Discussing on human rights can sometime be endless. Every individual has their own views and interpretations of one's right. The onerous is, how to conclude as to whether human rights had been breached. A more circumspect actions should be in placed and to genuinely assess the infraction.
Probably there are guidelines but to rigidly observed, it may not be seen as appropriate or will be less prudent to conclude the rights had been denied.
Taking the tumult caused in Perak. What precipitated the situation? Was Barisan Nasional actually robbed the government of Perak from Pakatan Rakyat? What evidential materials has Pakatan Rakyat produced ito that effect? Was it not strikingly odd or strange for pakatan members not to be warned or sensed of any defection? How in the world pakatan is going to rule a state or for that matter a country if they failed to tap the only31 elected representatives' allegiance? What sort of competency we are talking about, as far as Perak scenario in question?
In the name of justness, suhakam should have had evaluated the fracas meticulously, as to be seen and accepted as one impartial and reliable contentions. There are more simpler and honourable avenues to resolve the turmoils but with conditions, all self interest be discarded by the interested parties.
Is dissolution to Perak State Assembly and conduct a new election is the only solution and perceived parallel to human rights? How about those who despised a new election, and felt that there are other more honourable avenues yet to be explored (apart from going to court)? Don't this group too need their rights to be protected?
Probably there are guidelines but to rigidly observed, it may not be seen as appropriate or will be less prudent to conclude the rights had been denied.
Taking the tumult caused in Perak. What precipitated the situation? Was Barisan Nasional actually robbed the government of Perak from Pakatan Rakyat? What evidential materials has Pakatan Rakyat produced ito that effect? Was it not strikingly odd or strange for pakatan members not to be warned or sensed of any defection? How in the world pakatan is going to rule a state or for that matter a country if they failed to tap the only31 elected representatives' allegiance? What sort of competency we are talking about, as far as Perak scenario in question?
In the name of justness, suhakam should have had evaluated the fracas meticulously, as to be seen and accepted as one impartial and reliable contentions. There are more simpler and honourable avenues to resolve the turmoils but with conditions, all self interest be discarded by the interested parties.
Is dissolution to Perak State Assembly and conduct a new election is the only solution and perceived parallel to human rights? How about those who despised a new election, and felt that there are other more honourable avenues yet to be explored (apart from going to court)? Don't this group too need their rights to be protected?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment