nagging suspicion that the rule has specifically targeted an individual or group of individuals for the behaviour introduces a personal dimension to the rule.
The personalisation of a rule occurs when the rule is intended to target or perceived to target an individual or a group. The rule then does not operate as a rule and acquires the character of an order (with the accompanying lack of moral legitimacy) directed at an individual.
This personalisation renders the rule questionable. If rules were, to begin with, intended to diffuse conflict and secure tranquillity, any rule that doesn’t impersonalise the conflict must surely be questionable in terms of its pedigree as a rule.
A retrospective law does not appear fair or just because it fails to some degree to provide an impersonal external reference point. A nagging suspicion that the rule has specifically targeted an individual or group of individuals for the behaviour introduces a personal dimension to the rule.
The personalisation of a rule occurs when the rule is intended to target or perceived to target an individual or a group. The rule then does not operate as a rule and acquires the character of an order (with the accompanying lack of moral legitimacy) directed at an individual.
This personalisation renders the rule questionable. If rules were, to begin with, intended to diffuse conflict and secure tranquillity, any rule that doesn’t impersonalise the conflict must surely be questionable in terms of its pedigree as a rule.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Indonesian Prophecy
Prophesies are always fascinating. Whether or not one is willing to accept the likelihood of prophetic statements having any truth in them, one must say that they have some amusement value.
Here is something I came across in Wikipedia...It seems that there was this priest by the name of Sabdapalon during the reign of the last Majapahit king. The king, Brawijaya the Fifth converted, to Islam in 1478 and was cursed by his priest Sabdapalon.
Sabdapalon then promised that he would return 500 years later (that would be 1978). At the time of his return there is supposed to be political turmoil, etc, etc... (the usual apocalyptic stuff contained in prophesies, i guess). He would return and usher in an era when Islam would be wiped off the majapahit lands and hinduism would be restored.
There is then the assertion in the wikipedia post that some of the first new Hindu temples were built around 1978 (e.g. Pura Blambangan ). There is also the assertion that Mt Semeru erupted around the same time.
I'm having some difficulty verifying the date of construction of Pura Blambangan. I shall check it out at a later date. As for Mt Semeru, there is a wikipedia post that states that since 1818, 55 eruptions have been recorded. From 1967 to the present the volcano has been in a 'near constant state of eruption'. The last eruption is stated as 2008 (continuing). presumably, it is erupting as i blog right now.... let me check on that.... i don't see anything on google news
1967... that's the year that my sister was born... maybe she is the reincarnation of Sabdapalon. :-) but, what is she doing globetrotting with her husband instead of ushering in a hindu revival in indonesia. :-)
And then, there is another Indonesian prophesy. THis concerns a person referred to as Joyoboyo or Jayabaya; a king who reigned from 1135 to 1157 in East Java. Javanese believe him to be a model king; an embodiment of the qualities of a just ruler: A Ratu Adil. According to wikipedia:
'Many believe that the time for the arrival of a new Ratu Adil is near (as the prophecies put it, "when iron wagons could drive without horses and ships could sail through the sky"), and that he will come to rescue and reunite Indonesia after an acute crisis, ushering in the dawn of a new golden age.'
so, now that we have cars and aircrafts, a new Ratu Adil is upon us. :-)
Here is something I came across in Wikipedia...It seems that there was this priest by the name of Sabdapalon during the reign of the last Majapahit king. The king, Brawijaya the Fifth converted, to Islam in 1478 and was cursed by his priest Sabdapalon.
Sabdapalon then promised that he would return 500 years later (that would be 1978). At the time of his return there is supposed to be political turmoil, etc, etc... (the usual apocalyptic stuff contained in prophesies, i guess). He would return and usher in an era when Islam would be wiped off the majapahit lands and hinduism would be restored.
There is then the assertion in the wikipedia post that some of the first new Hindu temples were built around 1978 (e.g. Pura Blambangan ). There is also the assertion that Mt Semeru erupted around the same time.
I'm having some difficulty verifying the date of construction of Pura Blambangan. I shall check it out at a later date. As for Mt Semeru, there is a wikipedia post that states that since 1818, 55 eruptions have been recorded. From 1967 to the present the volcano has been in a 'near constant state of eruption'. The last eruption is stated as 2008 (continuing). presumably, it is erupting as i blog right now.... let me check on that.... i don't see anything on google news
1967... that's the year that my sister was born... maybe she is the reincarnation of Sabdapalon. :-) but, what is she doing globetrotting with her husband instead of ushering in a hindu revival in indonesia. :-)
And then, there is another Indonesian prophesy. THis concerns a person referred to as Joyoboyo or Jayabaya; a king who reigned from 1135 to 1157 in East Java. Javanese believe him to be a model king; an embodiment of the qualities of a just ruler: A Ratu Adil. According to wikipedia:
'Many believe that the time for the arrival of a new Ratu Adil is near (as the prophecies put it, "when iron wagons could drive without horses and ships could sail through the sky"), and that he will come to rescue and reunite Indonesia after an acute crisis, ushering in the dawn of a new golden age.'
so, now that we have cars and aircrafts, a new Ratu Adil is upon us. :-)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
How the blog do they do it?
It has been a very long time since I last blogged. I have been too preoccupied with so many other engagements that hitting the keyboard for anything other than work has become a rarity.
But, here I am. It is Good Friday. Early in the morning 4.08am. Hong Kong. Busy preparing for my lecture at 10am. done with that. But, now I have decided to do some mindless surfing... that mindless surfing led me to recall this blog... so, here I am.
I wonder... How is it that there are so many bloggers out there that seem to have all the time in the world to do nothing but blogging. surely there must be a life they lead outside the confines of cyberspace. How the blog do they do it!
But, here I am. It is Good Friday. Early in the morning 4.08am. Hong Kong. Busy preparing for my lecture at 10am. done with that. But, now I have decided to do some mindless surfing... that mindless surfing led me to recall this blog... so, here I am.
I wonder... How is it that there are so many bloggers out there that seem to have all the time in the world to do nothing but blogging. surely there must be a life they lead outside the confines of cyberspace. How the blog do they do it!
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
width="94" height="19" border="0">Saturday, June 24, 2006
Save the UN
To my mind, it seems obvious that it is important to have an international legal order and to foster strong international institutions that seek to advance the greater good of all humanity.
As John F Kennedy said.... "We prefer world law, in the age of self-determination, to world war in the age of mass extermination."
But, it appears that the UN is in a bit of a crisis. Major powers see it as a nuisance in the pursuit of their own agenda. Demonising the UN and tarnishing its image has become a popular sport for some. We cannot underestimate the important role of this world body. It may appear weak at times. But its will is only as strong as we allow it to be.
As such, I decided to sign the following petition:
"The heroes of the world community are not those who withdraw when difficulties ensue, not those who can envision neither the prospect of success nor the consequence of failure -- but those who stand the heat of battle, the fight for world peace through the United Nations." Hubert H Humphrey
As John F Kennedy said.... "We prefer world law, in the age of self-determination, to world war in the age of mass extermination."
But, it appears that the UN is in a bit of a crisis. Major powers see it as a nuisance in the pursuit of their own agenda. Demonising the UN and tarnishing its image has become a popular sport for some. We cannot underestimate the important role of this world body. It may appear weak at times. But its will is only as strong as we allow it to be.
As such, I decided to sign the following petition:
"The heroes of the world community are not those who withdraw when difficulties ensue, not those who can envision neither the prospect of success nor the consequence of failure -- but those who stand the heat of battle, the fight for world peace through the United Nations." Hubert H Humphrey
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
secularism
The Works of James Madison
Secularism is a political value that needs to be continually reinforced. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious society such as Singapore, it is taken for granted. Secularism is so much a part of the substratum of politics here that one does not even consider the dangers of a non-secular theological state.
One cannot be overly complacent about unholy alliance between the church and the state. Such alliances have never been spiritually fruitful and have always been instrumental in facilitating some form of tyranny or other... I was just reading some of the works of James Madison and came across the following. Its from an address by him to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virgia in 1785. Americans today are faced with the dangerous enchroachment of right wing religious groups into the political arena. This observation of James Madison from 221 years ago has not been proven wrong despite the passage of time.
"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."
Secularism is a political value that needs to be continually reinforced. In a multi-cultural, multi-religious society such as Singapore, it is taken for granted. Secularism is so much a part of the substratum of politics here that one does not even consider the dangers of a non-secular theological state.
One cannot be overly complacent about unholy alliance between the church and the state. Such alliances have never been spiritually fruitful and have always been instrumental in facilitating some form of tyranny or other... I was just reading some of the works of James Madison and came across the following. Its from an address by him to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virgia in 1785. Americans today are faced with the dangerous enchroachment of right wing religious groups into the political arena. This observation of James Madison from 221 years ago has not been proven wrong despite the passage of time.
"What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another."
Thursday, June 08, 2006
death of a bogeyman
Just read this rather funny take on the death of al-Zarqawi. well placed humour and certainly not off the mark... at least there is no collateral damage to innocent reputations. :-)
Hubub in Hibhib: The Timely Death of al-Zarqawi
Hubub in Hibhib: The Timely Death of al-Zarqawi
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Iraq Anniversary
It is one of those anniversaries not worth celebrating. But one that must be remembered. Three years have lapsed since the US-led invasion of Iraq. The legality of the invasion has been justified on various occasions by the Bush-Blair administrations through a combination of UN Security Council resolutions.
There is an inherent flaw in the reasoning that we cannot afford to forget. The following is a report from the Guardian (March 17, 2003)
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, said in a written parliamentary answer that the authority to use force against Iraq stemmed from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.
Lord Goldsmith stated: "All of these resolutions were adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security."
The actual advice passed by the attorney general to the prime minister has not been made public, but the official response given today reverses previous speculation that Lord Goldsmith may fail to find legal justification for an attack.
In his written answer, Lord Goldsmith stated: "In resolution 678 the security council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
"In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the security council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.
"Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
"A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
"In resolution 1441 the security council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
"The security council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations' and warned Iraq of the 'serious consequences' if it did not."
Lord Goldsmith's statement continued: "The security council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
"It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
"Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
"Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the security council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.
"Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the security council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."
The reasoning above is clearly false if one reads the relevant resolutions referred to by Lord Goldsmith.
To being with, the use of force is only justifiable by a nation under the UN Charter if it is for self defence under Article 51. The only other justification for the use of force is through the action of the Security Council (not unilaterally through the action of any state or combination of states).
The following are relevant Clauses in Resolution 687…
The Security Council:
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
By Clause 33 a formal cease fire would have come into effect upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General of its acceptance of the post war terms set forth in Resolution 687. The official notification was provided on behalf of Iraq by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a letter dated 6 April 1991 addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the President of the Security Council
It is difficult to see how a material breach of Resolution 687 could revive Resolution 678 when there was an effective ceasefire under 687 and clause 34 of Resolution 687 further reserves the for the Security Council the right to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area”
The operative words “to take further steps” would imply some further formal declaration of war or declaration of use of force rather than a mere “automatic” revival of the use of force clause in Resolution 678. Clearly a deliberate act is envisaged on the part of the Security Council rather than a revival of previous provisions.
The relevant clauses in Resolution 678 are as follows:
The Security Council:
Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
Note that the authorization to use “all necessary means” relates to the upholding and implementation of Resolution 660 and to the restoration of “international peace and security in the area.” This must be seen in the context of Resolution 660 which calls for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. Surely the restoration of “international peace and security in the area” would involve restoring the nations back to their status quo prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
Resolution 660 (1990) is as follows:
The Security Council:
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441 (which was the final Resolution relating to Iraq before the Bush-Blair coalition went to war), lets examine Lord Goldsmith’s argument that Resolution 1441 does not require further action before any use of force against Iraq. He states the if the Security Council intended a further decision before any use of force, this would have been expressly stated. "Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the security council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."
This doesn’t sit well with the actual negotiation between the Security Council members. Resolution 1441 was drafted as a compromise between the Council members so as to avoid giving the Americans and the British an automatic right to invade. The US sponsored a text that would automatically trigger the use of force and they did not procure that in the eventual watered down resolution that was passed. In fact, by Resolution 1441, the USA & Britain had been bound to return to the Security Council to make a collective decision
The relevant clauses of Resolution 1441 are 11, 12 and 13. They deal with the consequences that would follow as a result of Iraqi non-compliance:
"11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
Resolution 1441 does not state that use of force is authorized in the event that there is a breach. Resolution 1441 does not state that “serious consequences” would result in the event that there is a breach. It merely recalls the fact that Iraq had been warned on other occasions by the Security Council. What the Resolution in fact decided is in found in Clause 12: Upon receipt of a report from UMOVIC and IAEA, the Security Council would “convene immediately” “in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security”
The Resolution of the Security Council in 1441 was therefore a decision to consider the next step to be taken after a report from UMOVIC and IAEA. Where is the authorization to use force. How could logic and reason justify such use of force as being legal under International Law?
Questioning the legality of the war should not be sidelined as being academic now. If there are nations (i.e. “Coalition of the willing”) which have commenced a war that was not sanctioned under the UN Charter, then these nations are themselves answerable for this breach of International Law.
There is an inherent flaw in the reasoning that we cannot afford to forget. The following is a report from the Guardian (March 17, 2003)
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, said in a written parliamentary answer that the authority to use force against Iraq stemmed from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441.
Lord Goldsmith stated: "All of these resolutions were adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security."
The actual advice passed by the attorney general to the prime minister has not been made public, but the official response given today reverses previous speculation that Lord Goldsmith may fail to find legal justification for an attack.
In his written answer, Lord Goldsmith stated: "In resolution 678 the security council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
"In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the security council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.
"Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
"A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
"In resolution 1441 the security council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
"The security council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations' and warned Iraq of the 'serious consequences' if it did not."
Lord Goldsmith's statement continued: "The security council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
"It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
"Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
"Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the security council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.
"Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the security council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."
The reasoning above is clearly false if one reads the relevant resolutions referred to by Lord Goldsmith.
To being with, the use of force is only justifiable by a nation under the UN Charter if it is for self defence under Article 51. The only other justification for the use of force is through the action of the Security Council (not unilaterally through the action of any state or combination of states).
The following are relevant Clauses in Resolution 687…
The Security Council:
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
By Clause 33 a formal cease fire would have come into effect upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General of its acceptance of the post war terms set forth in Resolution 687. The official notification was provided on behalf of Iraq by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in a letter dated 6 April 1991 addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the President of the Security Council
It is difficult to see how a material breach of Resolution 687 could revive Resolution 678 when there was an effective ceasefire under 687 and clause 34 of Resolution 687 further reserves the for the Security Council the right to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area”
The operative words “to take further steps” would imply some further formal declaration of war or declaration of use of force rather than a mere “automatic” revival of the use of force clause in Resolution 678. Clearly a deliberate act is envisaged on the part of the Security Council rather than a revival of previous provisions.
The relevant clauses in Resolution 678 are as follows:
The Security Council:
Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
Note that the authorization to use “all necessary means” relates to the upholding and implementation of Resolution 660 and to the restoration of “international peace and security in the area.” This must be seen in the context of Resolution 660 which calls for the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. Surely the restoration of “international peace and security in the area” would involve restoring the nations back to their status quo prior to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.
Resolution 660 (1990) is as follows:
The Security Council:
1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;
2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r
3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;
4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Iraq was in breach of Resolution 1441 (which was the final Resolution relating to Iraq before the Bush-Blair coalition went to war), lets examine Lord Goldsmith’s argument that Resolution 1441 does not require further action before any use of force against Iraq. He states the if the Security Council intended a further decision before any use of force, this would have been expressly stated. "Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the security council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."
This doesn’t sit well with the actual negotiation between the Security Council members. Resolution 1441 was drafted as a compromise between the Council members so as to avoid giving the Americans and the British an automatic right to invade. The US sponsored a text that would automatically trigger the use of force and they did not procure that in the eventual watered down resolution that was passed. In fact, by Resolution 1441, the USA & Britain had been bound to return to the Security Council to make a collective decision
The relevant clauses of Resolution 1441 are 11, 12 and 13. They deal with the consequences that would follow as a result of Iraqi non-compliance:
"11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."
Resolution 1441 does not state that use of force is authorized in the event that there is a breach. Resolution 1441 does not state that “serious consequences” would result in the event that there is a breach. It merely recalls the fact that Iraq had been warned on other occasions by the Security Council. What the Resolution in fact decided is in found in Clause 12: Upon receipt of a report from UMOVIC and IAEA, the Security Council would “convene immediately” “in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security”
The Resolution of the Security Council in 1441 was therefore a decision to consider the next step to be taken after a report from UMOVIC and IAEA. Where is the authorization to use force. How could logic and reason justify such use of force as being legal under International Law?
Questioning the legality of the war should not be sidelined as being academic now. If there are nations (i.e. “Coalition of the willing”) which have commenced a war that was not sanctioned under the UN Charter, then these nations are themselves answerable for this breach of International Law.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
much ado about "chunks"
here's a strange thing a spotted on the net. It is from the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) in the UK. This is the department that was known rather quaintly as Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
I was in the process of looking up a particular Act of Parliament when I chanced upon this preliminary instruction:
"To ensure fast access over slow connections, large documents have been segmented into "chunks". Where you see a "continue" button at the bottom of the page of text, this indicates that there is another chunk of text available." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060001.htm
Wait a minute.... Did I see the word "chunks"? Chunks? At Her Majesty's Office? That's not quite my idea of Queen's English. :-) Or is the HSMO now consuming "chunks" of the colloquial English that the rest of society freely uses in informal settings... oOPSIe....
I don't mean to be a nanny here. But, I was just quite amused at finding the word "chunks" at that website. This would have been an alternative way of rendering the instruction?:
"To ensure fast access over slow connections, large documents have been split into segments. Where you see a "continue" button at the bottom of the page of text, this indicates that there is another segment of the text available"
Just a suggestion.
I was in the process of looking up a particular Act of Parliament when I chanced upon this preliminary instruction:
"To ensure fast access over slow connections, large documents have been segmented into "chunks". Where you see a "continue" button at the bottom of the page of text, this indicates that there is another chunk of text available." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060001.htm
Wait a minute.... Did I see the word "chunks"? Chunks? At Her Majesty's Office? That's not quite my idea of Queen's English. :-) Or is the HSMO now consuming "chunks" of the colloquial English that the rest of society freely uses in informal settings... oOPSIe....
I don't mean to be a nanny here. But, I was just quite amused at finding the word "chunks" at that website. This would have been an alternative way of rendering the instruction?:
"To ensure fast access over slow connections, large documents have been split into segments. Where you see a "continue" button at the bottom of the page of text, this indicates that there is another segment of the text available"
Just a suggestion.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
venturing into the unknown
These are my first steps. I have heard much about blogs and have occasionally read and enjoyed some well written observations about a variety of "stuff". I have now on a whim decided to venture my own caravan of observations into this frontier.
with and without eyes..... the main purpose of this blog is to record my observations made through my senses and my observations of the inner world made through introspection. Of course, this is a carte blanche for me to write just about anything that i observe and experience. :-) Ultimately i guess its just a platform for me to post my closet on the internet.
with and without eyes..... the main purpose of this blog is to record my observations made through my senses and my observations of the inner world made through introspection. Of course, this is a carte blanche for me to write just about anything that i observe and experience. :-) Ultimately i guess its just a platform for me to post my closet on the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)