Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| India's 'Assange' crusades against corruption Posted: 04 Nov 2012 02:41 PM PST
Arvind Kejriwal has shaken the political establishment with a string of accusations against top leaders and businesses. Sudha G Tilak, Aljeeza In a country where accountability and transparency are often thought of as the first causalities of holding public office, Arvind Kejriwal, a mechanical engineer and former bureaucrat from Haryana, has blown the whistle on India's corrupt. In the last fortnight, he has released details and levelled charges four times against top Indian politicians and the country's biggest business conglomerate. "We want to turn the power structure upside-down and make the powerful accountable," Kejriwal, 44, a thin man with a moustache and piercing eyes, said. India's middle class population, which prefers to bemoan the state of chaos and corruption in the nation, have found in Kejriwal a person who is not afraid to bring forth allegations of fraud to the doorstep of India's leaders. It's been a long and busy day for Kejriwal following his string of revelations and corruption charges in the past fortnight on many of India's leading political and business figures. He disengages from throngs of his followers of the India Against Corruption (IAC), a people's organisation he founded in 2006 encouraging public engagement. "People of this country are fed up, and the conditions are right for a movement to set things right," he said in an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera. Targeting the mighty Charging the country's most powerful with corruption, Kejriwal has discomforted the government. "They have found the ground beneath their feet shaken", he exclaimed. However, he is wary of the title India's Julian Assange, the founder of the whistle-blowing organisation WikiLeaks now wanted by the US government for making top secret government documents available to the public, which some have bestowed upon him. "It's not about sensational exposures," he said. "The intent is to bring a radical change in politics and accountability." Kejriwal's accusations are based on government documents he says are proof of corruption, which he had obtained using the Right to Information Act, under which any citizen may compel the government to share information. On October 5, Kejriwal made a public accusation against Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. He claimed that Vadra had purchased property worth millions of dollars with "interest free unsecured free loan" by DLF, India's major construction company. DLF's market value dropped in a single day to the tune of $580m following the accusation. A week later Kejriwal pinpointed financial irregularities to the tune of Rs 71 lakh ($130,000) by the Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust, a non-governmental organisation for the disabled that is headed by federal minister Salman Khurshid and his wife Louise. He took to the streets with his followers saying the Khurshids had misappropriated funds allocated for the physically challenged to distribute tricycles and hearing aids for the needy across 17 districts of Uttar Pradesh. A Comptroller and Auditor General's Report (CAG) had earlier reported the irregularities too. Then, on October 17, Kejriwal targeted the opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He accused party president Nitin Gadkari of land grabbing by colluding with the ruling party in the western state of Maharashtra, and exploiting poor farmers to further his business interests in real estate. Pursuing the truth Despite strong denials from those who stand accused, Kejriwal's revelations have undoubtedly stirred the establishment.
Robert Vadra, Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law, has denied the charges brought against him; DLF has also denied offering favourable discounts for purchase of property. Gandhi, for her part, has remained silent on the matter, refraining from making any public statements. Kejriwal brushed aside the defences of Vadra and senior Congress leaders, saying their clarifications were "half-truths and lies".
| ||
| Should the King invoke Article 130? Posted: 04 Nov 2012 06:20 AM PST   Hemananthani Sivanandam, The Sun Daily The contentious debate about whether Malaysia is a secular or Islamic state has been raging on both sides of the political divide. DAP chairman Karpal Singh recently proposed urging the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to invoke his powers under Article 130 of the Federal Constitution, to refer to the full bench of the Federal Court for an opinion as to whether Malaysia is a secular state or an Islamic state. He argued that in the 1988 case of Che Omar Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Court headed by then lord president Tun Salleh Abbas had clearly stated that the law in the country was secular. However, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said in Parliament last month that Malaysia had never been endorsed or declared as a secular country. He said according to the nation's history, Malaysia was formed based on the Islamic government of the Malay Sultanate and the Malay rulers are the heads of religion in their respective states. While some believe it is best to put an end to the issue, others feel it is best to just move on and leave the sensitive subject unexplored. Views put forward include: Nazri Aziz Tun Salleh's (pronouncement) was obiter dicta (Latin for "something mentioned in passing) and it was not an issue put before the court to decide if the country is secular or Islamic. He mentioned only in passing that Malaysia has secular laws. It is up to the King now. Also, we don't have to be one or the other. We are unique and we have gone this far without any problem. Why do we have to follow one or the other? If we are not secular, must we be Islamic? No! Monash University political science lecturer Prof Dr James Chin Asking for a legal opinion by the King is frought with danger because the issue at stake is really not a constitutional issue, but a political question. The best place to settle the debate is on the floor of the Parliament which can amend the constitution to say either way. Karpal Singh If the government feels that it is obiter dicta, and not the rationale for the decision, then it should get the King to refer the issue to the Federal Court for its opinion. I don't think it was obiter dicta, because the court in deciding whether Islamic or secular laws applied in the country, declared it was secular laws … which means we are not an Islamic state. Even democracy is not mentioned in the constitution, but we should go on the overall manner in which it was drafted. Let the issue be decided once and for all by a full bench of the Federal Court. Political analyst Khoo Kay Peng Karpal's suggestion is apt as this issue has been politicised and has tremendous effect on the judiciary, administration and public policy. In the interest of the nation, I think the King should invoke his powers to settle the matter, as he is above politics. His role is also providing positive moderation of the country. Let the court decide and put an end to this instead of letting the politicians go around confusing the people.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan