Friday, December 14, 2007
On Taxes and Benefits
Tax. It is a burden laid upon individuals to support the government. As a citizen, it is compulsory to contribute taxes. Tax may come up to 28 percent of an individual's pay in Malaysia. Without doubt, it is an obligation to contribute taxes. As we contribute, we expect benefits and favors from the government in return. This is certainly not the case in Malaysia. Benefits are given selectively. A particular race benefit most from our government. In most countries, all citizens will enjoy a plentiful of benefits when they retire. Minimum priority will be given to the main race. The disabled, and social outcasts of every race will obtain financial support from the government in most countries. For instance, I have a relative residing in the US. She is a widow with two kids and obtained her PR just a few years back. The government supports her with a few hundred dollars every month. Not only her alone but most with financial burdens would also be helped by the government. Cash and even low cost houses would be supplied, discounting religion or race of that particular individual. Pathetically, we Malaysians are experiencing something otherwise. A particular race receives enormous benefits from the government while we stare with amaze and at the same time, funding out taxes. Im never against the idea of the government funding the poor or handicaps of that particular race. But it would be better to fund the needy of other races as well. These needy from other races mostly obtain help from certain societies but not from the government. With the inflation rate rising, and high amount of taxes being paid, lives would be difficult for them without benefits from the government. This eventually contributes poverty. Im hoping that the government of Malaysia would relook at their "unjust benefits policy" and view every Malaysian with equality. Social equality is a stepping stone in moving towards our very own vision 2020.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Contemporary Issue
Australia was defiant in adopting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which was proposed by the United Nations. The declaration does not bind Australian law as it is merely used as a guideline or persuasive precedent for Australia to follow in making law for the Indigenous People. Australia was one of the four states that voted against the Declaration in the General Assembly on 13th September 2007.
1.2 Aim of research
The aim of research is to evaluate and discuss on the efficiency of international law and the United Nations in Australia. International law is commented as a ‘toothless tiger’ by critics and this research will not only focus on the struggle of international law in Australia, but also the effectiveness of it in guiding Australia.
1.3 Definition
International law is defined as the system of implicit and explicit agreements that binds together nation-states in adherence to recognized values and standards, differing from other legal systems in that it concerns nations rather than private citizens.
2.0
2.1 International law is not binding in Australia
Australia is a nation that had signed various treaties and conventions, which comes under international law. International law does not have the same sanctions and strict powers as the laws made within Australia. International law has no status in the Australia legal system and cannot change or elevate existing domestic and customary laws. They are said to be only complementary to Australian justice and will never override Australian justice. This is because Australia is a sovereign State and could choose to be bound or not by international law. (Ng 2008) Besides that, the United Nations does not create binding obligations on its member states for declarations or laws made by them. This is illustrated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and United Nation Standard Minimum Rules (UNSMR) introduced by the United Nations. The former is a human rights instrument which is a non-binding in Australia. (Australia Legislation and International Law 2005) The latter is another piece of legislation which is meant for the minimum rule of treatment against prisoners. This too has no-binding obligations on member states and only serves as a guideline for States in treating prisoners. (Groves 2008) However, some statutes introduced by the United Nations require domestic law conforms in all respects to international law. This is illustrated in the countries ratifying the Rome Statute for the approval of the International Court of Criminal. Once the ICC is ratified, Australia’s domestic human rights is bound by the human rights law established under the ICC and the judicial decisions of the ICC, or else the domestic legal system will be supplanted. Should there be a conflict between the ICC legislation; international law established under the ICC and decisions of the ICC take precedence. (Wilkins 2001)Besides that, when countries ratify a treaty, they take on a solemn obligation to observe the provisions of that treaty. The obligation involves regular reporting and scrutiny by the United Nations. Each country would want to maintain this rule-based international system to ensure that other countries abide by international law.
2.2 International law is not enforceable.
International law does not have any legislative-type effects and is not enforceable in Australia unless and until an Australian parliament incorporates it into Australia law. (Evans 1995) Treaties or agreements that Australia had signed requires ratification if they are to be incorporated and become enforceable. (Ernest 2005) This is illustrated in the Kyoto Protocol treaty introduced by the United Nations. The previous government in Australia, which was the Liberal Party led by John Howard, declined to ratify the Agreement and therefore the Agreement does not bind Australia until the Labor Party took over last year. Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, decided to ratify the Kyoto Protocol Agreement and it now binds Australia to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and 5 other greenhouse gases. Besides that, the enforcement power of international law in Australia lies in the hand of the Australian government. When Australia signs any international treaties or conventions, those laws do not automatically become part of the Australian law for enforcement. The Australian government can choose to give effect on its international obligations in various forms, which is either legislative, policy or symbolic. (Australia Legislation and International Law 2005) Another scenario which illustrates the enforcement power of international law is on the right to breastfeed. Domestic law, which is the Family Law Act 1975, does not specifically deal with or mention breastfeeding but international law does, in the UN Convention on the Rights of Child. Yet, this law introduced by the United Nations is not specifically enforceable in Australia and is seen as useless in dealing with cases relating to breastfeed. (Grainger 2007) However, international law is still, at times influential and serves as an imperative guideline to Australia legislation. International law is still seen as a legitimate and important influence on the development of domestic law. (Triggs 1999) This is illustrated in Koowarta’s case 1982. CERD was used as a guideline for the court to develop a new case law. Racial Discrimination Act was made and it prevents indigenous people to be discriminated. (Bailey 2005)
2.3 United Nations is not strong.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization which deals with international law, international security, economic development, social progress and human rights issues around the globe. However, the United Nations had been criticized as being inefficient, wasteful and useless. According to Mediator Mr Lim, the United Nations lacks the ability to enforce international laws in Australia. (Lim 2008) United Nations is also seen as a corrupted organization being controlled and manipulated by the few big countries. (Wafaworova 2008) The lack of authoritiveness of the United Nations had resulted in Australia’s reduction of commitment towards the organization. During the reign of Howard’s government, John Howard, the then Prime Minister, radically reduced Australia’s commitment to the United Nations and has not done much to support the UN apart from leading a successful UN-authorized international intervention force (INTERFET) in East Timor in 1999. (Makinda 2003) Majority of Australians also claimed that they do not support those human rights law originating from international bodies or the United Nations. (Kirby 2000) Laws proposed by United Nations are said to attract a degree of anxiety and even hostility. (Hovell 2005) However, recently, ties between the UN and Australia had been improving and the United Nations had shrugged off the tag of being inefficient in Australia. (Ng 2008) In March 2008, a few UN officials met Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Canberra to repair relationship and to discuss on human rights in Australia. This improving relationship would see the United Nations coming back stronger in dealing with outright issues in Australia.
2.4 Little reference on international law in the Australian constitution
Very little reference of international law is found in the Australian constitution. This is probably due to the consciousness and caution-ness of the Founding Fathers of the Australian constitution. When the Constitution was being drafted, the Founding Fathers were conscious that the Imperial Government intended to retain exclusive control over Australia’s foreign relations, after federation and for the foreseeable future. Besides that, there was little mention of international law in the Australian constitution because it is not considered as being a form of ‘real law’. International law is being treated as a discretionary set of norms that would guide Australia in many ways in the future. (Bailey 2005) According to Mediator Ng, this is a smart move by the Founding Fathers as it would protect the sovereignty of Australia as international law would not, in any way, bind the domestic law. (Ng 2008) However, there are still two references regarding Australia’s relationships with the international community in the Australian constitution. Section 51(29) states that the Commonwealth Parliament has specific powers with respect to ‘External affairs’ while Section 75(1) states that the High Court has original jurisdiction to hear matters ‘Arising under a treaty’. (Bailey 2005)
3.0 Conclusion
3.1 Summary
It had been a refreshing and exciting few months of conducting this legal research. The entire process of conducting this research certainly benefited me in terms of knowledge and wisdom. This research had opened up my eyes on the complexity of international law in Australia. Thou international law is heavily criticized, which made it look vulnerable and inefficient, However, it is still very much beneficial to the countries around the globe in treating major issues such as war crime, genocide and poverty. United Nations, representing international law, is making improvements and adjustments to serve international communities better. Nevertheless, criticism would only bring improvements and hopefully international law would stamp its mark in Australia and guide Australia towards internal and external stability, peace and harmony. Finally, I would like to thank my Legal Studies teacher, Mrs Wendy Loo for her dedication in consulting me on this particular research. Gratitude is also forwarded to Mediators, Mr Lim and Mr Ng for giving valuable views of theirs on this topic.
3.2 Recommendations
3.21 International law is not binding in Australia
It is Australia’s right not to be bounded by international law as Australia is an independent country with its own constitution. International law could never bind Australia unless the Australian government ratifies treaties signed. This is fair and just to Australia as it has the authority to control the binding status of international law.
3.22 International law is not enforceable in Australia
Enforcement of international law in Australia without the Australian government’s approval is impossible. This is to protect Australia’s sovereignty as it helps to prohibit international law from being superior over domestic law. To enforce international law in Australia, ratification is required.
3.23 United Nations is not strong
‘United Nations is not strong’. This is a statement which carries a lot of weight because United Nations is the main organization dealing with international laws. United Nations could be weak or inefficient at times because of its inability and inefficiency.
3.24 Little reference of international law in the Australian constitution
Indeed, little of international law had been mentioned in the constitution. This is
to protect Australia’s sovereignty and also disable international law from binding
domestic law in Australia.
REFERENCES
BOOKS
1) Geof Bailey (2005) Legal Studies SACE Stage 2, Adelaide Tuition Centre
INTERVIEW
1) Mediator Mr Lim Seng Peng (2008)
2) Mediator Mr Ng Lai Chiek (2008)
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
1) Australia is not an island, National Indigenous Times, September 20,2007
INTERNET ARTICLES
1) Reason Wafewarova (2007) Australia cant preach human rights, http://www.glob.co.zw/homepage/aussie_humanrights.html
2) Sandy Wood (2005) Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia
http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v6i3/aboriginal.html
3) Ragnii Ingela Grainger (2007) A Right to Breastfeed, Australian Breastfeeding Association
http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/divorce/html
4) Samuel M. Makinda (2003) Howard and the UN
5) The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (2000) The Critics, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/events/2000/launchspeech.html
6) Devika Hovell (2005) A tale of two systems: the case of international law in constitutional interpretation in Australia, Melbourne University Law Review
7) Australian legislation and international law (2005) http://www.racismnoway.com.au/library/legislation/index-Internat.html
8) Deadly Ernest (2005) Can Australian Parliament be passed to enforce international treaties
http://www.phorums.com.au/archieve/index.php/t-121923.html
INTERNET JOURNALS
1) Richard Wilkins (2001) Problems with the International Criminal Court , The Australian Family, November 2001
http://www.family.org.au/Journals/2002/criminal_court.htm
2) Gillian Triggs (1999) International Law and its role in Australian law
http://www/austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/1999/16.html
Post a Comment