June 1 2020 INL Digital Edition

12
JUNE 1, 2020
Viewlink
The English Fortnightly (Since November 1999)
ISSUE 439 | JUNE 1, 2020
Fraud should not become pandemic
It has never given us
pleasure to report crime
news- but report we do
because that is our job.
Our front page story in this
issue makes sad reading.
As we wrote this, more than
six million people around
the world had contracted the
novel Coronavirus, about
370,000 people had died and
millions of men and women
had lost their livelihood and
continued to be sacred of the
unknown future.
Faced by economic calamities
wrought by Covid-19,
governments around the
world are providing cash relief
to people so that there could
be some form of normality.
Financial reliefs
Billions of dollars of taxpayers
money have been poured
into economies and people’s
bank accounts. New Zealand
alone has paid out thus far
almost $11 billion. All of these
are borrowed money and
sometime or the other, hard
working people must help in
paying back.
It is therefore utterly criminal
that some people would
resort to fraud to enrich their
own coffers.
The Economist quoted Bruce
Dorris, Head of the Association
of Certified Fraud Examiners
as saying that the effects of
Covid-19 look like “a perfect
storm for fraud.”
Graft engenders
As he mentioned, fraud may
engender everything from iffy
accounting to stimulus-linked
scams as thousands of firms,
including bogus applicants,
hustle for help.
One fraud investigator
points to private-equity-owned
firms as potential targets.
“There are lots of them,
they are highly leveraged
and they may not qualify for
bail-outs because they have
deep-pocketed sponsors,” Mr
Dorris said.
That increases the temptation
to resort to unseemly
practices. The ebbing tide
is likely to reveal plenty of
corporate nudity. That will not
stop some businesses from
taking up naturism.
SFO investigates
The Serious Fraud Office
in New Zealand is working
with other government
departments to prevent
Covid-19 relief funds from
being defrauded.
The SFO is providing guidance
to ensure counter-fraud
measures across government
are aligned to international
best practice in terms of the
provision of emergency relief
and associated services. The
agency has established an
Advisory made up of fraud
experts within agencies to
support the government’s Covid-19
counter-fraud response.
Better to remain Alert at all times
New Zealand became
the envy of the
Western world as
the country lowered
its lockdown regulations
to Alert Two (from May 14,
2020), which has allowed most
businesses to reopen.
There is a sigh of relief as
entrepreneurs plan their
future and as people return to
their jobs.
There will inevitably job
losses but as a few have said,
they will find alternate employment
or start something of
their own.
New Zealand are known for
their innovative and sporting
spirit.
Impatient politicians
There have been angry
calls on talkback shows on
radio, and postings on social
media over the government’s
decision to retain social
distancing norms and have
new regulations at bars and
restaurants. Opposition Parties-
National and ACT – have
also shown their impatience,
quoting job losses, businesses
going under and the general
gloom and doom.
Politicians on the opposing
side and people in general
must hold the government to
account but in times of war,
they should exercise restraint
and consider the larger
interest of the country.
The world is in a state of
war with Covid-19 pandemic.
Wrong references
It is wrong to quote
countries that have opened
up their economy or never
closed it as examples for New
Zealand to open up. Most of
these countries, which relaxed
rules, have had a surge in the
number of cases and deaths.
New Zealand cannot at any
time take such a risk.
As Prime Minister Jacinda
Ardern and Director General
of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield
have repeated said, “We
should not squander the gains
that we have made over the
past few weeks. We went hard
and we went early and all of
us together have done well.
This is not the time to take
hasty decisions.”
Indian Newslink is published by Indian Newslink Limited from its offices located at 299A Riddel Road,
Glendowie, Auckland 1071. All material appearing here and on our web editions are the copyright
of Indian Newslink and reproduction in full or part in any medium is prohibited. Indian Newslink and
its management and staff do not accept any responsibility for the claims made in advertisements.
Managing Director & Publisher: Jacob Mannothra; Editor & General Manager: Venkat Raman;
Production Manager: Mahes Perera; Accountant: Uma Venkatram CA;
Phone: (09) 5336377 Email: info@indiannewslink.co.nz
Websites: www.indiannewslink.co.nz; www.inliba.com; www.inlisa.com
India needs one law for all
Dr Sudesh Wasoori
People with extremist views hide
behind the guise of ‘Secularism’
or ‘Human Rights’ or ‘freedom
of speech ‘in countries where
people are allowed to exercise their
rights.
That is now the trend around the
world.
Officially, India is a ‘Secular’ nation.
It has no official state religion,
although they should have opted for
one when India became independent
in 1947. Even thereafter, they decided
not to do so, unlike countries like Pakistan,
Bangladesh, United Kingdom, Sri
Lanka and Sweden, to mention a few.
It is a well-established fact that India
has had a rich history of tolerance
towards people of other religions -
Jews, Christians and Muslims who
have sought ‘shelter’ or a safer haven
away from persecutions from different
countries.
Laws and religions
Is it secular to have different laws
for different religions in a secular
country?
I always question myself what is
Secularism and its ethos, but every
time I failed to understand.
In my view, the thought of Secularism
is to have a liberal and equal society
but in today’s world, the whole idea
is compromised and overshadowed
by appeasement politics and mostly
misused by extremists.
Secularism has always inspired
modern India In practice, unlike the
notions in the Western world.
In terms of law, Muslim Indians
have Sharia-based Muslim Personal
Law, while Hindus, Christians, Sikhs
and other Indians live under common
law.
Equality of Law violated
The applicable code of law in
modern India is unequal.
India’s personal laws on matters
such as marriage, divorce, inheritance,
alimony varies with an individual’s
religion. One cannot deny that India’s
acceptance of Sharia and religious
laws violates the principle of Equality
before the law.
If these influences were not curbed,
there is a danger that it could creep
into what we consider to be common
laws for the sake of the greater good
of communities against inequalities
and the rights of humanity and what
Secularism is supposed to represent.
Therefore the larger question is, if
India is a secular nation, why are there
parallel bodies which stand against
the ethos of Secularism such as the
following?
All India Muslim Personal
Law Board
The All India Muslim Personal Law
Board is a private body constituted in
1973 to protect Muslim personal laws.
Their primarily focus is to defend
the Sharia laws from any law or
legislation that they consider infringes
on them. It is a recorded fact that their
Board has also objected to the Right
of Children for Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 as they believe it
will infringe on the Madrasa System
of Education. It has also supported
child marriage and opposes the Child
Marriage Restraint Act.
The Board also presents itself as
the leading body of Muslim opinion
in India, a role for which it has been
criticised.
Central Waqf Council
Central Waqf Council is an Indian
statutory body established in 1964
under Waqf Act 1954 for advising it
on matters pertaining to working of
the State Waqf Boards and proper
administration of the Waqfs in the
country.
Waqf is a permanent dedication of
movable or immovable properties for
religious, pious or charitable purposes
as recognized by Muslim Law, given by
philanthropists. They have acquired
land by applying all corrupt practices
and by virtue of that they now have
the biggest land banks in the country
while the so called secular governments
were busy in appeasing them.
These practices are full of scams
on a bigger scale like that of The
Karnataka Waqf Board Land, which
concerns alleged misappropriation
of ₹2000 billion (US$ 28 billion) in
Indian property funds, made public by
a report submitted by the Karnataka
State Minorities Commission in 2012.
I failed to understand why no one
has filed a petition against those
draconian laws, in order to put a
complete full stop on these unconstitutional
practices. (Not vouch for if the
petitions has been filed in the past).
Uniform Civil Code
Uniform civil code is the ongoing
point of debate regarding the mandate
of the Indian Constitution to replace
personal laws based on the scriptures
and customs of each major religious
community in India with a common
set of rules governing every citizen.
The demand for a Uniform Civil
Code was first put forward by women
activists early in 20th Century, with the
objective of women’s rights, Equality
and Secularism.
Till Independence in 1947, a few law
reforms were passed to improve the
condition of women, especially Hindu
widows.
In 1956, the Indian Parliament
passed the Hindu Code Bill amidst
significant opposition.
After the passing of the Hindu
Code bill, the personal laws in India
had two major areas of application:
the common Indian citizens and the
Muslim community, whose laws were
kept away from any reforms
Why has the Uniform Civil Code
not adopted even after 73 years of
independence?
So, I leave the question to the
intellectuals to contemplate the
question of why it has taken so long
for the Uniform Civil Code to be
embedded in a society that espouses
to Secularism and yet allows these
religious roots that do not benefit the
fundamental rights of certain sectors
of the community?
That appears to allow these anti-Secularism
or common law expectations
to go unchecked.
Moving forward, will we determine
the legacy for future generations? Is
it not toward fundamental human
rights? Is it not toward giving a liberal
voice to the vulnerable in our communities
such as women and children?
Do we not have an obligation, under
Secularism to fight for that?
By doing so, we will not only protect
equality in India but also lead a path
for the rest of the world where such
things are unchecked but soon will get
out of control.
Taiwan offers help to Hongkongers
Sourced Content
Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen
has asked her Cabinet Ministers
to prepare an Action Plan as
soon to assist the people of Hong
Kong keen to move to Taiwan.
“Our commitment to caring for the
people of Hong Kong will not change,
no matter what adjustments we make
to our system,” she said.
The Taiwanese government is also
facilitating Hongkongers who are
interested in seeking employment and
residency in the country.
Ms Tsai posted these comments on
her official Facebook and Twitter accounts
following the return of protests
in Hong Kong over a planned move by
China to impose a National Security
Law on the region, which was a British
Colony until 1997.
Worrying developments
Taiwan is among the growing list
of countries to extend sympathy and
support to Hongkongers. The US and
UK have already expressed similar
moves.
Expressing concern over the developments
in Hong Kong, Ms Tsai said that
the government and people of Taiwan
fully support the desire of Hongkongers
for freedom and human rights.
“A democratic and free Hong Kong is
key to regional peace and stability,” Ms
Tsai said.
The Taiwanese government has
welcomed people from Hong Kong for
many years, she said, and added that
more than 5000 Hongkongers applied
for residency in Taiwan in 2019, an
Picture from ‘Taiwan Today’
increase of 41% over the previous year.
Ms Tsai called on China to keep its
promise that Hong Kong would enjoy
a high degree of autonomy and its way
of life would remain unchanged for 50
years following the end of UK rule in
1997.
She also urged Beijing to halt the controversial
National Security legislation
and resume peaceful dialogue with
Hong Kong society.
The problem in Hong Kong
Hong Kong was handed back to
China from British control in 1997,
but under a unique agreement - a
mini-constitution called the Basic
Law and a so-called “one country, two
systems” principle.
As the BBC mentioned, the
statutes are supposed to protect certain
freedoms for Hong Kong: freedom of
assembly and speech, an independent
judiciary and some democratic
rights - freedoms that no other part of
mainland China has.
“Under the same agreement, Hong
Kong had to enact is own national security
law - this was set out in Article 23
of the Basic Law. But its unpopularity
means it has never been done - the
government tried in 2003 but had to
back down after protests.”
Then, last year, protests over an
extradition law turned violent and
evolved into a broader anti-China and
pro-democracy movement.
China does not want to see that
happen again.
Why are people in Hong Kong afraid?
As the law has not even been drafted
yet, it is hard to be concrete, but essentially
people in Hong Kong fear the loss
of these freedoms.
BBC News says: “China expert Willy
Lam is concerned the law could see
people punished for criticising Beijing
- as happens in mainland China. People
believe this will affect free speech and
their right to protest. In China, this
would be seen as subversion. Some
pro-democracy activists, such as Joshua
Wong, have been lobbying foreign
governments to help their cause. Such
campaigning could be a crime in the
future.”
Hong Kong University Legal Scholar
Professor Johannes Chan said that
many are also afraid Hong Kong’s
judicial system will become like that of
China.
“Almost all trials involving national
security are conducted behind closed
doors. It [is] never clear what exactly
the allegations and the evidence are,
and the term national security is
so vague that it could cover almost
anything,” he said.
People worry that a threat to Hong
Kong’s liberties could affect its attractiveness
as a business and economic
powerhouse.