I might be a bit blur due to lack of sleep because Safra decides that 3 a.m is the best time of the day to try out "London Calling" but THIS I can't miss.
So, apparently, in the name of Independence, we need to abolish Common Law as a source of reference for our legal system. Before I could say "Milk Rashes", I noted with great astonishment (of which I kept for bizarre incidents, only, mind you) that THIS was suggested by our Chief Justice and our present AG.
OK, I am not a practicing lawyer, but for God's sake, I am trained to be one and I fully understand the significance of Common Law to our system. Not only that, I am also fully aware of what "Independence" means. So, this I would like to ask to those who come up with this idea and to those who support it; How far has Common Law become a source of threat to our country's Independence? Should we abolish CL, which means the Civil Law Act, Section 3 and 5 (I hope I get the Sections correct) need to be amended, in one way or another, are we ready to introduce a new system of setting precedents which will not jeopardize the functions of the Judiciary? Are we ready to refer to our own local set of precedents in matters pertaining to human rights? Haven't the lawyers and judges being creative and steadfast in their interpretation of our local law by referring to progressive case laws from UK and other Commonwealth countries? In fact, our importation of CL into our legal system is not blatant or unchecked as the Civil Law Act allows it so long as it is permissible within the local context.
Want to really challenge the colonial legacy? I have a suggestion. Abolish ISA. This piece of legislation was a British invention to fight insurgency. The Societies Act. That was also another Act designed to counter triad activities once upon a time ago. Now, these draconian Acts are nothing but archaic laws that have outlived its objectives.
But why has these Acts been overlooked by our CJ and AG? Obviously some of us can pick and choose how to define "Independence". Especially when we have the power to do so.
So, apparently, in the name of Independence, we need to abolish Common Law as a source of reference for our legal system. Before I could say "Milk Rashes", I noted with great astonishment (of which I kept for bizarre incidents, only, mind you) that THIS was suggested by our Chief Justice and our present AG.
OK, I am not a practicing lawyer, but for God's sake, I am trained to be one and I fully understand the significance of Common Law to our system. Not only that, I am also fully aware of what "Independence" means. So, this I would like to ask to those who come up with this idea and to those who support it; How far has Common Law become a source of threat to our country's Independence? Should we abolish CL, which means the Civil Law Act, Section 3 and 5 (I hope I get the Sections correct) need to be amended, in one way or another, are we ready to introduce a new system of setting precedents which will not jeopardize the functions of the Judiciary? Are we ready to refer to our own local set of precedents in matters pertaining to human rights? Haven't the lawyers and judges being creative and steadfast in their interpretation of our local law by referring to progressive case laws from UK and other Commonwealth countries? In fact, our importation of CL into our legal system is not blatant or unchecked as the Civil Law Act allows it so long as it is permissible within the local context.
Want to really challenge the colonial legacy? I have a suggestion. Abolish ISA. This piece of legislation was a British invention to fight insurgency. The Societies Act. That was also another Act designed to counter triad activities once upon a time ago. Now, these draconian Acts are nothing but archaic laws that have outlived its objectives.
But why has these Acts been overlooked by our CJ and AG? Obviously some of us can pick and choose how to define "Independence". Especially when we have the power to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment