What a sight. Lawyers on one side, riot police on the other. Both clashed and some were obviously injured.
It's quite unusual to see this as lawyers are generally known to be rather civil, and sometimes cooperative with the law. After all, they are law-yers.
But apparently, things got ugly in Pakistan when President (General) Pervez Musharraf decided to suspend the Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry on Friday, allegedly for misusing his authority. But many believe that he was suspended because he often took an independent stance from that of the executive (Musharraf) in pursuing high profile cases against the government.
Chief among these was a petition to recover missing persons, allegedly abducted by intelligence agencies. He also overturned the recent sale of Pakistan's state-run steel mills. *
One thing I can say, these Pakistani lawyers truly believe in their calling and in the separation of the executive and the judiciary. The obviously believe it enough that they are willing to put themselves on the line and protest this obvious interference of the judiciary by the executive.
As it stands, all lawyers are on strike.
I wonder if this will happen here, Singaporean lawyers striking if the government tries to muzzle the independence of our judiciary. Then again, the independence of our judiciary... err... never mind. I don't want to be hauled in for contempt of court.
Meanwhile over the seas, an important ally of Pakistan is starting to see the beginnings of a controversy over the decision to dismiss some federal prosecutors late last year, including some who had been criticised by Republican politicians. This was a decision which the White House was apparently deeply involved in.
Of course I am not surprised by it. After all, Bush and his ilk have tried to rein in or criticise "activist" judges for their independence in defending the constitutional separation of church and state. So what's new?
Religion and politics, a very dangerous and volatile mix. And the recent statement by the National Council of Churches of Singapore (representing Methodists, Anglicans and Presbyterians, among other mainstream denominations in Singapore) is strong evidence that the Christian establishment in Singapore is getting very influenced by their American brethren and is trying to influence politics here. I guess the IR is an acceptable evil then.
Hypocrites.
(* Text in italics are quoted from this BBC article)
Labels: law, pakistan, politics
CURRENT
TOP
Since there was a period when I actively tried to get information about NCCS from my former pastor, here's what I think we should all know.
The NCCS used to be one of the many splintered interdenominational talk shops set up decades ago before WW2.
No one paid attention to them until they remade themselves as a real national-level church group, recruiting denomination leaders and leaders from influential churches, and insinuating themselves into the national policy-making process (the religious tolerance law, and the human cloning issue).
The NCCS do not represent major denominations in Singapore. They do not make decisions (doctrine, legislative) for denominations in Singapore. No church is obliged to endorse or follow whatever the NCCS says in their statements. They are NOT a Christian MUIS, and do not function as a National Council of Christian Ayatollahs.
The worst mistake when dealing with them is to think they have far more power over churches and Christians than they really do.
However, their website shows that their membership comprises of those said denominations I mentioned and their constitution leads one to believe that their opinion represents the opinions of their member churches and denominations:
(v) Through mutual consultation and action to form Christian public opinion and to bring it to bear on the moral, social, national and international issues of the day, particularly those which may affect the life and welfare of the people of Singapore.
(vi) To provide an agency through which the Government of the Republic of Singapore may consult the Council on matters of common concern to its members.
But I agree with your drift that unlike say the MUIS or Rome, they do not have the power over doctrine or legal issues.
Having said that, their only power is the power we (the public) accord them.
Note the full/founder members, the full members, and the denominational members are not churches, but denominational bodies. So what if a "denomination" is listed as a "member"? The NCCS claims to speak for all Christians because its members are the denominations in Singapore... Yet most churchgoers are quite unaware, as are their pastors, that their individual churches are formal members of the NCCS by virtue of being part of the denominations.
Some denominations actually have nil control over the cohesiveness of their constituent churches. I know for a fact that the Presbytery has no power to control the movement of pastors and reverends in Presbyterian churches - much less what stances pastors and reverends take on the pulpit.
In the 1940s, the NCCS was formed as a council group, a talk shop. The "Founding Members" were not the various denominational churches, but individual pastors from various churches - who certainly did not create the NCCS with the authority of their denominational groupings. I consider their membership list a bunch of BS and revisionist posturing.
Now what I'd pay attention to are the list of Congregational Members and Associate Members. You'd realise that this is where all their conservative agenda really stems from.
2. Their constitution is interesting, no doubt.
Through mutual consultation and action to form Christian public opinion means that they are a lobby group that hopes to shape and form an "acceptable Christian consensus" and market that consensus opinion to both Christians and the public at large.
The language already shows that they don't represent Christian opinion, but seek to mould it to something they want.
Of course, V and VI work best when they succeed in persuading people to think that they are in fact the National Council of Christian Ayatollahs.
Might I also assume that you happen to be a member of a church that the NCCS claims to represent?
2. Or if you prefer, here's some interesting and full-flavoured reading from opponents of the predecessor of NCCS... The bits where they complain about how various denominations found themselves drafted into founding members of the predecessor body is hilarious