The conference statement

When I was away, the Conference of Rulers (of Malaysia) issued a statement. Naturally, that toyed a bit with constitutional law and rights. Some wondered whether or not they had a right to do so. Or whether they should have even done so. At the same time, that statement was about reminding people what were

The Conference of Rulers at Istana Negara on April 14, 1960. The King has been elected by the Conference of Rulers since independence.

.

When I was away, the Conference of Rulers (of Malaysia) issued a statement.

Naturally, that toyed a bit with constitutional law and rights. Some wondered whether or not they had a right to do so. Or whether they should have even done so. At the same time, that statement was about reminding people what were their rights, and what should (not) be happening.

At breakfast today I read a fairly good piece in The Star. It included comments from notables figures such as Malik Imtiaz Sarwar & (the witty) Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam. Click here to read it.

.

Martin khor’s climate trade import duties

Thus making them, collectively achieving a pseudo critical analytical consensus derived from a council that merely groped the elephant in the dark. Separately declaring the trunk, tusk, tail, torso as the negative, blindly thinking it all as one and the same thing.

*This post was originally written on Tuesday 27th August. Part of this post was published on RA 7 days ago with the title ‘Elephant Analysis’.

.

Last Monday over breakfast I read a rather simple yet good (to my lowly standards) piece written by Martin Khor. No. Not Michael Kors. Khor is an economist and Director of the Third World Network. He has been critical regarding the negative effects of globalisation for third world countries. Excerpt from ‘Climate to be used for trade protection’,

He (Sarkozy) indicated that when France takes over the presidency of the European Union (it did so in July), he would advocate the use of higher duties on imports that contain higher carbon content.

.

This can be taken to mean that if the amount of carbon dioxide emissions exceeds a certain level in producing one unit of a product, then extra duties may be placed on that product, thus raising its cost and discouraging imports.

.

Developing countries, consider this unfair. Firstly, developed countries have historically been responsible for much of the carbon dioxide that has built up in the atmosphere, giving rise to global warming. There were then no punitive measures against their high emission-products.

.

Secondly, they have superior technology and can produce goods with lower carbon content than developing countries and thirdly, they have so far refused to transfer these technologies to developing countries at affordable prices.

.

The use of trade measures is thus unfair to developing countries. They are also against the spirit and principle of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which mandate that developed countries must finance the costs of actions dealing with climate change in developing countries and that discriminatory trade measures should not be taken.

A few things you can note from the piece above.

Capitalism, democracy, globalisation or a combination of either could in fact makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. While I agree that (the overrated) democracy is the best system we have available, that does not make it great. The excerpt above is a reflection of one of the many loopholes that democracy offers.

In fact, present day no country has adopted the doctrine of democracy wholly a 100%.

Being in the generation that went to school in the post-cold war era being told that democracy is great, and communism is shite (without ever being told what either of them actually works or stand for), I’ve come to note that due to peer pressure most have a tendency to want to appear to be politically correct and politically conscious. Thus making them, collectively achieving a pseudo critical analytical consensus derived from a council that merely groped the elephant in the dark. Separately declaring the trunk, tusk, tail, torso as the negative, blindly thinking it all as one and the same thing.

Going back to the article, I suppose to some extent, this is somewhat in congruent with Marx’s view that capitalism breeds war. If we share the same foresight, that is.

.

*The writer is not an economist, nor a graduate in economics. Or political science. His view is, the elephant tastes like chicken.

ISA part 1

In the case of Theresa Lim Chin Chin v IGP, the court said NEHI. Janji subversion, you can kena! That said, in the case of IGP v Tan Sri Khalid Harun, a preventive detention order was used against the banker. The court said again, NEHI. That’s misuse of power by the government!

I am meant to post about something else. However, with the recent heat in Malaysia about the Detention Without Trial or the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA), I’ll play it cool.

This topic is extensive so I’ll have it in a series of posts.

Lecture notes by Constitutional Law Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi

The ISA is a law created under another law. Without the latter, ISA would not exist. Therefore, we’ll start from the top.

The supreme law in Malaysia, is the Federal Constitution (FC). It is the highest source of law, in the first tier and the only one in that tier. No other law in Malaysia is of equal weight to it. All other laws will cease to exist if it contradicts the FC.

The ISA was created under Article 149 of the FC. Legislation against subversion, action prejudicial to public order, etc. 149, is what validates the existence of ISA (putting aside of course views and principles of justice and fairness).

.

Article 149

Definition - subversion: (among others,) prejudicing the maintenance of any supply or service to the public order or national security.

Purpose - empowers Parliament to create laws to combat subversion.

Extent - will be valid, even if they violate certain fundmantal liberties/rights that is also under the FC. However, as in the case of Minister for Home Affairs v (Joshua) Jamaluddin Othman, it cannot be used if it violates the exercise of freedom of religion by an individual.

Duration - Previously, 1 year. Now, indefinitely.

Exercise - The government. The King, has no say in this kong.

Procedure - When approving the creation of a law such as ISA for example, only a simple majority in Parliament is required to vote for it. 51%, and not two thirds majority. Neither the King, nor the Conference of Rulers (the Club of Sultans of various states), need to be consulted.

Laws under 149 (such as ISA) can be passed preventively. Meaning, there need not be a problem now in order to make the government want to create a law (to combat subversion). In short, precautionary. If in the future, they suspect someone like you might run around town being yourself (stupid), they may create a law even before you were born, to prevent from such a thing happening.

Some argued that since 149 was created to specifically combat communism. Now that it is no longer a threat, it should be abolished or not be used on any other matter but communism. Plus, scholars argue that we don’t need ISA to combat Lindsay Lohan. However, in the case of Theresa Lim Chin Chin v IGP, the court said

NEHI. In you go. Janji subversion, you can kena!

That said, in the case of IGP v Tan Sri Khalid Harun, a preventive detention order was used against the banker. The court said again,

NEHI. Release him. That’s misuse of power by the government!

.

*The writer is a law graduate who writes for RA almost every Monday. Constitutional Law was his number one favourite subject. Seriously. He failed the paper (Part 2) twice. Seriously.

.

.

Suing for loss of profit

After reading what I wrote last week, the issue of damages should be dug a little bit deeper. Like how stupid people do what they find the region behind their nose, and above their neck, a hollow one. Somehow ‘thinking’ they actually might find something there.

Section 74 of the Contracts Act actually rooted from the case of Hadley v Baxendale.

The Millers had a mill that stopped functioning when the crankshaft broke and they employed Lem, who were carriers, to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer as a pattern, to make a new one.

Lem delivered the cranshaft late, which led to the unexpected continuous inoperation of the Miller’s mill. Meaning, instead of being inoperation for 2 months, because of the delay now the mill was out of operation for 6 months.

The Millers are now suing for the profits they could have made in that 4 months.

Court said,

NEHI.

The Millers could not sue for that 4 months because, the information communicated to Lem did not show that a delay in the delivery of the shaft, would cause a loss of profit. There is chance that the Millers have another shaft they could use, or that there might be other defects that may cause the mill to stop.

Had Lem been informed, or knew, that the mill could not operate with the shaft, he too would also know that for being a slow ass, that attitude would cause a loss of profit to the Millers.

.

*The writer is a law graduate who failed Contract Law (Part 2) once. He writes for RA almost every Monday

.

.

.

Support RA’s pro bono projects by donning a t-shirt. Click here to know more.

Monetary compensation for breach of contract

I hire you and your boat to deliver a cargo of tin to be delivered to Singapore for me to sell there starting on a specified date. Because of the cheap crappy GPS device for your boat, you coulnd’t find Singapore and the cargo arrived weeks later than we agreed. By then the price of tin falls.

For this post, reference were made to the Contracts Act 1950, Principles of the Law of Contract, and the landmark case Hadley v Baxendale.

Also, RA had an overloaded weekend with many posts. If you missed it, click here more the post on fashion, style and sorts by Miss Not Ascertainable.

.

When loss or injury is suffered in a breach of contract, the party that got screwed, has a right to claim monetary compensation as damages.

Provided that, the breach is caused by the other party (the screwer), and not someone else. The idea of monetary compensation is to place the party in as good a position as he would have been, had the contract went well.

Illustration (e) of Section 74 from the Contracts Act, somewhat reads,

I hire you and your boat to deliver a cargo of tin to be delivered to Singapore for me to sell there starting on a specified date. Because of the cheap crappy GPS device for your boat, you couldn’t find Singapore and the cargo arrived weeks later than we agreed. By then the price of tin falls. You must pay me (monetary compensation @ damages), according to the difference in price that I’ve loss because of the delay in delivery.

Note that not all losses suffered will be recovered. It must not be too remote.

For example, if I needed to sell the cargo of tin, on that specified date because there’s also a discount for me to buy a shotgun. But as a result of your late delivery, I don’t have enough money then to buy it on sale, and now that shotgun is now also expensive, I cannot claim the difference in price for that shotgun. That is not considered damages because it is too remote.

Which sucks because I was meant to shoot your boat with that weapon.

.

*The writer is a law graduate who failed Contract Law (Part 2) once. He writes for RA almost every Monday.

.

.

Support RA’s pro bono projects by donning a t-shirt. Click here to know more.

Fundamental and minor breach of contract

Not all breaches of contract, amount to a discharge of contract. This post will explain what kind of breaches of contract will, and what kind won’t.

In the previous post I’ve explained, (somewhat) aptly the distinction between breach of contract, and discharge of contract. Not all breaches of contract, amount to a discharge of contract. This post will explain what kind of breaches of contract will, and what kind won’t.

Fundamental breach

A breach of this kind, would amount to the end (discharge) of contract. Therefore no longer in existence. For example, if we have a contract for you to deliver me a dustpan, but instead you bring me the Nimbus 2007 (which we all know is shit). That is a fundamental breach. Because,

1. it is not what I bought
2. you are stupid

Minor breach

A breach of this kind does not amount to the cancellation of the contract. The party affected by the breach, meaning the monkey who did not commit the breach, may recover losses (which I’ll explain in a later post). Minor breach example: you have to deliver me the dustpan at 3.30pm, but instead, you only deliver it to me at 3.35pm (because you are so 5 minutes ago). This is not a fundamental breach because it is insignificant.

However, if it is emphasized and noted that it is imperative that I must have the dustpan by 3.30pm and not later, then by delivering it 5 minutes late, is a fundamental breach because you have disrupted the essence of the contract.

And also because you are so 5 minutes ago.

.

*The writer is a law graduate who failed Contract Law (Part 2) once. He writes for RA every Monday.

Discharge and breach of contract

For example, I’m suppose to slap your stupid face once a week. But I do it four times (because you deserve it). I am then in breach of a contract. OR, I’m suppose to slap your stupid face twice a week. But I only do it once a week, thus failing to do it twice (maybe because it’s too ugly), I am then in breach of contract.

“A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”
- Oscar Wilde

For the moment:
Speed Law – Mos Def

It’s been a long time since I wrote something meaningful or of value. But I am a cynic, so who knows.

A week ago a friend of mine called me and asked for legal advice. I won’t narrate her situation here, but I will convey 1 part of the ‘advice’ I gave her. Bear in mind I did Contract Law in 2005, and this all came from the top of my head. Still is.

Breach of contract

The commitment of an act, or the failure to commit an act, which was not meant to happen (according to the agreement).

For example, I’m suppose to slap your stupid face once a week. But I do it four times (because you deserve it). I am then in breach of a contract. OR, I’m suppose to slap your stupid face twice a week. But I only do it once a week, thus failing to do it twice (maybe because it’s too ugly), I am then in breach of contract.

*I will discuss more in another post as to what is considered a significant and an insignificant breach.

Discharge of contract

Discharge of contract is when the contract actually ends and both parties are no longer obligated to perform anything stipulated within the agreement.

A discharge can happen in various ways.

• By agreement – we both agree it is time to stop slapping your face (don’t count on it)
• By frustration – you die, I have no more face to slap
• By breach – the breach is serious enough, that it amounts to a discharge.

Summary judgment

So on that note, not all breaches of contract amounts to a discharge of contract. Meaning, despite the breach, the contract is still valid and enforced.

For example, if I’ve forgotten to slap your face for the past two weeks, we can rendezvou this week and I’ll give you triple combo.

.

*The writer is a law graduate who writes for RA every Monday. He failed Contract Law (Paper 2) once.

Girl special

“I heard this lady say. ‘I love kids.’ That’s nice. Little weird though. It’s like saying, ‘I like people….for a little while.‘ ‘How old are you? 14? Fck off.’”
-Demetri Martin

For the moment:
I Remember – Keyshia Cole

.

.

I was on the phone recently on one of those extended conversations, and I felt like saying rhetorically, ‘you’re a girl, your special’. And I regret not sharing that thought.

While I am saying that partly because of how personally unique she was, but it also extends to her being a girl. This is of course, my perspective. That of a boy.

Many, girls and boys included, I think overlook this amazing truth. Passing the test of time, there are things that girls can do that boys never can. I’m talking from the beginning of time, till the last of the human race.

There’s no maternity leave for men, but there’s a long standing fundamental law of war to protect women and children.

Women CAN always choose to go to war. Men CAN never choose to get pregnant. It’s a shame that more often than not, neither side appreciate golden realities. Guilty of materialism are we?

Next Page »