Bangladesh Fast Moving Toward Great Disaster

Bangladesh is moving toward great disaster. On one hand, startling activities of the Awami League government has begun in the name of amending the constitution, and on the other the apex court is being made the judicial sister concern of the Awami League in cold-blood through well-drawn out plan. Such irregular incidents are being taken place in the apex court because of the order of the Awami government from the remote-controlled that have not been seen in the local and foreign judiciary in recent times. A person who was the president of Gopalganj unit of the Awami League for 18 years has been appointed the judge to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. His name is Shamsul Huda. As he is very close to the Awami League, therefore, Shamsul Huda has been appointed to the Appellate Division superseding 51 judges of the high court. In the same way, a judge of the high court named Mamtaj Uddin has been appointed to the Appellate Division superseding 47 judges.

According to the experienced, there is no precedence of such blatant suppression in the seven countries under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The incident of violating seniority in appointing chief justice has been identified as the black stain of infamy. Before that A.B.M. Khairul Haque had been appointed the chief justice superseding two senior judges of the Appellate Division. Shah Mohammad Naimur Rahman and justice M.A. Matin were seniors to him. Feeling shame and humiliation Abdul Matin went on a long vacation and took the retirement while on leave. After the violation of seniority Shah Mohammad Naimur Rahman was the seniormost judge in the Appellate Division. Educated and concerned people thought that although the Awami League was not fair to him in the first turn, Sheikh Hasina would straight up her injustice and unfairness in the second turn. But after the retirement of Khairul Haque, Mozammel Hossain has been appointed the chief justice superseding Naimur Rahman again. In protest of this acute injustice and unfairness justice Naimur Rahman has resigned. This resignation protesting the violation of seniority in the apex court is unprecedented in the subcontinent.
Let God Save Judiciary
This is not said by the Weekly Sonar Bangla. This prayer has been uttered by Advocate Khandakar Mahbub Hossain, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. He also said: "Justice Khairul Haque has murdered the judiciary in cold-blood". A huge anarchy has consumed the Supreme Court. Pro-Awami attorney general and pro-Awami minor part of the Bar Association have given reception to the two newly appointed judges superseding 51 and 47 judges. Thirty-five judges of the Hugh Court abstained from joining that reception. Chairs in the front row were vacant as they did not join. One of the senior justices Nazrul Islam was standing in the back row. Then, chief justice Khairul Haque requested him to sit-in the front row but he did not keep that request. With courtesy he said: "My Lord, Please forgive me." Such incident is also unprecedented in the high court or Supreme Court.
Elected Bar Association wanted to hold reception for the outgoing chief justice Khairul Haque. But M. Khairul Haque did not go to their reception. Then, the Bar Association held the "gayebana (offered in absence of anyone according to Islamic traditions) reception" in his absence. In giving speech in this gayebana reception Bar Association president Advocate Khandakar Mahbub Hossain said after taking the responsibility as the chief justice you have represented the Awami League in the last seven months. Justice Haque has destroyed the judiciary. At the same time he is saying good-bye putting the country in great disaster by destroying the constitution. We pray that the God save the judiciary from your destructive activities. Terming the chief justice ABM Khairul Haque as a cunning man of cold-blood president of the bar association also said the chief justice is a very gentle and kind man. At the same time he is cunning. Like killing people in cold-blood he has murdered the judiciary. Khandakar Mahbub Hossain said after the assumption of power by the Awami League not a single institution is out of politicization. The Appellate Division is also made the part of the Awami League. Being appointed as the guardian of the judiciary the chief justice Khairul Haque had represented the Awami League in his full tenure. After issuing verdict against the government in a bench of the high court he has written the nasty part of politicization by stripping off the power of that bench. Taken decisions in the executive council of the Awami League are being implemented through the Appellate Division. Taking the advantage of annulment of the Fifth Amendment Article 96 of the constitution has been reinstated. As a result, the judiciary has come under the government. The judiciary has faced the massive problem. For these reasons you have to seek forgiveness to the nation.
Judiciary and Administration Are on Verge of Ruining
Noted lawyer of Bangladesh Dr Kamal Hossain directly complained that the judiciary and administration are at the verge of ruining due to excessive politicization. People are not getting justice in the apex court. Daughter of Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Sarah Hossain, in a talk show of the television said that she is unable to understand why verdicts to some political cases are being given selectively. It is seen that in every verdict one side is getting satisfied while the other side is getting discontented. Indirectly indicating to Justice Khairul Haque Barrister Sarah Hossain said the way he is giving one-sided verdicts against the political cases, it seems he has not thought where he is pushing the country.
Double Standard in Declaring Verdict in Political Cases
Khairul Haque has declared verdicts to three outstandingly vital political lawsuits. These three lawsuits are: Fifth Amendment to the constitution, Seventh Amendment, and 13th Amendment. All three amendments are being annulled. If the amendments were annulled on the legal aspect fully then those would be discussed from different point of view. But, in fact, it is seen that in each of the three lawsuits the verdicts are given in such a way that in all the three verdicts it is the Awami League that becomes the benefactor unexpectedly and hugely. Although firmness has been shown externally on the question of legal aspect, if these three verdicts are reviewed then it is seen that Khairul Haque has left enough space for Awami League for maneuvering in all the verdicts. The main theme of the annulment of Fifth Amendment was that martial law is illegitimate and unconstitutional. When it was said that the Fifth Amendment was given approval by the Jatiya Sangsad (parliament) by necessary margin according to the constitution then counter logic was given that that election of Jatiya Sangsad was held under the martial law. Therefore the second Jatiya Sangsad election held in 1979 is illegitimate and the formed Jatiya Sangsad through illegitimate election is also illegitimate. For that reason, that Jatiya Sangsad has no legal right to approve. But for General Ershad that Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, i.e., Khairul Haque has practiced a mysterious silence. Third Jatiya Sangsad election was held on 7 May 1986 and that election was also held under the martial law of Ershad. Then Ershad became the president through another election under the martial law on October 1986. Both parties Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Awami League boycotted that election. Silence has been maintained in the final verdict of the Seventh Amendment regarding the legitimacy of the Jatiya Sangsad election held in 1986 and the president election held in the same year. If the Jatiya Sangsad election held under Zia in 1979 is illegitimate then both the Jatiya Sangsad election and president election held in the Ershad period are illegitimate and unlawful. But Khairul Haque bypassed that issue. Is it for this reason that Ershad is the coalition partner of the Awami League government?
Prof Asif Nazrul of Law of University of Dhaka raised a vital question in a talk show aired on Bangla vision at midnight on of 16 May on the basis of constitution and Jatiya Sangsad. He said that all political questions could not be weighed against the standard of law. Existing reality is needed to be taken into consideration as well. There is no system in the constitution called martial law. Based on this logic if several governments and parliaments become illegitimate then the election of 1970 is also become illegitimate. Because that election was held during the martial law of General Yahya Khan and under the Legal Framework Order promulgated by Gen Yahya Khan as the chief martial law administrator. The election of 1970 was held under the martial law. The main responsibilities of those who became the members of the then National Council wining in that election were to frame the constitution of Pakistan. At that time Bangladesh has not become independent. Therefore, their job was not to frame the constitution of Bangladesh. Asif Nazrul said these are all legal statements. But the hard reality is that Bangladesh has become independent through armed struggle. Therefore that legal version of law is not applicable to Bangladesh.
Political Face of Khairul Haque Is Revealing
For obvious reasons questions have been surfaced that if the deeds under the Fifth Amendment are declared null and void against the logic that the Fifth Amendment is the outcome of martial law then why did not Khairul Haque declare the Fourth Amendment, i.e., BKSAL system (Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League -- a political platform launched in 1975 amalgamating all the political parties) as illegitimate? Khairul Haque called the named of president Zia in the verdict of annulling the Fifth Amendment. But he did utter a single word against the massive autocratic step like BKSAL. In replying question regarding this he said the scope of his trial was 15 August 1975 to 9 April 1979. No period before or after that. If that is the case, would he provide reply that his main theme of consideration was whether the Moon Cinema Hall was to be returned to its owner or not. But he talked off the subject. That means, in returning the cinema hall he declared all rules, including Mostaque, Sayem, and Zia. He saved Ershad tactfully in annulling the Seventh Amendment and in annulling the 13th Amendment, i.e., caretaker government he has ensured its existence for another two terms. BNP leader M.K. Anwar and Moudud Ahmed have said for sure that none has made so much harm to the judicial system along with country that Khairul Haque did. This loss is not to be fulfilled easily.

Bangladesh Supreme Court Scraps Caretaker Government System

The Bangladesh Government is mulling over not bringing in any amendment proposal on the caretaker government system as it wants to drop the provision from the country's constitution. In this regard, the first portion of the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court will be placed as an argument. But the government will consider keeping the provision of the caretaker government system for one or two terms, if the opposition party reaches an agreement with the ruling party on other issues of the constitution amendments. This information has been received from very high-level of the government.
Meanwhile, concerned experts believe that the country has every possibility of entering a phase of political anarchy, if the caretaker government system is cancelled. It is sure that creation of such unrest in the country that will provoke the extraconstitutional forces to assume sate power. A two-year Army-supported unusual government assumed power in 2007 because of a hell bent attitude of the ruling party at that time and earlier occasions. That Army-supported government took unprecedented measures to suppress the country's political forces.
The experts believe that it will be very difficult to proceed with constitutional continuity without an understanding between the two major political parties.
Version of Government Side
The policymakers of the government believe that there is no scope to maintain the caretaker government system in the country without brining an amendment to the constitution as the 13th Amendment has been scrapped in a recent verdict of majority judges of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court under the leadership of the just retired Chief Justice A.B.M. Khairul Hauqe. The court has opined for holding the next two general elections under the caretaker government, but the observation is not a part of the order. There is no obstruction to abolishing the caretaker government system from the constitution as the review verdict of the Supreme Court has made the 13th Amendment null and void. With this in view, the special parliamentary committee on constitutional amendment has already begun dialog on the matter. Most members of the committee have opined for abolishing the system.
The government policymakers at this moment want cooperation from the opposition party in abolishing the caretaker government system from the constitution. In the primary discussions most of the special committee members expressed the view that the government should abolish this provision from the constitution if the opposition party does not agree to accept the next caretaker government chief as per the desire of the ruling party. In this regard, their main argument will be that they have only complied to the court order.
The government will bring separate constitution amendment bills in the House on the issues relating to amendments, including the Fifth, Seventh, and 13th Amendments, cancelled by the higher court. The government is also considering changing the Election Commission rules and the Representation of People Order 1974 for holing elections in a neutral manner. There will be no need of caretaker government if election commission is strengthened. The government will bank on this argument. If necessary, the ruling party will start campaign on the issue ahead of elections.
In this context, Law Minister Barrister Shafiq Ahmed said that there would be no need for the caretaker government if the Election Commission was made stronger and independent. The law minister said: 'Our neighboring country does not have caretaker government. The Election Commission can hold free and fair elections maintaining independence of the organization. The Election Commission had made instances in holding the last upazila and municipality elections in a free and fair manner. Democracy will get an institutional shape if the Election Commission plays an impartial and stronger role.'
According to the law minister, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court has cancelled the 13th Amendment of the constitution after reviewing the matter in the light of the constitution to uphold the charter. The court might have though that it would have been better if the country is run by people's representatives. Running the state by unelected people is contradictory to the constitution.
He said the Appellate Division has also ruled that the 10th and 11th parliament elections could be held under the caretaker government. It also observed that the former chief justice and retired judges of the Supreme Court should not the chief adviser of the caretaker government. The court in the judgment said parliament would decide on these observations with prudently and independently.
No Election Without Caretaker Government
In this regard, Barrister Moudud Ahmed, Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) Standing Committee member told the Naya Diganta that the BNP would not accept if any amendment was brought to the constitution without understanding. He said that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to amend the constitution through its verdicts. This responsibility was entrusted with parliament, he said. He said: 'We are waiting. It will not be possible to understand what the government wants to do unless they table the constitution amendment bills in the house.'
BNP Acting Secretary General Mirza Fakhurl Islam Alamgir said: 'We have clearly said that no elections will be allowed to stage in this country without caretaker government. A person acceptable to all must be made the chief of the caretaker government.'
Opinion of Experts
Elderly lawyer and constitution expert Barrister Rafiq-ul Haque said that the Appellate Division verdict on the caretaker government system is contradictory. The court ruled that the verdict will have immediate effect. But it is also said that the 10th and 11th parliament elections will be held under the caretaker government. This is completely a self-contradictory verdict.
He said: 'Without being illegal the Thirteenth Amendment of the constitution, I proposed dropping the judges. Because, this provision is tarnishing the image of the judiciary. The Appellate Division declared the amendment illegal accepting our submissions. The court cannot formulate or amend laws. The elections could be held under the existing provision unless and until parliament changes the provision. The chief justice or the court cannot formulate or amend laws. The elections will be held under the caretaker government until and unless parliament changes the caretaker government system.'
Khandkar Mahbub Hossain, Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate, said that it was not possible to arrive at a just conclusion regarding the Supreme Court verdict on the 13th Amendment of the constitution. This verdict has created confusion. The Supreme Court verdict has declared the 13th Amendment null and void and contradictory to the constitution. Again the verdict said the 10th and 11th parliament could be formed under the caretaker government. The verdict said: 'It could be.' If so who will determine the matter. Nothing has been said in relation to this.
He said that there is a parliament in the country. The Appellate Division is issuing instructions to parliament. At this, a question normally arises who is sovereign? Whether the country will run at the instruction of the Supreme Court? The verdict has undermined the role of parliament elected by the people. The judiciary could be saved if the Appellate Division gave a clear guideline. The scrapping of the caretaker government system without taking firm decisions on related issues might whip up agitations in the political arena.
Seeking anonymity, a former chief justice said that Bangladesh was likely to enter a phase of political anarchy if the caretaker government system was abolished. This will create such a volatile situation n in the country and might provoke extraconstitutional forces to seize state power. A two-year Army-supported unusual government assumed power in 2007 because of a hell bent attitude of the ruling party at that time and earlier occasions. The Army-supported government took unprecedented measures to suppress the country's political forces. He said that it would be difficult to continue the constitutional rule in the country without an understanding between the two major political parties. It seems that the opposition party would accept the abolition of the caretaker government system. It does not require mentioning that imposition of unilateral issues such as constitutional amendment would lead to recurrence of the abnormal timing of the emergency government.
History of Caretaker Government
The caretaker government system was inducted in the constitution of Bangladesh in 1996 through the 13th Amendment. Since then three elections were held under the administration. During every election, some commotion was created over the appointment of the chief adviser of the caretaker government. This commotion has assumed a dangerous shape at this moment as the chief justice of the country is being appointed violating seniority.
During the 2006 general elections, the last chief justice was supposed to become the chief adviser to the caretaker government. But Awami League did not abide by the constitutional provision. At one stage of rising controversy over the issue, an abnormal caretaker government took over the responsibility of the country. The Army-supported Fakhruddin-Moeen Uddin government ruled the country for approximately two years.
The hearing on the lawsuits regarding legality of the caretaker government at the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court began on 1 March. The court heard the submissions of senior lawyer Justice T.H. Khan, Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister Rafiq-ul Haque, Dr M. Zahir, former attorney general Mahmudul Islam, Barrister M. Amirul Islam, Barrister Rokan Uddin Mahmud, and Barrister Azmamul Hossain QC as ameci curae (friends of the court). Among them, all amice curae excepting Azmalul Hossain QC opined for continuing the caretaker government system.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in its 17 May 2011 brief judgement, said the appeal was granted in a majority decision. The 13th Amendment-1996 has been declared as null and void and contradictory to the constitution forthwith. The 10th and 11th parliament elections can be held under the 13th Amendment. And at the same the security of the state and the people is the highest law. The parliament will have the liberty to enact amendment laws to cancel the appointment of the former chief justice and judges of the Appellate Division as the chief adviser of the caretaker government.
Amendment in Budget Session
The budget session of parliament begins on 22 May. There is a possibility of brining necessary amendments to the constitution in this long session of the house. Meanwhile, opinions were collected from various citizen forums for the amendments. A coordinated amendment proposal will be placed in parliament combining the opinions and verdict of the Supreme Court.

Judicial Accountability

The judiciary as an institution needs to preserve its independence, and to do this it must strive to maintain the confidence of the public in the established courts. Independence of judges is best safeguarded by the judges themselves — through institutions and organizations that the law empowers them to set up, to preserve the image of an incorruptible higher judiciary that would command the respect of all right-thinking people.

The reach of India’s highest court is all-pervasive. The Supreme Court sits in final judgment over the decisions not only of the high courts in the states, but also tribunals, (Central and State) functioning throughout India; there are literally hundreds of them. And the law declared by the Supreme Court, including its pronouncements on the validity of enacted law, is binding (under the Constitution) on all other courts and authorities in the country.

There is virtually no area of legislative or executive activity which is beyond the highest court’s scrutiny. Its writ extends to all two million square miles of Indian territory, and more than its now 1.3 billion inhabitants. Empowering itself with the trappings of modern technology, India’s Supreme Court has been performing a stupendous task with considerable distinction.

There is no reason for the judiciary to be perturbed by the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010, cleared by the Union Cabinet, because the proposed legislation seeks to neither curb its independence nor impose the will of the executive on its functioning. In fact, the draft Bill is in keeping with the growing popular demand for transparency and accountability in public institutions — something that our courts themselves have emphasized on several occasions. The need for a fresh legislation arose after it became clear that the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 — now lapsed — had failed to adequately address issues related to perceived acts of impropriety committed by judges. Even if such incidents have been more an exception than the rule, the guilty have gone virtually unpunished.

Salient Features of Bill
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 aims at laying down judicial standards and establishing a mechanism to deal with complaints of 'misbehavior' or 'incapacity' of a judge of the Supreme Court or high court. The approval for the Bill came after it was deferred by the Union Cabinet in March last. It was introduced in Parliament during the 14th Lok Sabha, but lapsed after the House was dissolved. It seeks to lay down judicial standards and establish a mechanism to deal with complaints of misconduct of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts.

The Bill proposes that a judge can be warned, taken off work, censured or admonished, depending upon the misconduct. It seeks to lay down judicial standards and establish a mechanism to deal with complaints of misconduct of the Supreme Court and high courts judges It also proposes to make provision for declaration of assets and liabilities by judges.

The Bill also proposes to make provisions for declaration of assets and liabilities of judges. At present, there is no legal provision for dealing with complaints filed by the public against the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts.

At present, there is no legal provision for dealing with complaints filed by the public against the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts. Also, the judiciary has adopted resolutions for declaration of assets by judges and 'restatement of values of judicial life'. However, there is no law that requires judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts to declare their assets and liabilities and also there is no statutory sanction for judicial standards.

The Bill had been approved with an amendment. It provided for a five-member oversight committee, headed by a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) and having Attorney General as a member, which would look into complaints of misconduct by judges.

New Mechanism
The amendment brought forward was for the setting up of the National Judicial Oversight Committee that would also include a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a high court to be appointed by the CJI and an eminent personality. Complaints received by the oversight committee would be referred to a scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee would have a time limit of three months to get to the oversight committee with its report after which the case would be referred to the President for action.

The new Bill envisages a mechanism for enquiring into complaints against the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and lays down judicial standards. In that sense, it empowers the citizens to punish judges for corruption and misconduct. Of course, as a safeguard against frivolous complaints, a scrutiny committee will examine the petition and then forward it, within three months, to the judicial oversight committee for action if a prima facie case is made out. A former Chief Justice of India will head the five-member panel. The process of impeachment will start once this committee comes up with adverse findings.

Bad Phase of Judiciary
The higher judiciary is passing through a bad phase. Its image has been eroded following allegations of corruption against Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran of the Sikkim High Court, Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Uttarakhand High Court and Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court.

The Supreme Court collegium’s current policy of transferring judges who are under a cloud is flawed because if Justice Nirmal Yadav, for example, is unfit to serve the Punjab and Haryana High Court, she doesn’t become a perfect judge to serve the Uttarakhand High Court at Nainital. Clearly, the Manmohan Singh government has greater stakes on the new legislation because its commitment to cleansing up the higher judiciary is now on test.

Public Interest Litigation
One outstanding failing in our system of judicial governance is that although mandated by law, costs hardly ever follow the event. The fear of costs is what the courts must instil into the dilatory and speculative litigant including, I would plead on the litigant who undertakes a PIL (Public Interest Litigation). Projects and programs devised by popularly elected governments are held up for years in the high courts (and in the Supreme Court) at the instance of persons who have no direct interest, but on some suspicion of corruption or the like — and when at the end of a tortuous judicial process such PILs are ultimately dismissed, the loss in economic terms to the community at large is never compensated. In India there is hardly any court decision where costs are made to follow the event.

Then, take the problem of vacancies of judges in the superior judiciary — they keep piling up. An action plan to prevent this is not one which requires a high degree of sophistication or planning. It requires only some elementary co-ordination between the Justice Ministry and chief justices: of high courts and of the Supreme Court. We all know that judges in high courts retire at 62 and in the Supreme Court at 65. So there need be no unfilled positions: dates of birth are recorded, and anticipated vacancies can always be filled in time; if there is the will to do so.

Need of the Hour
There may be some merit in the counter-argument that the earlier Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 failed not because of lacunae in the law but the failure of the executive to ensure the impeachment of errant judges. Either the parliamentarians failed to muster the requisite number of signatories to an appeal for impeachment or, when they did succeed, the treasury benches stalled the effort in Parliament. But that is precisely why a new law is needed to ensure misconduct does not go unpunished. Since the other solution -- a complete overhaul of the system of impeachment -- is an elaborate affair that will take time, why should anyone object if at least immediate concerns of ensuring accountability and transparency by the judiciary are met?

The judiciary of the 21st century needs to set an example in exemplary self-discipline: discipline in its approach to legal, and more often, political-cum-legal, problems that fall in its lap. There is also need for greater transparency in the lifestyle of the justices, and an abiding tolerance of public criticism. Litigants no longer accept judge’s decisions as they used to in the past. The mystique of the judiciary -- the 'awesome Majesty of the Law' as it used to be called -- is no longer a sufficient protection. The job has become harder. Judges are seen less as the impersonal agents of a system and regarded more as human beings responsible for the failure of the losing party; the attacks have shifted from the ball to the player! Hence the need for ethics -- and some guidelines from the top, which 'the top' too must scrupulously observe!In a country like India, and in times like these, it is not enough for the judiciary to be independent of the executive and of all other external influences.

The Judges, because of the high office they hold and the plenitude of powers they exercise, must be seen to have qualities of excellence -- of mind and of heart. Above all they must be men and women of courage. Nobility and courage in the highest court begets nobility and courage all down the line.

Thaksin To Involve International Community in Thai Politics

In addition to shouting out his "challenge" to his opponents, former Prime Minister Police Lt Col Thaksin, the defendant in the B76-billion assets-seizure case, also sent his latest message through a video-link to the participants in a seminar organized by the "Bangkok '50 Group." His message focused on the key issues and dealt a blow to every one involved in this historic court case.

In his message, Police Lt Col Thaksin clearly spelled out in threatening tone that if his assets were seized, he would fight back with all his might in 2010.

In his statement through a video-link on 22 February 2010, Thaksin said: "Today if both sides take a few steps back, Thailand will be able to return to normalcy; but if they want to crush me to death, 2010 will be a year when all hell will break loose."

Thai Judiciary System
On top of that, Police Lt Col Thaksin emphatically referred to the "charismatic person" (Privy Councilor President Gen Prem Tinnasulanon), saying that the latter sneakily ordered all state machinery, as well as the previous Election Commission, to attack him. More significantly, he indicated that the Thai judiciary system was interfered with. He said that if he would be slapped with unjust verdict on 26 February, he would try to petition the World Court!

Evidently, this was not the first time that Police Lt Col Thaksin tried to involve the international agency in his case. He has repeatedly tried to do that. When he was toppled from power by a coup in 2006, in addition to his angry diatribe against the "new power" and the charismatic person, Privy Councilor President and Statesman Gen Prem Tinnasulanon, Police Lt Col Thaksin also amplified the issue by veering into the question of justice. He rejected the Thai justice system directly in his own words and indirectly though his bosom buddy, Cambodian Prime Minister Somdet Hun Sen.

His words at the time when he was toppled from power and his words today when his assets are about to be seized might differ to some degree, particularly as he is facing the uncertain future and when it is difficult to predict the result of the court case.

Bureaucratic Polity
By mentioning the World Court amid his supporters, Police Lt Col Thaksin meant to discredit the Supreme Court that is about to rule on the assets seizure case in the next few days by demanding justice even though he did not know whether his assets would be seized or not. Moreover, he what he wanted to see after the attack on the Thai justice system is to rally his supporters to demonstrate after the verdict day. In other words, he already started his rabble-rousing campaign in advance, in case his assets might be seized.

If Police Lt Col Thaksin loses his case because his opponent chooses not to compromise and negotiate with him, or grant him amnesty despite his signals that he wanted it, Police Lt Col Thaksin's next move after the verdict day might be to elevate the issue onto the international stage and use all the multimedia channels in his hand to rally the international community again to jointly pressure the powers-that-be in Thailand.

In tandem with the red-shirted mob, he will finally resort to "the world besieging Thailand" tactic again in a bid to undermine the Thai government and the bureaucratic polity, so that he will be able to fulfill his dream of returning to power soon.

Ensure Security of Sri Lankan Opposition MPs

The Sri Lankan Government has suddenly withdrawn the personal bodyguards of opposition MPs (Members of Parliament). The government has made this sudden and drastic move immediately after the announcement of the general election and even as the submission of party nominations are in progress.
Opposition MPs have lodged complaints with the elections commissioner regarding this affair. The commissioner of elections has openly told them that he was not even remotely connected with this action by the government to withdraw the body guards of the opposition MPs.

Objective of Sudden Action
Opposition parties charge that the objective of this sudden action taken by the government at a time when the election campaign was gathering momentum has seriously impeded their freedom of movement and was a huge obstacle to their election campaigns. They charge that the placing of this obstacle at this specific juncture by the government was intended to suppress their election campaign work so that the government propaganda machinery could derive political mileage out of it. But Minister Anura Priyadharsahana Yapa says the government does not have any ulterior motives and added that the withdrawal of MP's body guards was not illegal.
If the withdrawal of the security for these MP's is legally correct, what need is there in that case to only withdraw the security of only opposition members and not of the premier, cabinet ministers, speaker and all government MPs. We would also do well to remember that excepting for one or two MPs in the government, the rest hold ministerial portfolios either with full cabinet status or as non cabinet ministers. The action resorted to by the government in this context can thus be seen to be primarily detrimental only to the political activities of opposition MPs, they explain.

Enjoying Limitless Powers
The government which always proudly claims that it has completely eradicated terrorism in the country never hesitates to extend emergency regulations in the Parliament every month. This clearly proves that it wants to continue to enjoy the limitless powers which are at its disposal.
If the government could argue that a security threat still prevails in the country, how can it justify its claims that the MPs who vote for the passage of emergency regulation in the Parliament are not exposed to the very same level of threats to their security?
Further, at this juncture, could the withdrawal of the bodyguards of opposition parliamentarians without any prior notice be justified by the government?
Democratic People's Front leader Mano Ganeshan and Sri Lanka Muslim Congress leader Rauff Hakeem have filed action in the Supreme Court in this connection, challenging the slashing of their security by the government. After having heard the case the Supreme Court ordered the government to provide them with adequate security. The government responded to the order favorably. But now, of a sudden, their security has been withdrawn arbitrarily without the Supreme Court being consulted or informed about the move.
The government also argues that the withdrawal of the security of MPs all of a sudden at a time when the parliamentary elections are approaching is a usual practice. That argument holds no water.

The Consequences
We do not have any precedent of a similar move taken by any previous government in any past election period. How then could the government withdraw the security of key opposition leaders, and thus seriously jeopardize their personal safety. This is why such an action by the government has received wide condemnation.
We wish to take this opportunity to emphatically state that the action taken by the government to deprive opposition MPs of their security will certainly lead to drastic consequences as far as their personal security is concerned. The government should restore the withdrawn security to the opposition MPs until the new Parliament is elected. The demand is a reasonable one.

Pakistan Faces Judicial Activism Against Executive

The tension between the executive and the judiciary seems to be declining after meeting between the prime minister and the chief justice. In accordance with the expectations, the executive have acceded to all demands of the judiciary and thus the ongoing arguments in the Supreme Court on the matter would perhaps now come to an end.
In view of many people, the executive had perhaps no other option because in a case wherein the Supreme Court is petitioner as well as jury, the chances of the acceptance of the government's viewpoint were very slight.

Appointment of Judges
During this confrontation, the numerous loyalists of the chief justice spread among the lawyers and in the courts also demonstrated their full strength. Although the Supreme Court had cancelled the official notification of the appointment of judges the same evening, the lawyers tried to observe strike throughout the country and in this effort, the judiciary also took part in performance of the constitutional duty of further strengthening the relations between the bar and the bench by extending full cooperation to the loyalists of the chief justice.
According to BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reports, a group of lawyers appeared in courts at various places in Sindh opposing the boycott call but the judges did not sit in the courts. The executive committee of the Lahore High Court, in a meeting chaired by Chief Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, decided to hear the cases of only emergent and immediate nature and instructions were issued to hear such cases in the chambers of the judges only. The rest of the cases were sacrificed for the loyalists of the chief justice.
It is pertinent to mention that the latest confrontation between the judiciary and the executive started with the elevation of Justice Khwaja Sharif to the Supreme Court and he had immediately refused to accept it. Thus, he had the status of a major party to the issue.

Institutional Strength
The foundation for rising up of the judiciary and lawyers as an institutional strength was laid during the movement that started in reaction to the confrontation between the judiciary and Pervez Musharraf in 2007. This institutional strength has, however, reached at this stage under influence of the desire of the judiciary to become a powerful party in the decisions on state affairs instead of gaining strength as an impartial institution.
During the movement for restoration of the judiciary in the Pervez Musharraf era, the leader of the movement, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, often used to say in his speeches that if the military is proud of its khaki uniform, we (the lawyers who wear black coats) are not less than anybody else. Thus, the lawyers, who did not refrain from torturing their opponents, continued increasing their street power. In the meantime, arrangements were made, under the slogans of the constitution duty of cooperation between the bar and the bench, for the lawyer leaders and the judiciary embracing each other. Perhaps, the two sides found this hug so much delightful that instead of separating, they now prefer to constantly stay attached to each other. Top institutions now also seem helpless in the face of the new power that emerged because of this prolonged hugging.

Restoration of Judiciary
Expressing his views about the 14 February strike of lawyers, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan said that in principle he was opposed to it but he did not appear in the court on that day because a decision about the strike was taken by majority of the lawyers. It means that he can go to the extreme in opposing the majority decisions of his party for adhering to his principles and can also start a long march even against his party's government for upholding the principles. But despite showing his opposition before the power that emerged as an outcome of hugging between the judiciary and lawyers, he finds himself helpless before the majority decision. The snake charmers in the ranks of lawyers have set off such flames that nobody is now safe from their heat.
During the movement for the restoration of the judiciary under the Musharraf rule, the leaders of the movement often argued that new PCO (Provisional Constitution Order) judges led by Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar are product of a dictator so the court would not be able to deliver justice in the presence of such partial judges. Those judges are gone but perhaps the judges having the same opinion could be appointed to fill the seats vacated by them.
Perhaps, this is not by chance that the Supreme Court full bench gives a unanimous decision and even a single judge does not oppose that decision. Just like the military discipline demands that every command of the chief justice is taken as the final, our independent judiciary too would possibly not disappoint its loyalists. With the mutual efforts of the bar and the bench, the power of the judiciary is now taking a new shape. Who says our institutions lack the discipline?

Opposition to Presidential Notification
Whereas the majority of lawyers opposed the first presidential notification for appointment of judges, some legal snake charmers touching the extremes in opposition to the notification accused the president of even the contempt of court and treason. Over many similar other steps of the contempt of court, however, they never issued a statement. According to one of our friends, a contempt of court case for the independence of an independent judiciary is pending since long and enjoys the status of a litmus test for providing the independence of the judiciary.
During the Pervez Musharraf era, Fakharuddin G. Ibrahim had filed an application in a court for return of Nawaz Sharif. The Supreme Court had ruled that Nawaz Sharif can return to the country and no hurdle is creating in the way of his comeback. All of us had, however, seen that in spite of the judiciary being independent during the Musharraf era, the former prime minister of the country was bundled into an aircraft and sent back. The sound of this power strike on the judiciary is still echoing. Now, the judiciary can exhibit its independence by giving a verdict in that case of the contempt of court.

Lacking Independence of Judiciary
Currently, Pakistan has a democratic government. The judiciary is independent and powerful. The legal snake charmers are vigorously playing their pungi (a wind instrument used by snake charmers). The petitioner (Nawaz Sharif) is also in the country and Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim is also present.
The government officials who had committed contempt of court by sending Nawaz Sharif back to Saudi Arabia are also there and the chief justice is also the same. But the independent judiciary is missing from this case in spite of having independence.

Government-Judiciary Standoff in Pakistan

The government decision of 13 February on the appointment of judges is being strongly criticized by all. The government wanted to appoint Chief Justice Khawaja Shareef of the Lahore High Court as a Judge in the Supreme Court, and Justice Saqib Nisar as the Chief justice of the Lahore High Court. The government issued the notification for these appointments, but it was immediately nullified by a three-member bench of the Supreme Court.
The court announced 18 February as the date for further hearings on the subject. The relations of the judiciary and the executive were strained, but the politicians and the common people never expected that the President's Camp would take such extreme action. However some reliable sources have revealed that this drama went exactly according to script because the script-writers wanted to take the country toward midterm elections.

Degradation of Values
Even this confrontation may take us toward midterm elections. This vague and murky situation can definitely damage any one party. President Asif Ali Zardari may have to quit. To defuse the situation, some ministers have given confusing statements which, I am afraid, may not work out.
In a previous column I pointed out that the time has come when people are beginning to lose patience. Incongruous policies are increasing the problems of the common people. Price hikes, injustice, the law and order situation and denial of merit have made the life of the common man very miserable. Look at the miseries of the people. When they do not find any catharsis, they tend to commit suicide or come out on the streets in retaliation against social deprivation. In fact, many start selling their own children. The stone-hearted elites of this society are not pushed at all. I have been to many countries, both developed and under-developed, but no where in the world have I seen people selling their own children. It is the lowest possible limit of degradation of the values of our society.
The rulers of Europe and America truly serve their people. If some one commits suicide due to hunger or poverty, the complete society is shaken up. People come out on the streets and make life miserable for their rulers. People in those societies cannot even think of selling their children. The European Union has recently passed a resolution which will be enforced in all its 27 member countries. The resolution states that all human beings are equal, no one is superior to another and the protection of the honor and self esteem of every individual is the responsibility of the state. But our rulers have deformed the shape of our own constitution. One does not find even a single amendment in favor of the poor masses.

Signs of Good Governance
Now, people are talking about mid-term elections and there is a hue and cry to remove all those people who are responsible for the current fiasco. When we look for signs of good governance or concern for the welfare of the people, all governments look alike. I have seen the previous governments of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) as well. Now I am seeing the third government of the PPP struggling for its survival. Of the two parties, the period of the PML-N looks comparatively better. The Pakistan Muslim League can fare even better provided it discontinues its policy of a One-Man-Show, and allows space so that democratic norms may germinate within the party.
It is still a mystery why the government rejected the summary sent by the Chief Justice. I am afraid some forces in the government may want to remove the President from office or dislodge the democratic government. Double agents are within the rank and file of the government, but the rulers have been unable to recognize them. And, by the time they do, it will be too late. The present situation is ideal for these intriguing forces. These forces will be successful in killing two birds with one stone.
However, the Opposition is also preparing for the final round. Nawaz Sharif's press conference of 14 February 2010 was a clear indication of these preparations. This time he openly criticized President Zardari and labeled him a threat to democracy. His statement gives an indication that political forces are now at the brink of losing patience. These forces believe that in the presence of President Zardari, Pakistan may not be able to develop good relations with other countries.

Impression of Confrontation
On 15 February, Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani addressed parliament and spoke at length on the appointment of the judges. The crux of his speech was that the Parliament also holds weight and, on sensitive issues, the position of the Parliament is superior. But his statement that the judiciary was restored through an executive order, which awaits ratification by the parliament, created a stir. In a sense it was a threat to the judiciary that the executive order could still be reversed. After this statement the political barometer shot up. It gave birth to yet another legal debate.
The impression of confrontation between the government and the judiciary must be defused immediately. In this connection, the government should cancel the notification issued on 13 February 2010 and accept the recommendations of the Chief Justice. In the war of Titans the winner will be the one who enjoys the support of the masses and stands firm on moral grounds. Due to sheer bad luck and incongruous policies, the government may not succeed in its goals.

Repellent Faces of Secular States

Will the news coming from Switzerland that they have decided to permit the preaching of Islam, allowed the construction of mosques and are thinking of permitting the construction of minarets in mosques be able to remove the scars that had come on the liberal face of the country after the laws regarding the ban on the construction of minarets was passed in Switzerland?
The meaning of a secular state is that the state has no religion i.e. the state does not have anything do with religion. The state does not interfere in the matters of religion; in fact it is totally independent in this case. The citizens of such a country are free to practice their religious obligations. If a person wants to go to the mosque then they can go, if a person wants to go to the temple then they can go, and if a person wants to go to the church then they can go there.

Beliefs and Traditions
Everyone is free to go to any place of worship. If a person does not believe in any religion or god, then it does not have any impact on the state. The state has to run all the affairs according to the constitution of the country. In a secular state, if every person is free to practice their religion then this also means that a person is allowed to construct their places of worship according to their own beliefs and traditions.
On contrary, the things that happened regarding the construction of the minarets in mosques in the most respectable country in the world, Switzerland, is not only unbelievable but it is also a slap on the face of Switzerland which calls itself a secular state, the 62 plus Islamic countries in the world and the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.

Referendum on Constitution Amendment
On 29 November, 57 percent of the Swiss voters in the referendum voted in favor of the constitution amendment aimed at banning the construction of minarets in mosques. This issue started in 2005 when the Turkish cultural association asked for the permission to build a 6-meter high minaret on the Islamic cultural centre, which led to protests and agitations. This case was then taken up by the local responsible institutions, who allowed the construction of the minaret but the so called most respectable, independent and secular Swiss nation did not accept this decision. This protest was given a political flavor by calling the minarets as symbols of political strength.
The case was finally taken up by the federal Supreme Court, which also gave the go-ahead signal to the Muslims. So, finally, the 6-meter minaret was constructed in July 2009. After this, a well planned and coherent campaign was launched. The minarets were shown as a missile tearing apart the flag of the Swiss flag on the banners held up by the protestors. This campaign was done by the political parties.
It is interesting to note that there are only 0.3 million Muslims in Switzerland which has a total population of 7.7 million. In addition, there are only three mosques that have minarets. They could not even tolerate this. It is correct that Islam is not dependent on the minarets but this fiasco revealed the true face of secular Switzerland. On one hand, there is talk of a dialogue between the different religions of the world, on the other, how much care was taken of the emotions and sentiments of the 1.5 billions Muslims by the most independent and peaceful country in the world.

Ban on Hijab
After 9/11, the Muslims have been subject of repression by the United States, but Europe is also not lagging behind America. Muslim teachers and students in Europe are not allowed to work/study because they are wearing hijab. They have gone to different courts for this purpose. Initially this protest was limited to the public but the ex-foreign minister of Britain has taken this issue to parliament by rejecting it. Now, a constitutional ban is being placed on wearing hijab in France. Similar movements are taking place in Italy, the Netherlands, and other European countries.
A respected Egyptian lady was martyred by a German by repeated attacks of the sword in a court house filled with lawyers, judges and police officials. Surprisingly, no one in the court tried to stop the mad person from killing the lady. The police did not even try to stop it. The husband of the martyr lady tried to stop the attacker but he was also injured. This is the condition of the world states who have so called no link with religion.

Hindu State Mindset
There is a secular state in our neighborhood as well. It is also the so called largest secular and democratic country in the world. Yes certainly, India, which lays claim to be the largest secular and democracy in the world, treats the minorities in an inhumane way and are deprived of their fundamental rights in such a way that no other country in this respectable world cannot even imagine to do those things. In reality, India is not a secular and democratic state, it is a Hindu state. The philosophy of this state is simple and very threatening as it states, "Hindustan is for Hindus," which means that only Hindus are only allowed to live in India. The non-Hindus will have to become Hindus again. They are against all religions except for extremist Hinduism but Islam and Muslim are particularly their targets. These Hindu extremist groups have 1.7 million plus Hindu agents. The political wing of this Hindu state mindset is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is led by Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who had supervised the martyr of 5000 Muslims in Gujarat, of which 2500 Muslims were burnt alive. The institutions of the Muslims were looted and burnt. The rulers of the secular state were proud of these acts and they ordered more such actions.
There was excessive usage of state machinery in these acts. These actions gave Modi the status of a god and he was a candidate for the Prime Minster spot in the BJP in the elections held last year. The police officials involved in these riots were given awards for bravery and promotions. This Hindu state has martyred the Babri Mosque and thousands of Muslims. The secular state has taken no action against the people involved in these acts despite the fact that such a long time has passed since these events have taken place and different reports of investigation committees have come forward. The army of this secular state has taken the lives of more than hundred thousand Muslims in Kashmir alone since 1988.
The army of this secular state has killed 250,000 Sikhs since 1984. This secular India has killed 300,000 Christians since 1947 in the state of Nagaland alone. Two years ago, forty thousand Christians were subject to extreme violence and repression in the state of Orissa, which forced them to migrate from their homes. Hundred people were killed and thousands were injured. Their houses were looted, numerous churches were burnt and priests and nuns were burnt alive. Thousands of Christians were forced to live in jungles for weeks. The Sikhs in collaboration with the secular Hindus of India committed violence and killed one million Muslims at partition.

Inhumane Behavior and Attitude
In this secular state of India, the high caste Hindus have an extremely dreadful behavior with their low caste Hindus. It is even a distant thought to give them the fundamental rights of human beings; they are not even treated as humans. The high caste Hindus cannot have food, worship at the same place, cannot marry, cannot talk on equal terms, sit with each other or even touch the low caste Hindus. The only work of the low caste Hindus is to clean the streets and sanitation systems. The treatment given to them is even worse than that given to animals. This inhumane behavior and attitude of the high caste Hindus towards the low caste Hindus and minorities is like a bad scar on the name of humanity.
The humanity is shameful on this attitude of a group of people with other persons. This is not something which the Indians are showing to the world, the world does not see this and the world is not even interested in watching these things. They are also viewing these things from the perspective of their benefits. They can only see the market of 1.15 billion people.
The things that have been done by the court of one more secular state with Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, they are not even capable of being called a secular state. Have the evil faces of these nations not been revealed completely? Are these people not mad and extremist? Is not the treatment given to non-Muslims by Muslim countries better than the treatment given to Muslims in non-Muslim countries? Despite this, the Muslims have to face the entire storm. The stature of the 1.5 billion Muslims is not even equal to the 14.6 million Jews spread across 104 countries.

Stronger Federal-State Cooperation on National Issues

In the meeting of chief ministers on the issues of price rise and internal security, we saw a changed form of relations between the central and state governments. We felt that things have moved forward beyond just completing the formality. After a long time, there was discussion in this meeting on ground realities, rather than rhetorical speeches.
There were heated debates, host of allegations, but there was also an attempt to understand and appreciate each other. All in all, this meet helped develop mutual understanding. When the discussion started on price hike on 6 February, non-Congress chief ministers strongly especially criticized the central government.

Skyrocketing Price Hike
It was everybody's opinion that the central government should stop blaming states for skyrocketing price hike. There was a sharp exchange between Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on this issue. Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik also emphasized that price rise is a national problem, and only the central government should deal with it. Uttarakhand Chief Minister Ramesh Pokhariyal Nishank went to the extent of saying that the current price rise has been created artificially.
However, during the discussion on internal security, some non-Congress chief ministers openly praised the positive steps taken by the federal government the next day. For example, although Narendra Modi was angry with the central government for not approving the Gujarat Control of Organized Crime Act, he still profusely praised Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Home Minister P. Chidambaram, admitting that in the matter of internal security, the central government is not discriminating against non-Congress states, and its attitude is quite cooperative in the matter of dealing with terrorism.

Underlined Internal Security
Chattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh and Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan also praised Chidambaram's style of functioning, and the efforts being made by him on the internal security front. It is obvious that these leaders have refrained from the normal tendency of attacking the federal government with closed eyes. Similarly, the central government also gave up the habit of foisting its own agenda and singing its own tune to send a positive signal. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh especially underlined that internal security could be strengthened only through mutual coordination between the central and state governments. Not only security, coordination is also necessary to ensure economic development. A lot of emphasis was placed on it for a few years after independence, but later, as politics became personality-centric, the federal attitude also changed. The governments ruling in New Delhi usually behaved with the state governments in accordance with political considerations of gains and losses.
States certainly require additional resources for strengthening their internal security system. They are also quite right in expecting the union government to provide them with weapons, equipment, and money with an open mind. Yet, they fail to realize that they must also carry out certain responsibilities. These have been pending for long. States have been repeatedly reminded of them during this period, but things soon went back to square one. It is, therefore, necessary to study some of the facts placed on behalf of union Home Minister P. Chidambaram in order to understand this situation.

Requiring Extreme Political Will
According to these facts, 22 states have not carried out the Supreme Court directives on formulating new police laws. There are 19 such states that have not been able to form a Police Complaint Authority so far.
A handful of states have perhaps separated law and order from the investigation work. It is a task requiring extreme political will instead of huge funds. This is being avoided at present. If this has not been impelled by the tendency to make political use of the police, let state governments frankly admit why they have not followed the Supreme Court's order.

Implementing Police Reforms
Whenever the union government gives some suggestions or orders on internal security to states, they raise complaints about interference in their work. They also never tire of reminding the central government that in a federal system, law and order is a state subject. Irrespective of their claims, the fact remains that they have been most negligent about implementing police reforms and strengthening internal security. State governments are very much concerned about their own rights. But they dislike being reminded of their own duties.
The people have had to pay the price for this. The imbalance that is being seen at the level of development today is the result of that. Anyway, there is need to forget the past. Now, New Delhi should listen to states patiently, rising above political differences, because they are the ones who are suffering from problems at the base level. No national policy can be implemented without cooperation from them. The understanding that has been developed between these two now should be strengthened further.

Thaksin’s Assets Seizure Case

The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions will hand down the verdict on the seizure of Police Lieutenant Colonel Thaksin Chinnawat's 76 billion baht assets plus interest on Friday, 26 February 2010.
Several people will keep an eye on the day which is the day of an important political changing point, whether or not the verdict will be in favor of Pol Lt Col Thaksin Chinnawat. It is believed that before the verdict day, political situation inside and outside the parliament will be increasingly intensified. The intensity will reach its peak after the judge panel in this assets seizure case finishes reading the verdict in the evening of that day. The judge in charge of preparing the verdict is Somsak Netmai.
For this reason, right now the government and armed force leaders have closely analysed political situation and prepared to handle political activities before or after 26 February 2010. For example, Thaworn Senniam, the deputy interior minister, has announced that the government is ready to handle mass rallies by red shirted people. He only hopes the mass rally to be carried out under the framework of the law. However, if the situation was to turn violent, the government might have to invoke the security act in a bid to be prepared for the situation.

Clarification on Progress
At the same time, looking at the moves by red-shirted people, the leaders and MPs of Phuea Thai Party have tried not to talk about the Supreme Court's verdict reading on 26 February 2010 that how the verdict would affect the red shirted people and Phuea Thai Party's political moves, ranging from the no-confidence debate to the red shirted people's mass rallies. They only talked about places that the red shirted people will hold rallies. For example, they will hold a rally at Khao Soidao Resort in Chanthaburi Province on 23 January 2010. They will gather in front of the Justice Ministry to demand the clarification on the progress of the petition for the royal pardon for Pol Lt Col Thaksin that they have submitted.
The reason that the red shirted people and the Phuea Thai Party have not shown their clear stance about the no-confidence debate and the mass rally might be that they did not want to be viewed that they were planning their moves for political effect on the asset seizure case, both before and after the verdict was read. It is a political strategy that is understandable.
However, what many people are watching is that before the Supreme Court reads the verdict on the assets seizure case, political pressure related to the voting by nine members on the judge panel is expected. The pressure could be in the form of the release of information that could confuse the public about the working process of the Supreme Court in this case. For example, a rumor might be released among people in politics that the judges have already made decision on the verdict in advance. Or, there might be rumors on lobbying attempts, which are all inappropriate. And there might be an attempt to forecast the court's verdict that is to be handed down despite the fact that members of the judge panel have not yet voted on the verdict.

Judicial Process
In this kind of attempts to discredit the judicial process, relevant people intend to discredit judges' working process and also to create political pressure on this case.
However, the public could be ensured that they could trust the court's ruling. This is because the ruling is a result of a working process which has been carried out neutrally and fairly according to the law and facts. The working process has not been politicized. The court has not treated the defendant with double standard as certain group of people has tried to mislead the public.
The verdict is a result of the hearing of relevant facts from all facets, from all witnesses of the plaintiff, which is the public prosecutor, and witnesses of the defendant, which is Pol Lt Col Thaksin; witnesses summoned by the court, and documents that are evidence in this case. For this reason, it is believed people who try to pressure the court in this asset seizure case would not be able to do what they want.

BT Brinjal in Sharp Controversy

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has given the green signal to the country's first genetically modified food commodity. Brinjal that once used to be considered a minor vegetable would be the first in the list of genetic engineering. Since the matter is controversial, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh organized debates around the country. But how would people debate when they have not been made aware of the pros and cons of this Brinjal?

Wearing and Export
Supporters of BT Brinjal say that as BT cotton improved the lot of farmers, this BT Brinjal would also make farmers rich. Those against it argue that cotton is for wearing and export, but Brinjal is to be eaten, and what happens if it proves to be toxic in the long run?
They also say that fiddling with the food chain is a conspiracy by multinational companies and the world's most-loved enemy, the United States, is said to be behind it. The Supreme Court has sought a reply from the government as to why extensive trials were not carried out from the safety viewpoint.

Major Brinjal-Producing Areas
One of the top names in genetic engineering, Pushpamitra Bhargav, himself is against BT Brinjal. The chief ministers of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa (where 60 percent of all Brinjal is produced), Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgarh have rejected it outright. Karnataka and Gujarat are silent for the moment. The central government is silent on what effect it would have on more than 1,000 varieties of Brinjal. Farmers of Gujarat benefited a lot from BT cotton, but those opposed to it say that production of this new cotton is continuously reducing. The pests to prevent which genetic engineering was done are coming back.
Amid arguments and counterarguments, the biggest question remains unanswered: Why Brinjal? There is neither shortage of Brinjal in the country, nor are its prices shooting up through the roof. Brinjal does not enjoy as much respect in our kitchen that there should be fighting over it. Has Brinjal been chosen because it is the easiest way of entry for BT into India's food chain?

Technique of Genetic Engineering
There is uproar over Brinjal also because those who are supporters of living in harmony with nature are more aware now. The world, which is suffering from results of science flirting with nature in the form of global warming, is not against science, but opposed to science fiddling with natural balance.
The debate will not be meaningful as long as the government does not educate people about the technique of genetic engineering and its benefits.

Relief From Noise Pollution

Noise pollution is considered to be no less dangerous than air and water pollution in vitiating atmosphere. It affects a person's hearing system, and makes it weak. It also damages a person's ability to comprehend. From the viewpoint of medical science, it is regarded as more harmful than other pollutions. A check on it has, therefore, been long expected.
The country's Supreme Court had also banned any loud noise making after 2200 hours. The matter was dragging for year since the government lacked a suitable system to implement this order.

Formation Inspection Centers
The central government has now framed rules for honking by vehicles, playing loud music at weddings and by DJs, and the shattering noise made during construction at night. These rules and regulations will also have to be followed while burning crackers, or causing any other noise. Violation of there norms will result in severe fines and even detention.
Generally speaking, different laws in our country are so very flexible that people are not scared of them. Want of an adequate system to stop breaking rules is another reason for their violation. In this case also, nothing much can be said about the system with certainty. Formation of noise pollution inspection centers in some cities will automatically have an effect throughout the country.

Steps Taken
Special joint squads ought to be formed by the police and administration to keep a watch on this problem, and to assure impartial action on complaints. Anyway, the government's decision is praiseworthy. At the same time, we must remember that formulation of laws alone is not enough to control any crime or disturbance.
It is the duty of the government and administration to make people aware of them. The government must launch a massive awareness campaign in cities where the rule is not being introduced at present. Noise mostly disturbs students, senior citizens, and patients. The government's decision will hopefully bring relief to all of them.