or WHO GUARDS THE GUARDIANS?
by platonicaristotledupopulous, donplaypuks® intrepid sentinel for guardians’ affairs
by platonicaristotledupopulous, donplaypuks® intrepid sentinel for guardians’ affairs
PUNISHMENT
In Singapore, Chia Thye Poh lost his freedom for 32 years between 1966 -1997, when he was arrested and imprisoned under the Internal Security Act (ISA). But during all those long, long years of wintry discontent, he was not charged with a single offence or brought to trial, making him the longest-serving prisoner-of-conscience in the modern history of Mankind. It ranks right up there with Nelson Mandela’s 27-year incarceration (1964 -1990) in Robben Island under White South Africa, as among the most heroic of stands by individuals against the concerted onslaught of brutal, dictatorial regimes out to impose their will at all and any costs, on the masses. Burma has its own with the home arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi.
And we are no exception to these now almost daily assaults on constitutionally and lawfully enshrined guarantees on civil, other legal and human rights issues.
The recent recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the Lingam tapes suggests a frightening systematic dismantling of the independence of our Judiciary over the last 20 years, by possibly an unholy cabal from the Executive branch of Government and Big Business, in particular those owned by so-called Croneys. It goes so far as to suggest a former CJ may have lied and may have possibly been involved in corrupt acts, and that the appointment of CJ’s and judges to senior positions in the Judiciary hierarchy may have been manipulated by ‘invisible hands,’ securing the promotion of many inept but compliant junior judges and magistrates, over the heads of their more competent and senior colleagues.
That much was also perceived by the general public and the legal fraternity from peculiar decisions delivered in our courts in a number of prominent cases, such as the Boonsak land-transfer fraud and the Insas ex-parte hearing. The tone of the Executive had already been heard with the sacking of the then CJ, Tun Salleh Abbas by a Commonwealth Tribunal, in 1988, for purported abuse of power and disrespect to the Royalty. In direct contravention of the principles of the Separation of Powers and the independence of the Judiciary, an ex-PM who had recommended the Tribunal, had at first summoned the CJ to his office and there demanded his resignation, forthwith.
An ex-PM rails with customary acerbity about being unfairly hung out to dry by the RCI on mere hint of ‘possibilities’. Forgetting (selectively, we hear, as of late) in the process, that in 1987, he himself had ordered 106 citizens be hauled off to Kamunting Prison by the drag-nets of the infamous ‘Ops Lallang’ and the ISA, without charge or trial. The leader of the opposition, Lim Kit Siang, and his No.2, Karpal Singh, were only released after 2 years. They were imprisoned on the perceived judgement of the ex-PM that they may have contributed to ‘possible’ racial tension and of ‘possible’ fomenting of racial riots!
Perception of endemic corruption, unaccounted for cell-deaths, numerous alleged assaults of suspects while in police custody, relatively low arrest and conviction rates and escalating serious crime rates prompted the appointment of the Royal Police Commission which in 2005 recommended, among other things, that an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) be established. An immediate response from the Inspector General of Police/Police was the publication of ten reasons why the IPCMC was not needed. The IPCMC has not been set up till today, which is as sure as if the IGP had stood on the roof of Parliament House, stuck two fingers in the air and said ‘I will not be the one to hang my own officers.’
Among the arguments put forward by the Police was that they should not be singled out for independent control and accountability, given that corruption was prevalent in other government departments such as Road Transport and Customs & Excise as well. And there we have it! Is it not the duty of the Police to ferret out these criminal elements from the corridors and labyrinths of Government.
But the ACA is not without its own problems. It had once recommended prosecution of a Minister, only to have it put in cold storage by an ex-PM. The same ex-PM was himself accused in testimony in open court by a senior investigating police officer, of interfering in another police investigation over a huge wad of unaccounted for cash found in the office desk-drawer of a former Governor of Bank Negara! Many also have misgivings over the ‘all clear’ reports given by the ACA over a Minister’s involvement in the allocation of 9 million Telekom shares meant for ‘Maika’ to other parties and the release of the names of informants to directors of a company in a case in Penang. Recent testimony of an ACA officer at the Lingam Tapes RCI, suggests reluctance on the part of the ACA to investigate without fear where Big Wigs are concerned, with a very narrow focus on the area and time-frame of investigation. To put it mildly, the (lady) officer’s testimony at the RCI was embarrassingly torn to shreds by lawyers acting for the Bar Council and other interested parties! Such results are predictable, when the ACA and its Head report to the PM and not as an Independent body reporting to Parliament.
This region is (in)famous for the arbitary application of the draconian ISA, Official Secrets Act (OSA), Rural Restriction Banishment Order, The Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA with mandatory licencing requirements ), Sedition Act, Simultaneous Multiple Defamation Law Suits and invoking of Globally applicable Mareva Injunctions and extended Remand without charge in some cases for over a year!. The principal aim of the Establishment is not only to stifle legitimate public dissent over ill-conceived profligate Government spending and promotion of billion ringgit White Elephant development projects; it is also to prevent corruption from being unearthed and to cover up shoddy investigative procedures and incompetency among the purported sentinels and guardians of our democratic nations. Not to mention keeping the same Leaders in power for 20 or 30 years at a stretch.
When all else fails, and just when you think you might finally cast your vote elsewhere, you will be warned by the full machinery of the State to ‘Vote wisely, you do not want something untoward to happen do you? Remember 1969?’ The majority of Main Stream Media (MSM) are all owned and/or controlled by members of the coalition-led Government or their croneys. Elsewhere, as though to mirror the events here, not two days ago, Robert Mugabe, that fanatical guardian of all things Democratic and an admired friend of our ex-PM, having been defeated at the elections, remarkably engineered another Presidential run-off. He warned Zimbabwians that if necessary ‘we are prepared to go to war to defend our hard earned freedom.’ Like fucking to restore virginity!
WHEREVER OUR GAZE RESTS, JUSTICE IS IN CRISIS!
This is the woven tapestry we assemble when we pull together all the loose strands that lie carelessly strewn across the length and breadth of our five continents, the forests, oceans, the skies and even beyond.
It is the one-armed killer, the rigged jury, the White, Yellow, Black & Brown Supremacist, the benevolent as well as the murderous dictator and his big-business croney, the crooked cop, the thieving Minister, the Taliban & Al Qaeda extremist and fundamentalist who all seem to be in control, have the upper hand and who seem to triumph alarmingly, time after time against the ordinary little man and woman.
How is it possible to have laws against Double Jeopardy, and then be convicted of the same crime (however semantically-spun) under Civil Laws which allow for a ‘lower standard of proof’? Lower standard of proof! What does it mean? It sounds suspiciously like Double Jeopardy! Can public sentiment be a reason to require a man to prove his innocence in court, or dictate that a person found innocent in one court be compelled to prove his innocence again in another court.? That juries can be selected on race or gender bias in cases involving the super rich or the well-connected?
But if more and more a trial by a jury of one’s peers is found wanting, those conducted by ‘learned’ judges have been found to be equally unsatisfactory. The findings of the Lingam Tapes RCI have proven this to be so beyond a shadow of a doubt. The integrity of the entire legal system and its players appears to have been seriously compromised!
Who do we turn to when our Judges, Police, ACA, Ministers and Great Leader all fail in their duty of care in the exercise of their ‘just powers derived from the consent of the governed?’ Where do we run to for their oversight? Is it so easy to change the Government?
It was Plato who first raised the question of ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ or ‘Who guards the Guardians’ 2,300 years ago in Athens, Greece. Ancient Greece, with its city states, and Athens, are proudly held up by all as the birth-place of Democracy. Mind you, when you dissect the ‘Republic’ you will find Plato’s Ideal State, and Aristotle’s as well, ruled by a select group of philosopher-Elders, remarkably like a modern tyrannical, oligarchic Communist state!
I have, in my private musing often wondered that just as there is no such thing as a half pregnant woman (either she is or she isn’t), there can be no such thing as a half or quarter Democracy (either it is a Democracy or it isn’t). Dr. Mahathir is of course right in that East of Greece, no country has understood or attempted to practice Democracy before 1945. Certainly not China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Africa, Japan, Iran or Iraq who for the better part of their histories for well nigh 5,000 years, remained disparate kingdoms within their borders, and were ruled by self-appointed Kings who claimed divine right to their thrones, aided and propped up by self-appointed direct-line-to-God Priests. The facades erected across so many of the capitals of Asia, are just that. Facades. Meant to attract Foreign Direct Investments. Tokenisms. To Hyde Park, Westminster and The White House.
The real problem is that the Law, like Taxation, has become too complicated. No modern business entity can realistically harbour any hope of filing on its own, its Tax Returns, just as any individual could not, of drafting and filing by one’s self a writ and defending one’s self in court without the representation of a lawyer or solicitor. The Law has become the nightmarish preserve of legal experts. No doubt, John Grisham’s legal thrillers might plant the kernel of a seed in your desperate mind, that out there are Multi-National Legal Firms just champing at the bits to do pro bono work for you, the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker. Or that the off-the wagon crusty, but tooth-sucking wise in a way your grandfather or grandmother could never have been, Alcoholics Anonymous reformed salt-of-the-earth Perry Mason or Clarence Darrow, sole practitioner and reformist, is waiting to ride in on a white stallion and do one last battle against the Sith Jedi forces to secure billions of $ in compensation from Class Action law suits for you and the tired, the poor, your huddled masses, the wretched refuse and the homeless! Well, if you are prone to such dreams, please divest yourself NOW of such somnambulistic illusion, and get back to the REAL WORLD.
In days of yore, taxes were only raised to assist and make reparations to Kings to finance their wars. Imagine the burden on the farmers for the 100 Years War! Modern Taxation is another beast that is actually founded on some very basic principles:-
1. No taxation without Representation i.e. if there is no specific law for taxing something, there can be no taxation which is contradictory to the somewhat widely-held belief among Income Tax officers that ‘if it moves, whip out a tax assessment!’
2. Taxation must be equitable i.e. there must be a sound reason for it and the rate of taxation must be reasonable.
3. Taxation must be fair i.e. it must apply to all uniformly. Exemptions cannot be given arbitarily.
4. Taxation must be simple and easily understood by taxpayers.
We all know that 2,3, and especially 4, have failed miserably and as for 4, it is all gobbledygook anyway. Even those who draft bills very often have no idea what the published versions of tax and statute laws mean in practice. So, millions more are spent on Inland Revenue Interpretations, Advance Rulings, Special Commissions, Tribunals and appeals to the Federal Court to resolve disputes. So, we have laws and agreements couched in legalese (or the streaming steaming language of rabid pariah dog’s leg-up stinking amber urine on lamp-post) that few understand. But it is deliberately designed to create gas-out asthmatic smog everywhere, for all. You know what I mean:
‘…the party of the 1st part, herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter shall be referred to herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter as the 1st party, and the party of the 2nd part herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter shall be referred to herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter as the party of the 2nd party AND the party of the 1st part herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter and the party of the 2nd part herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter shall collectively herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter be referred to as ‘The Parties’ where the singular also refers to the plural and the male gender to the female, neutral and indeterminate gender as well herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter and Time is of the essence herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter and that nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an Agreement for a Partnership, notwithstanding, without prejudice and including but not limited to anything under the sun(s) and/or moon(s) and/or star(s) and swear on your mother’s grave if not may your unborn child have Spina Bifida and Elephant Man disease, caveat emptor and res ipsa loquitor… herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter.
In Singapore, Chia Thye Poh lost his freedom for 32 years between 1966 -1997, when he was arrested and imprisoned under the Internal Security Act (ISA). But during all those long, long years of wintry discontent, he was not charged with a single offence or brought to trial, making him the longest-serving prisoner-of-conscience in the modern history of Mankind. It ranks right up there with Nelson Mandela’s 27-year incarceration (1964 -1990) in Robben Island under White South Africa, as among the most heroic of stands by individuals against the concerted onslaught of brutal, dictatorial regimes out to impose their will at all and any costs, on the masses. Burma has its own with the home arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi.
And we are no exception to these now almost daily assaults on constitutionally and lawfully enshrined guarantees on civil, other legal and human rights issues.
The recent recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the Lingam tapes suggests a frightening systematic dismantling of the independence of our Judiciary over the last 20 years, by possibly an unholy cabal from the Executive branch of Government and Big Business, in particular those owned by so-called Croneys. It goes so far as to suggest a former CJ may have lied and may have possibly been involved in corrupt acts, and that the appointment of CJ’s and judges to senior positions in the Judiciary hierarchy may have been manipulated by ‘invisible hands,’ securing the promotion of many inept but compliant junior judges and magistrates, over the heads of their more competent and senior colleagues.
That much was also perceived by the general public and the legal fraternity from peculiar decisions delivered in our courts in a number of prominent cases, such as the Boonsak land-transfer fraud and the Insas ex-parte hearing. The tone of the Executive had already been heard with the sacking of the then CJ, Tun Salleh Abbas by a Commonwealth Tribunal, in 1988, for purported abuse of power and disrespect to the Royalty. In direct contravention of the principles of the Separation of Powers and the independence of the Judiciary, an ex-PM who had recommended the Tribunal, had at first summoned the CJ to his office and there demanded his resignation, forthwith.
An ex-PM rails with customary acerbity about being unfairly hung out to dry by the RCI on mere hint of ‘possibilities’. Forgetting (selectively, we hear, as of late) in the process, that in 1987, he himself had ordered 106 citizens be hauled off to Kamunting Prison by the drag-nets of the infamous ‘Ops Lallang’ and the ISA, without charge or trial. The leader of the opposition, Lim Kit Siang, and his No.2, Karpal Singh, were only released after 2 years. They were imprisoned on the perceived judgement of the ex-PM that they may have contributed to ‘possible’ racial tension and of ‘possible’ fomenting of racial riots!
Perception of endemic corruption, unaccounted for cell-deaths, numerous alleged assaults of suspects while in police custody, relatively low arrest and conviction rates and escalating serious crime rates prompted the appointment of the Royal Police Commission which in 2005 recommended, among other things, that an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) be established. An immediate response from the Inspector General of Police/Police was the publication of ten reasons why the IPCMC was not needed. The IPCMC has not been set up till today, which is as sure as if the IGP had stood on the roof of Parliament House, stuck two fingers in the air and said ‘I will not be the one to hang my own officers.’
Among the arguments put forward by the Police was that they should not be singled out for independent control and accountability, given that corruption was prevalent in other government departments such as Road Transport and Customs & Excise as well. And there we have it! Is it not the duty of the Police to ferret out these criminal elements from the corridors and labyrinths of Government.
But the ACA is not without its own problems. It had once recommended prosecution of a Minister, only to have it put in cold storage by an ex-PM. The same ex-PM was himself accused in testimony in open court by a senior investigating police officer, of interfering in another police investigation over a huge wad of unaccounted for cash found in the office desk-drawer of a former Governor of Bank Negara! Many also have misgivings over the ‘all clear’ reports given by the ACA over a Minister’s involvement in the allocation of 9 million Telekom shares meant for ‘Maika’ to other parties and the release of the names of informants to directors of a company in a case in Penang. Recent testimony of an ACA officer at the Lingam Tapes RCI, suggests reluctance on the part of the ACA to investigate without fear where Big Wigs are concerned, with a very narrow focus on the area and time-frame of investigation. To put it mildly, the (lady) officer’s testimony at the RCI was embarrassingly torn to shreds by lawyers acting for the Bar Council and other interested parties! Such results are predictable, when the ACA and its Head report to the PM and not as an Independent body reporting to Parliament.
This region is (in)famous for the arbitary application of the draconian ISA, Official Secrets Act (OSA), Rural Restriction Banishment Order, The Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA with mandatory licencing requirements ), Sedition Act, Simultaneous Multiple Defamation Law Suits and invoking of Globally applicable Mareva Injunctions and extended Remand without charge in some cases for over a year!. The principal aim of the Establishment is not only to stifle legitimate public dissent over ill-conceived profligate Government spending and promotion of billion ringgit White Elephant development projects; it is also to prevent corruption from being unearthed and to cover up shoddy investigative procedures and incompetency among the purported sentinels and guardians of our democratic nations. Not to mention keeping the same Leaders in power for 20 or 30 years at a stretch.
When all else fails, and just when you think you might finally cast your vote elsewhere, you will be warned by the full machinery of the State to ‘Vote wisely, you do not want something untoward to happen do you? Remember 1969?’ The majority of Main Stream Media (MSM) are all owned and/or controlled by members of the coalition-led Government or their croneys. Elsewhere, as though to mirror the events here, not two days ago, Robert Mugabe, that fanatical guardian of all things Democratic and an admired friend of our ex-PM, having been defeated at the elections, remarkably engineered another Presidential run-off. He warned Zimbabwians that if necessary ‘we are prepared to go to war to defend our hard earned freedom.’ Like fucking to restore virginity!
WHEREVER OUR GAZE RESTS, JUSTICE IS IN CRISIS!
This is the woven tapestry we assemble when we pull together all the loose strands that lie carelessly strewn across the length and breadth of our five continents, the forests, oceans, the skies and even beyond.
It is the one-armed killer, the rigged jury, the White, Yellow, Black & Brown Supremacist, the benevolent as well as the murderous dictator and his big-business croney, the crooked cop, the thieving Minister, the Taliban & Al Qaeda extremist and fundamentalist who all seem to be in control, have the upper hand and who seem to triumph alarmingly, time after time against the ordinary little man and woman.
How is it possible to have laws against Double Jeopardy, and then be convicted of the same crime (however semantically-spun) under Civil Laws which allow for a ‘lower standard of proof’? Lower standard of proof! What does it mean? It sounds suspiciously like Double Jeopardy! Can public sentiment be a reason to require a man to prove his innocence in court, or dictate that a person found innocent in one court be compelled to prove his innocence again in another court.? That juries can be selected on race or gender bias in cases involving the super rich or the well-connected?
But if more and more a trial by a jury of one’s peers is found wanting, those conducted by ‘learned’ judges have been found to be equally unsatisfactory. The findings of the Lingam Tapes RCI have proven this to be so beyond a shadow of a doubt. The integrity of the entire legal system and its players appears to have been seriously compromised!
Who do we turn to when our Judges, Police, ACA, Ministers and Great Leader all fail in their duty of care in the exercise of their ‘just powers derived from the consent of the governed?’ Where do we run to for their oversight? Is it so easy to change the Government?
It was Plato who first raised the question of ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ or ‘Who guards the Guardians’ 2,300 years ago in Athens, Greece. Ancient Greece, with its city states, and Athens, are proudly held up by all as the birth-place of Democracy. Mind you, when you dissect the ‘Republic’ you will find Plato’s Ideal State, and Aristotle’s as well, ruled by a select group of philosopher-Elders, remarkably like a modern tyrannical, oligarchic Communist state!
I have, in my private musing often wondered that just as there is no such thing as a half pregnant woman (either she is or she isn’t), there can be no such thing as a half or quarter Democracy (either it is a Democracy or it isn’t). Dr. Mahathir is of course right in that East of Greece, no country has understood or attempted to practice Democracy before 1945. Certainly not China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Africa, Japan, Iran or Iraq who for the better part of their histories for well nigh 5,000 years, remained disparate kingdoms within their borders, and were ruled by self-appointed Kings who claimed divine right to their thrones, aided and propped up by self-appointed direct-line-to-God Priests. The facades erected across so many of the capitals of Asia, are just that. Facades. Meant to attract Foreign Direct Investments. Tokenisms. To Hyde Park, Westminster and The White House.
The real problem is that the Law, like Taxation, has become too complicated. No modern business entity can realistically harbour any hope of filing on its own, its Tax Returns, just as any individual could not, of drafting and filing by one’s self a writ and defending one’s self in court without the representation of a lawyer or solicitor. The Law has become the nightmarish preserve of legal experts. No doubt, John Grisham’s legal thrillers might plant the kernel of a seed in your desperate mind, that out there are Multi-National Legal Firms just champing at the bits to do pro bono work for you, the butcher, the baker and the candle-stick maker. Or that the off-the wagon crusty, but tooth-sucking wise in a way your grandfather or grandmother could never have been, Alcoholics Anonymous reformed salt-of-the-earth Perry Mason or Clarence Darrow, sole practitioner and reformist, is waiting to ride in on a white stallion and do one last battle against the Sith Jedi forces to secure billions of $ in compensation from Class Action law suits for you and the tired, the poor, your huddled masses, the wretched refuse and the homeless! Well, if you are prone to such dreams, please divest yourself NOW of such somnambulistic illusion, and get back to the REAL WORLD.
In days of yore, taxes were only raised to assist and make reparations to Kings to finance their wars. Imagine the burden on the farmers for the 100 Years War! Modern Taxation is another beast that is actually founded on some very basic principles:-
1. No taxation without Representation i.e. if there is no specific law for taxing something, there can be no taxation which is contradictory to the somewhat widely-held belief among Income Tax officers that ‘if it moves, whip out a tax assessment!’
2. Taxation must be equitable i.e. there must be a sound reason for it and the rate of taxation must be reasonable.
3. Taxation must be fair i.e. it must apply to all uniformly. Exemptions cannot be given arbitarily.
4. Taxation must be simple and easily understood by taxpayers.
We all know that 2,3, and especially 4, have failed miserably and as for 4, it is all gobbledygook anyway. Even those who draft bills very often have no idea what the published versions of tax and statute laws mean in practice. So, millions more are spent on Inland Revenue Interpretations, Advance Rulings, Special Commissions, Tribunals and appeals to the Federal Court to resolve disputes. So, we have laws and agreements couched in legalese (or the streaming steaming language of rabid pariah dog’s leg-up stinking amber urine on lamp-post) that few understand. But it is deliberately designed to create gas-out asthmatic smog everywhere, for all. You know what I mean:
‘…the party of the 1st part, herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter shall be referred to herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter as the 1st party, and the party of the 2nd part herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter shall be referred to herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter as the party of the 2nd party AND the party of the 1st part herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter and the party of the 2nd part herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter shall collectively herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter be referred to as ‘The Parties’ where the singular also refers to the plural and the male gender to the female, neutral and indeterminate gender as well herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter and Time is of the essence herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter and that nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an Agreement for a Partnership, notwithstanding, without prejudice and including but not limited to anything under the sun(s) and/or moon(s) and/or star(s) and swear on your mother’s grave if not may your unborn child have Spina Bifida and Elephant Man disease, caveat emptor and res ipsa loquitor… herewith, heretofore, hereafter, hereunder and thereafter.
(sign here in blood)’.
You could not just say ‘In this agreement dated …at…..Mr.A and Mr.B agree to… and shall together be referred to as ‘They’?
Be warned of possible coronary attack when you read ‘The User Agreement From Hell’ and ‘The Adoption Statute’ at: http://www.partyofthefirstpart.com/hallOfShame.html .
God forbid there should be more than two parties to a fairly simple and innocuous legal agreement lest we have to mow down a tropical forest or two for the paper to merely accommodate the preamble!
So much so that some highly unqualified lawyers, magistrates, judges and a chief justice or two have been known to have ‘farmed out’ (illegally) their judgements to have them written for them by some of their ‘less than equal’ brothers.
The cost to the nation of a corrupt Judiciary and Administration may well exceed $100 billion.
You could not just say ‘In this agreement dated …at…..Mr.A and Mr.B agree to… and shall together be referred to as ‘They’?
Be warned of possible coronary attack when you read ‘The User Agreement From Hell’ and ‘The Adoption Statute’ at: http://www.partyofthefirstpart.com/hallOfShame.html .
God forbid there should be more than two parties to a fairly simple and innocuous legal agreement lest we have to mow down a tropical forest or two for the paper to merely accommodate the preamble!
So much so that some highly unqualified lawyers, magistrates, judges and a chief justice or two have been known to have ‘farmed out’ (illegally) their judgements to have them written for them by some of their ‘less than equal’ brothers.
The cost to the nation of a corrupt Judiciary and Administration may well exceed $100 billion.
NOW, CHEW ON THAT !!
No comments:
Post a Comment