sabahlaw

I was reading the translation of Han fei’s work at

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=xwomen/texts/hanfei.xml&style=xwomen/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&doc.view=tocc&chunk.id=tpage&toc.depth=1&toc.id=0&doc.lang=bilingual

and in one of the chapters – Chapter XLIX. Five Vermin: A Pathological Analysis of Politic, he had this to say (as translated):

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=xwomen/texts/hanfei.xml&style=xwomen/xsl/dynaxml.xsl&chunk.id=d2.49&toc.depth=1&toc.id=0&doc.lang=bilingual

In olden times, men did not need to till, for the seeds of grass and the fruits of trees were sufficient to feed them; nor did women have to weave, for the skins of birds and beasts were sufficient to clothe them. Thus, without working hard, they had an abundance of supply. As the people were few, their possessions were more than sufficient.

Therefore the people never quarrelled. As a result, neither large rewards were bestowed nor were heavy punishments employed, but the people governed themselves. Nowadays, however, people do not regard five children as many. Each child may in his or her turn beget five offspring, so that before the death of the grandfather there may be twenty-five grand-children. As a result, people have become numerous and supplies scanty; toil has
become hard and provisions meager. Therefore people quarrel so much that, though rewards are doubled and punishments repeated, disorder is inevitable.

In my opinion, this runs counter to prevailing policy to increase population particularly in countries like Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, EU etc where younger generations are needed to support the aged who are not only living longer but healtier. Even China which introduced one child policy is now having a second look as it turn inwards to find economic support in the domestic market. However, recently there has been a shift to ’sustainable’ population whatever that means in Australia is yet to be understood. Singapore has suggested a 6 mio as sustainable for its city state nation. So my opinion is whether there is any supporting evidence to show a double of popuplation will lead proportionally to double the disorder ? I am looking at how to measure ‘disorder’ in by linking to financial market turmoils, incidents of crimes, exhaustion of resources and movement of population ? There may be more variables ?

And there is this passage may shed some insights into present day (see the last vermin):

For such reasons, it is a common trait of the disorderly state that its learned men adore the ways of the early kings by pretending to benevolence and righteousness and adorn their manners and clothes and gild their eloquent speeches so as to cast doubts on the law of the present age and thereby beguile the mind of the lord of men; that its itinerant speakers 45 advocate deceptive theories and utilize foreign influence to accomplish their self-seeking
purposes at the expense of their Altar of the Spirits of Land and Grain; that wearers of private swords gather pupils and dependents and set up standards of self-discipline and fidelity with a view to cultivating their fame but thereby violate the interdicts of the Five Ministries 46 ; that the courtiers 47 assemble inside the gates of private residences,
use all kinds of bribes, and rely on influential men’s access to the sovereign in order to escape the burden of military service; and that the tradesmen and craftsmen disguise worthless, broken articles as proper goods, collect useless luxuries, accumulate riches, wait for good opportunities, and exploit the farmers. These five types of men are the
vermin of the state.

CK

I notice that it is common to see X-examiner trying to x-examine the content of documents produced by another. This is impermissible as the document is yet to be tendered and therefore hearsay. Even assuming the document is tendered (as an exhibit by another) there is a long standing case (in criminal law) that one should not x-examine the witness on the document by third party. The case is R v Windass (1989) 89 Cr App R 258).

The relevant passages :

After about a page-and-a-half of that cross-examination, the judge finally intervenes and says: “Mr. Windass, may I suggest before this trial gets any more complicated that you confine yourself to answering questions put to you. A. Yes, Sir.” Then Mr. Stevenson rises to his feet for the appellant and says: “May I respectfully suggest my learned friend does not press the witness, though, any further as regards what was in someone else’s mind.” The witness latches on to that quickly and says “That’s right.” Mr. Stevenson continues, “Particularly in the light of your Honour’s ruling about the basis upon which that diary went in evidence in the first place.” That, in the judgment of this Court, was a very proper intervention; it was perhaps an inter-vention which might have been made earlier and might have been made in more forceful terms, but nevertheless, there it is. Judge Walker says, “Mr. Moore, I am sure, will exercise his own discretion.” But Mr. Moore continues to ask the witness what is meant by Miss Findlay’s observations.

Very shortly after that, not only does Mr. Moore for the prosecution hold the diary in his hand, but if one turns to p. 2, we find the jury being given cop-ies of the exhibit to hold in their hands whilst this witness is being cross-examined on the subject of the document.

It seems to us that there are two objections which should properly be made to that line of cross-examination. First of all it is quite improper to ask a witness to explain what a third party means by a document written by that third party. No doubt if this witness had been more experienced, he would have said that that was impossible, but then he would have run the risk of being thought to be too clever. As it was, he found himself in the position of trying to explain to the jury what a *263 third party meant by a document written by that third party without his collaboration.

A copy of the case www.loansyndicate.com/windass.pdf

Moreover, it is common for counsel to ask the witness (during cross-examination) about what another witness has said. For example, the question will be something like this – Witness A, you may be aware that Witness X was in court yesterday and he said that XXXXXXXXX. What do you say to this ? agree or not.

This type of question is also impermissible according to R v Foley [2000] 1 Qd R 290 at 297, where the Court of Appeal said:

“The resort by counsel to questions which invite a witness to answer by reference to comment on the truthfulness of other witnesses is to be deprecated. On a level of professional practice, it is regarded as ‘not a proper question’. The error, however, goes beyond one of professional practice; such questions are actually inadmissible. The literal object of such a question is to obtain an opinion whether someone else is a liar, and that of course is not an issue in the case or a matter for any other witness to express an opinion, it is a matter for the judge or jury. It is also unfair, because it forces the honest witness into a recrimination and seeks to rely upon the natural reluctance of a person to defame another. It is also a form of bullying, using unfair means to persuade a person to retract his or her evidence. Such evidence is inadmissible and we agree…that they are improper.”

A copy can be found – http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/1998/QCA98-225.pdf

Lastly I should mentioned about ALISTER AND OTHERS v. THE QUEEN [1984] HCA 85; (1984) 154 CLR 404 – (AKA – Hilton bombing case) a High Court Case (Australia) referring WILSON AND DAWSON JJ at para 29.

29. Specific complaint was made in pursuing this ground of the applications that, in the course of the cross-examination, questions were asked about parts of documents which were not in evidence and which were not put in evidence. The parts of the documents which were read suggested, it was said, that the Ananda Marga was revolutionary in its aims. In so far as the accused to whom such a document was put was the author of the document in question, there was no requirement that the document be put in evidence: see Evidence Act 1898 (N.S.W.), s. 55. In so far as the accused was not the author of the document, it was impermissible to ask questions about its contents without observing the rule in The Queen’s Case: [1820] EngR 563; (1820) 2 Brod & B 284 (129 ER 976) see Darby v. Ousley. [1856] EngR 390; (1856) 1 H & N 1 (156 ER 1093) Most, if not all, of the documents of this type upon which the impugned cross-examination was based would appear to have been inadmissible and, in so far as that was so, the proper course under the rule in The Queen’s Case was to ask the accused to look at the document without identifying it and to ask whether he adhered to his previous evidence: R. v. Orton; (1922) VLR 469, at pp 470-471 Birchall v. Bullough; (1896) 1 QB 325, at p 326 R. v. Seham Yousry. (1914) 11 Cr App R 13 If any of the documents of which the witness was not the author were admissible they should have been tendered in evidence under the rule. Neither course was adopted. However, no objection was taken at the trial to this aspect of the cross-examination nor was any direction sought in relation to it. The Crown failed to obtain the answers which it sought and there is no real basis upon which it can be said that the accused suffered any prejudice by reason of the adoption of this improper mode of cross-examination. (at p443)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/85.html

Sorry for the long delay – was in Sydney and later in Brisbane for the last 4 months. What was I doing there ? Self-improvement. I attended the advocacy course and found it very helpful. In particular, it is about style and how one can do the same – as one commenter put it – when it comes to cross-examination it is not examining the witness crossly. And only when one see the advocate in action, then one can appreciate the skills that goes into that examination. In the past, I thought that (the short cut) of using affidavits or witness statements in lieu of examination in chief is a great idea. But after this course, I believe that it is not in the best interest of justice as the hardest part is actually in examination in chief. One may get away with leading questions but this does not assist the witness as the Judge will place less weight. So is the same as a well drafted affidavit which does not reflect the witness at all. More later.

This was a letter that has been posted around the net for a while by a Malaysian Woman – the issues are well known to malaysian chinese but again those who come as tourists seldom want or seem to know.

A Malaysian diaspora speaks up….

I am a female Chinese Malaysian, living in the Washington DC area in the United States . I have read many of the letters that often talk about foreign countries when the writers have no real knowledge of actually living in those countries.
Many draw conclusions about what those countries are like after hearing it from someone else or by reading and hearing about them in the media or after four years in a college town in those countries.

I finished STPM with outstanding results from the prestigious St George’s Girls School in Penang . Did I get a university place from the Malaysian government? Nothing.. With near perfect scores, I had nothing, while my Malay friends were getting offers to go overseas.

Even those with 2As got into university. I was so depressed. I was my parent’s last hope for getting the family out of poverty and at 18, I thought I had failed my parents.

Today, I understand it was the Malaysian Government that had failed me and my family because of its iscriminatory policies.

Fortunately, I did not give up and immediately did research at the Malaysian American Commission on Education Exchange (MACEE) to find a university in the US that would accept me and provide all the finances. My family and friends thought I was crazy, being the youngest of nine children of a very poor carpenter. Anything that required a fee was out of our reach.

Based on merit and my extracurricular activities of community service in secondary school, I received full tuition scholarship, work study, and grants to cover the four years at a highly competitive US university.

Often, I took 21 credits each semester, 15 credits each term while working 20 hours each week and maintaining a 3.5 CGPA. A couple of semesters, I also received division scholarships and worked as a TA (teaching assistant) on top of everything else.

For the work study, I worked as a custodian (yes, cleaning toilets), carpet layer, computer lab assistant, grounds keeping, librarian, painter, tour guide, etc. If you understand the US credit system, you will understand this is a heavy load.

Why did I do it? This is because I learnt as a young child from my parents that hard work is an opportunity, to give my best in everything, and to take pride in the work I do. I walked away with a double major and a minor with honours but most of all a great lesson in humility and a great respect for those who are forced to labour in so-called `blue collar’ positions.

Those of you who think you know all about Australia , US, or the West, think again. Unless you have really lived in these countries, i.e. paid a mortgage, paid taxes, taken part in elections, you do not understand the level of commitment and hard work it takes to be successful in these countries, not just for immigrants but for people who have lived here for generations.

These people are where they are today because of hard work. (Of course, I am not saying everyone in the US is hardworking… There is always the lazy lot which lives off of someone else’s hard work. Fortunately, they are the minority..)

Every single person, anywhere, should have the opportunity to succeed if they want to put in the effort and be accountable for their own actions. In the end, they should be able to reap what they sow.

It is bearable that opportunities are limited depending on how well-off financially one’s family is but when higher education opportunities are race-based, like it is in Malaysia ; it is downright cruel for those who see education as the only way out of poverty.

If you want to say discrimination is here in the US , yes, of course it is. Can you name a country where it doesn’t happen? But let me tell you one thing – if you go looking for it, you will find it. But in Malaysia , you don’t have to go look for it because it seeks you out, slaps you in your face every which way you turn, and is sanctioned by law!

Here in the US , my children have the same opportunity to go to school and learn just like their black, white, and immigrant friends. At school, they eat the same food, play the same games, are taught the same classes and when they are 18, they will still have the same opportunities. would I want to bring my children back to Malaysia ? So they can suffer the state-sanctioned discrimination as the non-malays have for over 50 years?
The injustice the non-Malay have to suffer in frightening silence is the most damaging problem one has to face throughout one’s life. You just have to look at the mighty govt structures which completely favours only one race, the Umno Malay. The Chinese and Indians are treated no better than the illegal Indonesians.

Racism and corruption are openly practised by the Malay politicians everywhere, Courts, schools/Uni, police, govt offices, contracts, GLC, NEP, ISA, local govt. It’s so powerful and intimidating that you walk with fear and keep your mouth shut on anything and everything political. Religion is taboo unless you talk good about Islam. As for being a slave in the foreign country, I am a happy ’slave’ earning a good income as an IT project manager.

I work five days a week; can talk bad about the president when I want to; argue about politics, race and religion openly; gather with more than 50 friends and family when I want (no permit needed) and I don’t worry about the police pulling me over because they say I ran the light when I didn’t.

Have we seen the light at the end of the tunnel yet (Anwar Ibrahim)?

Or is it the head light of an oncoming Umno train ?

Lets hope its the former for the sake of all fair minded Malaysians.

The dream of a Malaysian ‘race’ in the future is nowhere in sight with the present BN govt.

Where is Negara-Ku???

I got this from a friend of mine and I believe (personally) this is something that many foreigners (non-malaysian) may not know about…

What the Chinese want

Sun, 02 May 2010 10:10

By Kee Thuan Chye

COMMENT Every time the Barisan Nasional gets less than the expected support from Chinese voters at an election, the question invariably pops up among the petty-minded: Why are the Chinese ungrateful?

So now, after the Hulu Selangor by-election, it’s not surprising to read in Utusan Malaysia a piece that asks: “Orang Cina Malaysia, apa
lagi yang anda mahu?” (Chinese of Malaysia, what more do you want?)

Normally, something intentionally provocative and propagandistic as
this doesn’t deserve to be honoured with a reply. But even though I’m
fed up of such disruptive and ethnocentric polemics, this time I feel
obliged to reply – partly because the article has also been published,
in an English translation, in the Straits Times of Singapore.

I wish to emphasise here that I am replying not as a Chinese Malaysian
but, simply, as a Malaysian.

Let me say at the outset that the Chinese have got nothing more than
what any citizen should get. So to ask “what more” it is they want, is
misguided. A correct question would be “What do the Chinese want?”

All our lives, we Chinese have held to the belief that no one owes us
a living. We have to work for it. Most of us have got where we are by
the sweat of our brow, not by handouts or the policies of the
government.

We have come to expect nothing – not awards, not accolades, not gifts
from official sources. (Let’s not lump in Datukships, that’s a
different ball game.) We know that no Chinese who writes in the
Chinese language will ever be bestowed the title of Sasterawan Negara,
unlike in Singapore where the literatures of all the main language
streams are recognised and honoured with the Cultural Medallion, etc.

We have learned we can’t expect the government to grant us
scholarships. Some will get those, but countless others won’t. We’ve
learned to live with that and to work extra hard in order to support
our children to attain higher education – because education is very
important to us. We experience a lot of daily pressure to achieve
that. Unfortunately, not many non-Chinese realise or understand that.
In fact, many Chinese had no choice but to emigrate for the sake of
their children’s further education. Or to accept scholarships from
abroad, many from Singapore, which has inevitably led to a brain
drain.

The writer of the Utusan article says the Chinese “account for most of
the students” enrolled in “the best private colleges in Malaysia”.
Even so, the Chinese still have to pay a lot of money to have their
children study in these colleges. And to earn that money, the parents
have to work very hard. The money does not fall from the sky.

The writer goes on to add: “The Malays can gain admission into only
government-owned colleges of ordinary reputation.” That is utter
nonsense. Some of these colleges are meant for the cream of the Malay
crop of students and are endowed with the best facilities. They are
given elite treatment.

The writer also fails to acknowledge that the Chinese are barred from
being admitted to some of these colleges. As a result, the Chinese are
forced to pay more money to go to private colleges. Furthermore, the
Malays are also welcome to enrol in the private colleges, and many of
them do. It’s, after all, a free enterprise.

Plain and simple reason

The writer claims that the Chinese live “in the lap of luxury” and
lead lives that are “more than ordinary” whereas the Malays in
Singapore, their minority-race counterparts there, lead “ordinary
lives”. Such sweeping statements sound inane especially when they are
not backed up by definitions of “lap of luxury” and “ordinary lives”.
They sound hysterical, if not hilarious as well, when they are not
backed up by evidence. It’s surprising that a national daily like
Utusan Malaysia would publish something as idiosyncratic as that. And
the Straits Times too.

The writer quotes from a survey that said eight of the 10 richest
people in Malaysia are Chinese. Well, if these people are where they
are, it must have also come from hard work and prudent business sense.
Is that something to be faulted?

If the writer had said that some of them achieved greater wealth
through being given crony privileges and lucrative contracts by the
government, there might be a point, but even then, it would still take
hard work and business acumen to secure success. Certainly, Syed
Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, who is one of the 10, would take exception if it
were said that he has not worked hard and lacks business savvy.

Most important, it should be noted that the eight Chinese tycoons
mentioned in the survey represent but a minuscule percentage of the
wider Chinese Malaysian population. To extrapolate that because eight
Chinese are filthy rich, the rest of the Chinese must therefore live
in the lap of luxury and lead more than ordinary lives would be a
mockery of the truth. The writer has obviously not met the vast
numbers of very poor Chinese.

The crux of the writer’s article is that the Chinese are not grateful
to the government by not voting for Barisan Nasional at the Hulu
Selangor by-election. But this demonstrates the thinking of either a
simple mind or a closed one.

Why did the Chinese by and large not vote for BN? Because it’s
corrupt. Plain and simple. Let’s call a spade a spade. And BN showed
how corrupt it was during the campaign by throwing bribes to the
electorate, including promising RM3 million to the Chinese school in
Rasa.

The Chinese were not alone in seeing this corruption. The figures are
unofficial but one could assume that at least 40 per cent of Malays
and 45 per cent of Indians who voted against BN in that by-election
also had their eyes open.

So, what’s wrong with not supporting a government that is corrupt? If
the government is corrupt, do we continue to support it?

To answer the question then, what do the Chinese want? They want a
government that is not corrupt; that can govern well and proves to
have done so; that tells the truth rather than lies; that follows the
rule of law; that upholds rather than abuses the country’s sacred
institutions. BN does not fit that description, so the Chinese don’t
vote for it. This is not what only the Chinese want. It is something
every sensible Malaysian, regardless of race, wants. Is that something
that is too difficult to understand?

Some people think that the government is to be equated with the
country, and therefore if someone does not support the government,
they are being disloyal to the country. This is a complete fallacy. BN
is not Malaysia. It is merely a political coalition that is the
government of the day. Rejecting BN is not rejecting the country.

A sense of belonging

Let’s be clear about this important distinction. In America, the
people sometimes vote for the Democrats and sometimes for the
Republicans. Voting against the one that is in government at the time
is not considered disloyalty to the country.
By the same token, voting against Umno is also voting against a party,
not against a race. And if the Chinese or whoever criticise Umno, they
are criticising the party; they are not criticising Malays. It just
happens that Umno’s leaders are Malay.

It is time all Malaysians realised this so that we can once and for
all dispel the confusion. Let us no more confuse country with
government. We can love our country and at the same time hate the
government. It is perfectly all right.

I should add here what the Chinese don’t want. We don’t want to be
insulted, to be called pendatang, or told to be grateful for our
citizenship. We have been loyal citizens; we duly and dutifully pay
taxes; we respect the country’s constitution and its institutions. Our
forefathers came to this country generations ago and helped it to
prosper. We are continuing to contribute to the country’s growth and
development.

Would anyone like to be disparaged, made to feel unwelcome, unwanted?
For the benefit of the writer of the Utusan article, what MCA
president Chua Soi Lek means when he says the MCA needs to be more
vocal is that it needs to speak up whenever the Chinese community is
disparaged. For too long, the MCA has not spoken up strongly enough
when Umno politicians and associates like Ahmad Ismail, Nasir Safar,
Ahmad Noh and others before them insulted the Chinese and made them
feel like they don’t belong. That’s why the Chinese have largely
rejected the MCA.

You see, the Chinese, like all human beings, want self-respect. And a
sense of belonging in this country they call home. That is all the
Chinese want, and have always wanted. Nothing more.

The Utusan Malaysia article:

Orang Cina Malaysia, apa lagi yang anda mahu?

Here I am in Sydney on a Thursday night (after dinner) and chance upon the news on 27 April 2010 in the dailytelegraph.com.au at page 9 with the following headings “High Boat Burden” and “Mothers day is a labour of lots of love”. Firstly, I am mindful that what I am about to say may be seen in a negative way. I always believe there are two sides of the coin anyway. The first is the High Boat Burden by Alison Rehn apparently about the high cost of AUD82,000 a head to maintain a refugee coming out of the taxpayer, although the first part of the story was about whether John Howard or Kelvin Rudd has the highest number of arrivals. The last sentence in this story is how Malaysian Police stopped 75 Sri Lankans going to Australia. The issue here is one of costs. If the Australian public considered it is too costly then maybe it is time to reconsidered Australia’s stance on refugees (ie by pulling out of the Convention). There is no shame there. Alternatively, find ways to reduce the source, even creative ways rather than considering where to put them up once they are enroute to Australia. Of my head, arrange for bounties for fishermen around Indonesia or Malaysia. Set up a hot-line or mobile number they can call once they spot these boats. They are far better than the high-tech satellites. Provide funding in the country of source to improve their system, say by providing loans to rebuilt their lives or even scholarships for the deserving. Frankly, I don’t think refugees are to be blamed. If their countries are in a mess and their lives are threatened then they have to leave, surely. The issue here is where the host country mounts difficult administrative procedures such that those who want to leave have to do so by unconventional means…which ultimately adds to the costs. For example, how much more cheaper would it be to have the same facility (as in christmas island) installed/operated by local staff in Sri-Lanka ? (remember an American leased bay in Cuba ?)

All said, the next story is even more interesting where an Australian mother with 7 kids was highlighted. Poor thing, the woman has to wake up at 7am and not finished until 9pm (being a full time housewife). I am sorry to say that Australia being a developed country is failing in helping its women folks. For example, in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, their women folks have maids to help them. It is not a luxury. So why can’t Australian women have the same ? It is an irony, where the first story deals with high costs of refugees and the second one shows an exhausted mom being included as a celebrity of mother’s day. If anything this mother day is to be celebrated, the politicians could consider allowing maids visa. The community will also benefit as mothers will be happier leaving their kids with someone they can trust and off to work. Obviously, those lessons learned in Singapore/HongKong about maids should not be swept aside and taken seriously to avoid the same.

If one can combine the two, wow can we ask for some of female refugees to be processed and issued with maid’s visa ? Better still, why don’t we go recruit maids in those countries where refugees may be coming ? We can start a maid-school there, teach them a bit of english, a bit about cooking australian food and so on. We send them to Sydney and help the poor mom with 7 kids ? Who knows the maid-school may even make some money. Now that would be a beauty !

I am sure I need not say much on this topic as the grievances are well known to most Sabahans. The link below is the speech made.

http://www.sabahlaw.com/SabahNightmares.doc

I recently read an interesting article by a former judge laying down the law behind an important suggestion to sue those member of parliament who was elected and later abandon their party (read as betray the voters) as an ‘independent’ based on the doctrine of estoppel.

The entire article is found here.

Remember the coal powered electric generator, the Sabah government wanted to build in Sandakan. Apparently, the Sabah government used the land acquisition ord to acquire the lands (for that purpose) and one feisty lawyer took them to task by way of a judicial review and WON. There is no judgment as yet but the ruling can be found here. If it does not work try cut and paste http://sabahlaw.com/Shan_JR2.pdf

Congratulations to shan which I believe is her first JR case.
It is noted that JR is rare since the norm requires the dissatisfied to file this within 2 weeks of the decision. Anyone who has lived in Sabah or Malaysia knows this 2 weeks is an impossibility and by the time one speak to a lawyer and prepare the documents, doors would have been closed. In this case, the Judge allow leave to hear the JR and decided that the Sabah government had breached Section 3 and Section 7(2) & 7(3) of the land acquisitions ord. (You can find a copy of this ord in the main page). It should be noted that the government had rezoned the land, levelled and clear all that was standing. No doubt, the government will appeal but such a case do highlight interesting issues.

The bigger problem is that the government’s plans to attract FDI may suffer a setback. Foreigners who bought the lands (sold by the government) do so on the faith that this being a government backed project will not face any issue – particularly one where the credibility of the government is now being questioned. For those who have invested millions, then it would be better to talk to a good lawyer now and sought advice on the possibility of compensation.

For the record, there are more than 50 people whose land were acquired the same as the applicant of the JR. No doubt, they will be seeking the same prohibitory order now against the Sabah government on similar grounds. It should be remembered, except for one or two (that this author is aware of) the rest dare not even challenge the government’s wrongful decision from the outset. This may be used against them.

This is sad indeed and therefore, one really should consider whether this ancient Acquisition Ord should be reviewed and amended to allow greater transparency in the interest of justice.

CK

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution which provides as follows:

(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.