Share This

Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Wednesday 15 March 2023

Know how this vital law protects you from fraud

 

Photo: 123rf.com

CONSUMER protection laws are designed to safeguard consumers and ensure they are not subjected to fraudulent or unethical practices by businesses. One such law in Malaysia is the Financial Consumer Services Act 2013, which aims to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices by financial institutions.

One issue that has received increased attention in recent years is “mis-selling” by banks selling investment products to its depositors. Mis-selling refers to the practice of selling financial products to consumers that are not suitable for their needs or financial situation, which can often result in significant financial losses.

Banks have been known to engage in mis-selling by aggressively pushing investment products such as mutual funds, stocks, and insurance policies to their depositors without adequately disclosing the risks involved.

The Financial Consumer Services Act (FCSA) seeks to address this issue by imposing strict requirements on financial institutions to ensure that they act in the best interests of their clients.

FCSA requires financial institutions to disclose information about their products and services in a clear and concise manner, to ensure that consumers can make informed decisions.

It also provides for the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism to enable consumers to seek redress for grievances.

In addition, the Act requires financial institutions to obtain sufficient information about their clients’ financial situation and investment goals before recommending any investment product.

This is particularly important if customers do not have the same level of knowledge or experience as more seasoned investors.

The Act also provides consumers with greater protection in the event of a dispute. It establishes an independent dispute resolution mechanism that is fair and impartial to resolve complaints and disputes between consumers and financial institutions.

In addition to this, the FCSA provides for compensation for consumers who have suffered losses as a result of mis-selling. Financial institutions are required to establish complaint handling procedures that enable consumers to make complaints and seek redress. These procedures must be transparent and accessible, and financial institutions must take reasonable steps to resolve complaints in a timely and efficient manner.

The FCSA also provides for enforcement measures to be taken against financial institutions that engage in unfair and deceptive practices. This includes fines, penalties, and other sanctions that may be imposed by the regulator.

These measures are designed to deter financial institutions from engaging in practices that are harmful to consumers.

It is important to note, however, that consumer protection laws are only effective when they are enforced. Financial institutions that engage in mis-selling must be held accountable for their actions, and consumers must be empowered to seek redress when they are harmed. This requires a strong and effective regulatory framework, as well as consumer education and advocacy to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights and able to protect themselves.

The FCSA is an important piece of legislation that plays a vital role in protecting consumers in the financial sector.

It provides consumers with greater transparency and clarity in financial transactions, and ensures that they are not subject to unfair and deceptive practices.

The provisions of the Act relating to the mis-selling of investment products by banks are particularly important, as this is a problem that has affected many consumers in the past.

With the FCSA in place, consumers can have greater confidence in the financial sector and can be assured that their rights and interests are being protected.

- PROF DR ONG TZE SAN School of Business and Economics Universiti Putra Malaysia 

Source link

 

Financial Services Act 2013 - Bank Negara Malaysia

 


https://www.bnm.gov.my/documents/20124/820862/Financial+Services+Act+2013.pdf

 

Related posts:

 

Investors duped by fake mutual funds firm lose almost everything  

  The Star on Twitter: "Investors duped by fake mutual funds firm ... KUALA LUMPUR: She wanted to grow her retirement nest, so she p...

 

 

How Fake News Shapes World Order: Atrocity Fabrication and its Consequences

 

Atrocity fabrication – the invention and reporting of atrocities committed by an adversary without knowledge that they ever occurred – ha...

 

 

 

Taiwan telecom fraud suspects repatriated

 from Malaysia and Kenya

Saturday 11 March 2023

Muhy­id­din, the 2nd former prime min­is­ter in corruption charges for kickbacks from bumi contractors Jana Wibawa; Good governance entails inclusivity


Tan Sri Muhy­id­din Yassin is the second former prime min­is­ter after Datuk Seri Najib Razak was charged in court.


 Muhy­id­din, who is Ber­satu pres­id­ent and Perikatan Nas­ional chair­man, was charged at the Ses­sions Court yes­ter­day with four counts of power abuse involving a total of Rm232.5mil in grat­i­fic­a­tion and two counts of money laun­der­ing involving Rm195mil.

Muhy­id­din, who is Ber­satu pres­id­ent and Perikatan Nas­ional chair­man, was charged at the Ses­sions Court yes­ter­day with four counts of power abuse involving a total of Rm232.5mil in grat­i­fic­a­tion and two counts of money laun­der­ing involving Rm195mil.

Najib was sen­tenced by the Kuala Lum­pur High Court on July 28, 2020 to 12 years’ jail and a Rm210mil fine after he was found guilty of seven charges of crim­inal breach of trust, money laun­der­ing and abuse of pos­i­tion in the Rm42mil SRC Inter­na­tional case in con­nec­tion with the sov­er­eign fund 1Malay­sia Devel­op­ment Bhd (1MDB).

RM300mil kickback claims that led to charges being filed

PETALING JAYA: The charging of Bersatu president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin in court is linked to allegations that contractors had deposited RM300mil into the party’s accounts in return for projects.

The projects were part of the Jana Wibawa programme, which was set in November 2020 by Muhyiddin when he was the prime minister, to empower bumiputra contractors struggling during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Under the scheme, bumiputra contractors rated three to five stars were given contracts through direct negotiation.

They had to be approved by the Finance Ministry and Muhyiddin has pointed the finger at his finance minister then, Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Tengku Abdul Aziz, as the one who had approved the companies getting the projects.

Muhyiddin has also called the allegations “political slander” to smear his reputation as the eighth prime minister.

In February, the MACC froze Bersatu’s accounts and has since charged several individuals in court.

They included former Bersatu information chief Datuk Wan Saiful Wan Jan and Segambut Bersatu division deputy chief Adam Radlan Adam Muhammad.

They were alleged to have collected funds from the award of the projects.

On March 2, Bersatu treasurer Datuk Mohd Salleh Bajuri was remanded by the graft busters to assist investigations into the party’s expenditure.

Mohd Salleh was instructed to go to the MACC headquarters on March 1 to give a statement on payments by Bersatu to suppliers and vendors. 

 Source link

Good governance entails an inclusive approach

INTRODUCED in November 2020 during the administration of Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, the Jana Wibawa programme was meant wholly for bumiputra contractors to help them cope with the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission’s (MACC) probe into Jana Wibawa has revealed the shenanigans of the persons allegedly involved. According to Law and Institutional Reform Minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, there were 56 projects valued at Rm6.3bil under the programme. But that’s another matter.

It must not be overlooked that non-malay contractors were also affected by the Covid-19 maelstrom. Some were on the verge of bankruptcy too.

It is therefore regretted that the government of the day chose to implement a politically popular policy instead of one that promoted inclusivity and would have enhanced racial unity.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, in enunciating the principles of Malaysia Madani, emphasised that the direction of the country must be guided by significant priorities that require an approach cutting across political, social, economic, environmental and technological aspects.

Good governance entails a more inclusive culture in promoting unity in diversity. It is hoped that the future will not look anything like the past.

- DR A. SOORIAN Seremban 

 

 

 

Wednesday 5 October 2022

California Superior Court Judge Lillian Sing speak out against US racism, demonizing Chinese & China

 https://rumble.com/embed/v1j0zrj/?pub=4

https://rumble.com/v1ln5or-california-superior-court-judge-lillian-sing-speak-out-against-us-racism-de.html  

1st Chinese California Superior Court Judge Lillian Sing (born in Shanghai) speak out against US racism, demonizing Chinese, China and promoting proxy war in Taiwan Province against China.

加州第一位出生於上海的華裔高等法院法官公開反對美國種族主義、妖魔化中國人並在台灣省對中國發動代理人戰爭 

BIOGRAPHY:

The Honorable Lillian K. Sing - California - Trellis.Law


Related:

US and its likes should reflect on colonialism and systematic discrimination against indigenous peoples: Chinese envoy

The representative of China at the United Nations Human Rights Council called on the US, Canada and Australia to seriously reflect on the systematic discrimination and oppression of indigenous peoples in their countries on Wednesday.


Related posts:

 

 

Tuesday 8 March 2022

TNB mulls legalising Bitcoin mining to prevent illegal electricity tapping

 

In light of the rampant illegal bitcoin mining operations and financial losses from illegal electricity tapping nationwide, Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) is looking at ways to legalise mining operations by imposing special tariffs. - NSTP file pic


`
PUTRAJAYA: In light of the rampant illegal bitcoin mining operations and financial losses from illegal electricity tapping nationwide, Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) is looking at ways to legalise mining operations by imposing special tariffs.
`
TNB chairman and chief executive officer Datuk Baharin Din said a proposal has been drawn up with special tariff rates for Bitcoin mining and this had been forwarded to the Energy Commission (EC) for approval.
`
"We have made a proposal with our recommendations to legalise Bitcoin mining by charging them a special commercial rate but the proposal is still being reviewed by the EC," he said.
`
Baharin said they first discovered the electricity tapping for Bitcoin mining in 2018 when at a time there were only 610 cases. 

More News

Cops bust bitcoin mining syndicate, seize 2,137 machines worth RM1.2mil`

"But, last year the numbers jumped to 3,090 premises being used, and the tapping was done haphazardly, with the illegal operations posing a huge risk to the premises as well as others in the vicinity, through electricity sharing.
`
"In addition, the (electricity) volume these illegal miners have been tapping was also way too high and detrimental to everyone," he said.
`
Baharin said to undertake such tapping exercises, a person must be technically competent because it is a highly risky venture.
`
"There are no safety elements included while they tap the electricity illegally for the machines and it can catch fire easily or cause a power outage," he said.
`
Baharin was speaking to reporters after sharing the recent success of Op Power, a nationwide joint operation by MACC, police, EC and TNB which managed to cripple 998 illegal Bitcoin mining premises last month.
`
Also present at the press conference today were MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki and EC chief executive officer Abdul Razib Dalwood.
`
Azam said 18 suspects have been arrested and TNB losses from 2018 until last year are estimated to be RM2.3 billion.
`
"The raids were carried out in Perak, Selangor, Pahang, Kedah, Melaka, Johor and Penang whereby 998 premises were found to have tampered to draw electricity (illegally).
`
"We also identified 23 suspects paying and accepting bribes to allow these premises to operate but five have not been picked up due to Covid-19," he said.
`
He said those arrested were receiving and paying money so that these illegal operations can be carried out.
`
"One of the suspects picked up ran 500 premises on his own and on estimation, he pays about RM500 a month for each," he said, adding that the total bribe for the Os Power is estimated to be RM2.37 million.
`
Azam said the payments were made either through cash or cryptocurrency monthly to and from these suspects.
`
He said MACC has also frozen 126 accounts totalling up to RM4.47 million and seized 1,157 mining machines worth RM2.3 million in last month's nationwide joint operation.
`
He said all those arrested will be charged for money laundering under the MACC Anti Money Laundering Act 2001.

 

Source link

 

Related News

 

How TNB is trying to stop illegal Bitcoin mining - The Edge ...

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/how-tnb-trying-stop-illegal-bitcoin-mining


How TNB is trying to stop illegal bitcoin mining | The Star

How TNB is trying to stop illegal bitcoin mining


Related posts:

 

Sting operation on bitcoin-mining power theft racket nets 18 suspects Eighteen people have been arrested in relation to the bitcoin mining s...
 
  ` Cryptocurrency Not To Be Considered 'Legal Tender'; Centre To Treat It Like Stocks & Bonds   ; Legal Tender? The Regulation ..
 
Related Articles
 

Monday 21 January 2019

Truth be told: It’s not wrong to tell the truth

Two things could make the controversial Sedition Act fairer: It’s OK if you tell the truth, and it’s OK if you want to stop injustice.

 


A COUPLE of weeks ago, Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad talked about the Sedition Act. He calmly explained to all Malaysians that it isn’t meant to avoid criticisms about wrongdoing, it isn’t meant to shackle whistleblowers, and it’s completely not sedition if you tell the truth.

“If you say something factual, you cannot be punished for it,” said Dr Mahathir, “But, on the other hand, if we shut the mouths of everyone, to the point that people cannot even speak up against acts of crime, then there will be injustice in the country.” (“Be clear on what insult means”, Nation, The Star, Jan 11; online at tinyurl.com/star-insult.)

Basically, it sounded like he could have been talking about anything – except the Sedition Act. Now, the Sedition Act is not unfamiliar to Pakatan Harapan. In its own manifesto, PH said that it would revoke the Sedition Act if it came to power, giving the reason that it is a law “inherited from the British colonial era without amendment to improve weaknesses”. And then after PH formed the government, it seemed to kind of casually forget this.

I have written about the Sedition Act before (“Lost in translation?”, Contradictheory, Star2, March 29, 2015; online at tinyurl.com/star-sedition). If you’re not reading this column online, here’s a summary of what I said then: I pointed out the problem that you can be guilty of sedition even if all you are doing is repeating what somebody else has said. And to top it off, it doesn’t matter if what you said was true, nor does it matter if you said it with the best of intentions. It’s like saying somebody’s dress is figure-hugging, and hearing them answer, “Are you saying I’m fat?”

It’s all there in the Act. The Act talks about whether “things” have a “seditious tendency”. These include actions, speech, words and publications, for example, and whether they influence people to feel hatred, contempt or disaffection for the Rulers or the government. Whether the “things” are true or not doesn’t matter.

The Act also says, “The intention of the person charged at the time ... shall be deemed to be irrelevant”.

Why is it interpreted like that? It’s hard to say, but I think it does make it easier for the authorities to manage anti-government sentiments.

For example, it’s possible to be selective with the truth to manipulate a situation. So, technically, what somebody said might be fact, but might also be misleading.

Secondly, intent is something that can be very difficult to establish. You have to get into the mind of the accused and tease out what he or she intended by what he or she said or wrote.

For example, if all you wrote on a Facebook page is that somebody should be investigated for doing a Very Bad Thing, then you have sown the seeds of doubt in the minds of the audience. You might argue, I didn’t know it wasn’t true, I just wanted to see justice being done. What, people got upset by what I wrote? I didn’t know that would happen.

This is precisely the sort of annoying thing I have to face on social media almost every day. Somebody re-posts or retweets a rumour en masse to others with two button clicks and when you ask them why didn’t they just check it first, they shrug and say, “I just wanted people to know – just in case”.

(That’s really what we should have a law against: Indiscriminate and irresponsible retweets. The penalty would be to copy pages of Wikipedia by hand for the local library.)

But the thing is, it should be hard to put somebody in jail.

The system of justice we have now focuses on the presumption of innocence. In other words, people have to gather evidence and prove to the court that you are guilty. And people should be entitled to the best possible defence, and saying I am normally a good person who does good things should be taken into account.

Intent matters. The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent. Intent is the bedrock of whether we are kind to others because we want everyone to thrive, or because we want to later take advantage of them.

If we want to be able to prosecute people for saying hateful things that disturb society, you must show intent. Either make clear the context or show a pattern of previous behaviour. It’s the difference between an Internet troll and Karpal Singh.

The Sedition Act, in a way, does try to at least cover situations where you are trying to right a perceived wrong in society. But in a case like when artist Zunar (Zulkiflee Anwar Haque) drew cartoons making fun of alleged crimes in the previous government, it is clear there is still much leeway for interpretation there.

The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them. It’s an opportunity for the truth to shine instead of hiding out.

There are many who blame the PH government for being hypocritical for not keeping its election promise and maintaining the Sedition Act. I don’t disagree.

But the fact is that Dr Mahathir touched on the two things that perhaps could potentially make the Act fairer. He said it is OK if we told the truth. And it is OK if we want to stop injustice.

And I can’t think of why any Malaysian wouldn’t want to do both.

The facts do matter. In this world where politicians more than anyone seem to believe they can skate by on allegations, people who say horrible things should be forced to stand by their words and prove them.

Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi’s theory is that people need both to make sense of life’s vagaries and contradictions. Write to Dzof at star2@thestar.com.my.

Related:

Contradictheory: The Truth About History Depends On Context

Sunday 25 November 2018

ICERD: An universal pact against racial discrimination, to ratify or not to ratify no longer the question



Just look at the world today.:

MYANMAR, South Sudan, North Korea, Vanuatu... What do these countries have in common with Malaysia?

Yes, they all have not signed or ratified the United Nation’s International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

Malaysia is currently one of 14 countries in the world that have not recognised or signed the UN treaty.

The other countries in this exclusive club include the Cook Islands, the federated states of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Niue and Tuvalu.

Out of 197 countries, 179 countries have ratified or acceded to the ICERD. Four countries – Angola, Bhutan, Nauru and Palau – have signed the ICERD but not ratified it.

The treaty was first mooted in the early 1960s in response to the growing racial discrimination and religious intolerance in the world.

In 1965, the ICERD was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly, with one abstention. The Convention came into force in 1969.

Malaysia and Brunei are the only Islamic-majority countries that have not signed ICERD. All 22 states of the Arab League, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Indonesia, among others, have signed and ratified the treaty.

However, many countries only agreed to be bound by ICERD with certain reservations.

Reservations to parts of ICERD are allowed as long as they are not “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the treaty. Even the US has made a reservation: it does not accept any part of the Convention that would oblige it to criminalise hate speech.

Many – including China, India and Thailand – do not accept a provision that allows national ICERD disputes to be referred to the International Court of Justice. Singapore, which only ratified ICERD in November 2017, reserves the right to apply its own policies on foreign workers, “with a view to promoting integration and maintaining cohesion within its racially diverse society”.

Most of the Islamic states that have ratified ICERD state that they will not recognise or establish relations with Israel.

Saudi Arabia is the sole Islamic state that has a reservation that it will only implement the ICERD provisions that do not conflict with the Islamic Syariah.

Tonga and Fiji reserve the right on indigenous citizens’ land. In fact, many countries that have ratified the ICERD have affirmative action policies to ensure marginalised and indigenous groups are given some privileges to help them move up the social and economic ladder.

This is clearly stated in the treaty: state parties are allowed, “when the circumstances so warrant”... to use “positive discrimination policies” for specific racial groups to guarantee “the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

And while the treaty obliges signatories to “pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms”, some have questioned its effectiveness in eliminating racism and hate crime.

To ratify or not to ratify no longer the question

But the ICERD remains a tempest in a political teapot, and so the discussion on the UN Convention must continue in Malaysia, a nation at the crossroads.


https://youtu.be/8yPfmIlpWq8

A NUMBER of individuals and groups denounced the proposal to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) on the ground that it will destroy Malay rights, weaken the position of Islam and erode the power of the Malay Rulers.

Most of the criticisms have no legal basis. However, as hate and fear are potent weapons in politics, the perpetrators have succeeded in polarising society and raising the spectre of violence. The Prime Minister has, therefore, strategically retracted the proposal to ratify.

The debate on this UN Convention will, however, continue and this necessitates a brief discussion of the Federal Constitution and the ICERD.

Equality

The Constitution in Articles 5-13 protects many human rights and these are available irrespective of race. Article 8(1) declares that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. Article 8(2) states that except as expressly authorised, there shall be no discrimination on the ground of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender.

Many other Articles explicitly forbid racial discrimination. Among them are Article 12(1) relating to education and Article 136 regarding impartial treatment of federal employees.

Citizenship (Articles 14-22); the electoral process; membership of Parliament; and positions in the Cabinet, public services, judiciary and the constitutional commissions are all free of racial differentiation.

Permissible exceptions: To the general rule of racial equality, a number of exceptions are explicitly provided. Foremost are protection for the aborigines (Article 8), Malay Regiment (Article 8), Malay Reserves (Article 89) and special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (Article 153). These preferential provisions are not based on the idea of racial superiority or exclusiveness but on a mixture of historical realities and the impulses of affirmative action. Their primary purpose is to engineer society through the law and to ensure that those left behind in socioeconomic development are able to catch up with the others.

Article 153’s provisions have much in common with India’s special provisions for the Scheduled Castes. Like in India, Article 153 provisions are hedged in by clear limits. For example, Article 153’s quotas do not apply across the board but only in four areas: positions in the public service; scholarships and educational and training facilities; licences and permits; and post-secondary education.

It is also notable that Article 153 enjoins the King to safeguard the “legitimate interests of other communities”.

Likewise, Article 89(2) requires that where land is reserved for Malays, an equal area shall be made available for general alienation.

ICERD

This piece of international law takes a strong stand against apartheid, segregation, discrimination and racial superiority. However, it recognises the need for affirmative action. It acknowledges the need to rectify historical injustices and to enrich formal equality with functional and substantive equality. Articles 1(4) and 2(2) of ICERD permit “special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection”.

This is quite in line with Articles 89 and 153 of Malaysia’s Constitution. However, the ICERD seeks to set limits on the duration for affirmative action. The measures “shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved”.

This has riled up the ICERD critics because Articles 153 and 89 contain no time limits. It is submitted that for all practical purposes the differences between Article 153 and ICERD are insignificant. ICERD opposes “eternity clauses” but imposes no time limit. Article 153 imposes no time limit but is capable of amendment subject to the special procedures of Articles 159(5) and 38(4) – two-thirds majority plus the consent of the Conference of Rulers and the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak.

ICERD in Article 20 allows nations to ratify it with reservations. For example, the United States adopted ICERD but objected to any provision in the Convention that breached the US Constitution. Malaysia can do the same and indeed has done so in a number of situations.

We adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 in section 4(4) of our Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 but subjected it to our Federal Constitution. We adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) but subjected it to our Constitution’s Article 8(5) which exempts personal laws from the Constitution’s gilt-edged provisions for gender equality.

ICERD and Islam

To bolster their opposition to the ICERD, its critics are claiming, amazingly, that ICERD will weaken the position of Islam. To give this claim any credibility requires a willing suspension of disbelief. The ICERD is against racial discrimination and does not address itself to official religions or secularism or theocracy. In any case, Islam promotes racial equality. The ICERD has been ratified by 179 nations, of which 48 are Muslim nations. Out of 50 Muslim countries, only Malaysia and Brunei are non-signatories.

ICERD and Malay Rulers

The ICERD is not anti-monarchial and in no way affects the honours and dignities of the 27 monarchies existing in the world today, six of whom are absolute monarchies.

International law is not law


Even if ratified by the executive, ICERD cannot displace Article 3 (Islam), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and natives) and Article 181 (prerogatives of Malay Rulers). This is due to the legal fact that our concept of “law” is defined narrowly in ArticIe 160(2) and does not include international law.

The constitutional position on the ICERD is, therefore, this: Even if the ICERD is ratified by the executive, it is not law unless incorporated into a parliamentary Act. Even if so legislated, it is subject to the supreme Constitution’s Articles 3, 153 and 181. Unless these Articles are amended by a special two-thirds majority and the consent of the Conference of Rulers and the Governors of Sabah and Sarawak, the existing constitutional provisions remain in operation.

The ICERD is not a law but only a pole star for action. Its ideals cannot invalidate national laws. The agitation against it is contrived for political purposes and perceptive Malaysians must not allow themselves to be exploited by politicians.

By Shad Saleem Faruqi

Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is a holder of the Tunku Abdul Rahman Chair at Universiti Malaya.

Thursday 6 July 2017

Hardwired for global hegemony - American freedom and democracy


Hardwired for global hegemony - American democracy has become subverted by the rise of many hegemonic groups acting behind the scenes.


FOURTH of July was the 241st anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. On that historic day in 1776, 13 British colonies in North America cut their links with their oppressor and proclaimed themselves to be the independent, sovereign United States of America.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence contains some of the most stirring words ever penned in a political or legal document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The eloquence of this passage distils the moral idealism of the forefathers of America’s independence and their vision and aspiration for the then new nation.

Indeed, in the decades that followed, the Declaration inspired many other similar documents around the world, including the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Abraham Lincoln referred to the Declaration in his quest to abolish slavery in the US.

Till today, students of public law around the world look with admiration to the American Constitution’s safeguards for liberty, its protection against state despotism and its vibrant provisions for check and balance of power.

Sadly, however, a wide chasm between theory and reality is discernible. Even in its pioneering years the “land of liberty” violated its lofty ideals.

The US expanded across North America by slaughtering the Native American population. “How the West was won” is a story penned with the blood of indigenous people.

The US wrested Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, part of Colorado and Utah from Mexico. Though professing anti-colonialism, it acquired a few colonies abroad.

Friends of America note with sadness that after World War II, the use of brute military force and “American exceptionalism” have become very pronounced.

In 2015, the US spent US$598.5bil (RM2.6 trillion) on defence, even though it is not threatened by any enemies. It maintains 800 military bases in more than 70 countries around the world.

It is the chief manufacturer and seller of weapons of mass destruction and often uses proxies to sell murderous weapons to both warring sides.

A nation born in liberty has metamorphosed into a nation with an insatiable addiction to war and the ethos of a garrison state. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Mesopotamia, America remains in constant war to pursue its hegemonic and strategic interests.

William Blum, a historian and US foreign policy critic, has calculated that since World War II the US has nuked, bombed or been militarily involved in 31 countries and has directly or indirectly killed or maimed between 15 and 20 million people, 90% of whom were innocent civilians. Pentagon records their extermination as “collateral damage”.

Nations in Asia that have suffered devastation at American hands are Afghanistan (1998 to the present), Pakistan (2003, 2006 to the present), Japan (1945), Cambodia (1969-70), Vietnam (1961-73), Laos (1964-73), China (1945-6), Korea (1950-53) and Indonesia (1958).

In the Middle East, victims of America’s “deadly export of democracy” are Iraq (1991 to the present), Iran (1987 and 2003), Kuwait (1991), Lebanon (1983-84), Syria (1983-84, 2014 to the present), Palestine (2010) and Yemen (2003, 2009, 2011 to the present).

In Africa, the US has intervened militarily in Libya (1986, 2011, 2015 to the present), Congo (1964), Sudan (1998) and Somalia (1993, 2001-8 and 2010).

In Latin America, the US has imposed its military will on Cuba (1959-61), El Salvador (1980s), Guatemala (1954, 60, 67-69), Grenada (1983), Nicaragua (1980s), Peru (1965) and Panama (1989).

Europe has not been spared. Bosnia in 1994 and 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999 were mercilessly bombed.

What is notable is that most of the targets are people of colour, those of the Third World or Muslims. It is not just a coincidence that all the nations being bombed by the USA today happen to be Muslim.

In addition to direct military attacks, the US wages proxy wars around the world. In Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), Egypt (2013) and Ukraine (2014) the US armed rebels and hired mercenaries to subvert and overthrow governments that refused to tow its line.

Contrary to what Americans believe, the United States is one of the greatest destabilising forces in the world today. It is also the chief diplomatic, military and financial backer of the seven-decade-old genocide in Palestine.

To assert its impunity and sense of exceptionalism it has done such outrageous things as shooting down an Iranian civilian plane in 1988 (when a US Navy ship reportedly mistook the Airbus A300 for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet), killing all 290 on board. In 1999, it bombed the embassy of China in Belgrade. US officials later claimed it was an error.

Ever since 9/11, it runs offshore torture camps. It arms and finances terrorist groups with a view to destabilising governments it does not like.

It rejects or unsigns international treaties like the Ottawa Convention (the Mine Ban Treaty); the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

All friends of America wonder why a nation so steeped in democracy and liberty has metamorphosed into such a war-mongering hegemon. The issue requires a separate and fuller examination.

What can be summarised is that American democracy has become subverted by the rise of many behind-the-scenes, hegemonic groups which have acquired such a stranglehold on foreign, financial and military policy that even the President and the Congress cannot defy them.

The CIA operatives, the foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex, the arms manufacturers, the oil barons, the gun lobby, the media, the Zionist pressure groups and the major banks constitute a parallel “deep state” that runs America.

This deep state has a vested interest in the manufacture and sale of horrendous weapons, the waging of continuous wars, the destabilisation of unfriendly regions, the control of oil supplies and the maintenance of existing trade mechanisms.

The power of the Constitution, the Congress and the President is more symbolic than real. The American electorate is either unaware or benumbed. Only if it learns more about this sad reality can any change be accomplished.

Reflecting On The Law Shad Saleem Faruqi

Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Tunku Abdul Rahman Professor of Law at Universiti Malaya. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Related Links:

Restoring judicial clout

Grand inquest of the nation

Strengthening separation of powers 

Discretionary powers of the King

Reaffirming Constitutional supremacy 

Is there a tyranny-terror link?

Exceptions to double jeopardy protection

Honouring our nation’s architect and architecture


Related Posts

Malaysia is a Secular state or an Islamic country? 

Double standards on Ukraine and Crimea 

Freedom & hate speech hypocrisy 

Why not abolishing wars, seeking peace in the 70 years after WW2 & inception of the UN? 

US-Syria drums of war — a familiar beat 

New thinking on human rights & cooperation 

Malaysia world's No.1 highest civil servants-to-population ratio! Its tenure of service legally vulnerable but notoriously difficult to dismiss! 


Prized job: While long-term security like the pension scheme free healthcare and easy loans have been among the perks of joining the ... 

Bloated civil sevice in Malaysia must cut down the size and salaries 


Call on the Government to downsize the country’s bloated civil service


Ministers may face conflict of interest, says Tunku Abdul Aziz:  "If you have no power, you cannot abuse it. Civil servants hav..