Law & Paneir

Background Since the 1970s Amnesty International has raised serious concerns that fundamental human rights enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution and international human rights law are threatened by the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows indefinite 'preventive' detention without trial, and by a broad array of other laws restricting rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. Many of these laws were inherited from the British former colonial government and subsequently tightened incrementally. Their application has been both politically-motivated and selective, with those targeted including political or social activists, academics, students, journalists, trade unionists and other peaceful members of civil society perceived by the government as threats. Students and academics under threat Malaysian students and academics wishing to engage in political activities face severe restrictions under the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA). Accordi

The ISA was originally enacted by British colonial authorities in 1960 during a national state of emergency as a temporary measure to fight a communist rebellion. The ISA allows the police to detain any person for up to sixty days, without warrant or trial and without access to legal counsel, on suspicion that “he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof.” After sixty days, the minister of internal security (formerly the minister of home affairs) a post currently held by the prime minister, can extend the period of detention without trial for up to two years, without submitting any evidence for review by the courts. Such two-year detention orders are renewable indefinitely. While the ISA does allow for review of all detentions by a nominally independent Advisory Board, the recommendations of the board are non-binding. The Advi

Article 5. Liberty of the person . (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. (2) Where complaint is made to a High Court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him. (3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. (4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate's authority: Provided that this Clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted

August 26th come and goes. As widely expected Anwar Ibrahim has won the election. He is very quite now. The other side is making a lot of movements. People are watching. Climate is changing. From Johor to Perlis and from Sabah to Sarawak, the nation political climate is changing very drastically. Anwar Ibrahim keeps on saying that he will takes over the goverment and other side is still denying. We as the citizens of Malaysia are watching this melo drama. This what Tun Mahathir had said in his blog on 5/12/08, 'When the opposition did very well in the 2008 elections, foreign observers talk about a wind of change in Malaysia; about how racialism had been rejected, how Anwar, their favourite would soon take over the Government.' Source: http://www.chedet.com/ Interesting. Very thoughtful. Where are we heading too? Are we too afraid to face the challenges which are forthcoming? Confusing, right? Feel unsecure, right? Are we planting the political landmines which will be detriment

The “naturalistic turn” that has swept so many areas of philosophy over the past three decades has also had an impact in the last decade in legal philosophy. Methodological naturalists (M-naturalists) view philosophy as continuous with empirical inquiry in the sciences. Some M-naturalists want to replace conceptual and justificatory theories with empirical and descriptive theories; they take their inspiration from more-or-less Quinean arguments against conceptual analysis and foundationalist programs. Other M-naturalists retain the normative and regulative ambitions of traditional philosophy, but emphasize that it is an empirical question what normative advice is actually useable and effective for creatures like us. Some M-naturalists are also substantive naturalists (S-naturalists). Ontological S-naturalism is the view that there exist only natural or physical things; semantic S-naturalism is the view that a suitable philosophical analysis of any concept must show it to be amenable to

A school of JURISPRUDENCE whose advocates believe that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. The key to legal positivism is in understanding the way positivists answer the fundamental question of jurisprudence: "What is law?" The word "positivism" itself derives from the Latin root positus, which means to posit, postulate, or firmly affix the existence of something. Legal positivism attempts to define law by firmly affixing its meaning to written decisions made by governmental bodies that are endowed with the legal power to regulate particular areas of society and human conduct. If a principle, rule, regulation, decision, judgment, or other law is recognized by a duly authorized governmental body or official, then it will qualify as law, ac

By James A. Donald jamesd@echeque.com Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments, the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat. It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately. Natural law is not some far away and long ago golden age myth imagined by Locke three hundred