Tag Archives: India

August 19, 2013 · 22:11

Tax evasion, copyrighted by Vodafone?

If we look at copyright in the UK, then according to the UK copyright service, which states that “In the case of business ideas, it is again the recorded work rather than an intangible idea that is protected. Copyright would apply to items such as written documents, artwork, etc. – i.e. a Business plan, promotional literature, website, logo, and such items could certainly be registered.”

From that point of view, the creative tax efforts by Vodafone could be seen as an original work of ‘art’ (by lack of a better word), yet are they alone and are they really the first?

Yes, there is so much frustration in voices of people all around me as I hear them complain about the too fast rising cost of living. The fact that I saw an article last week in a newspaper stating that the minimum income for getting a mortgage in London now exceeds a million pounds, which I reckon is some new record to fight. So as many, who dream of a place around Swiss Cottage or Bond street (to keep the Lord’s Cricket grounds within walking distance), we see that this new price tag makes London an affordable place, mainly for Bankers and dealers in amphetamine based chemicals and that is pretty much it. So when these realities hit us and we see that a deal is struck with Vodafone for hundreds of millions of revenue (for the goal of non-taxability) made by what was described as an empty office in Ireland, waves of anger hit many people. This could be seen as a sign that the rich will get richer, at the expense of everyone else.

But is that the actual truth? It seems more a sign of the time than anything else. Vodafone is in pretty good company. They are actually one of the smaller players when we consider grocery shop sized companies like Google and Amazon. It gets to be a lot more hilarious listening to MP Margaret Hodge complaining about it to Google (in May 2013), whilst she is directly connected through family to Stemcor who is having the very same artistic approach to the payment of taxation (or lack thereof). The Telegraph in November 2012 reported that Stemcor, which reported revenue around 2.1 billion with a reported profit of 65 million paid a mere 163,000 pounds in taxation.

Whoever came up with that idea was worth his weight in gold and gemstones in the eye of these corporations.

It does not end there and it goes far beyond the borders of the UK. Consider the following. A software company has an item prices at ‘X’ and then adds consultancy valued at ‘Y’ and the total being ‘Z’ is charged.

So let us take a basic approach. The customer wants the package which requires software and a consultant and is willing to pay 100, consultancy is set at the basic price of 80, which means if the disc could be valued at 20, the price is met, and as such the customer is a new and happy customer. Yet, the books would reveal that even though 100 is truly placed in the books (as a package deal), the disc value is now set at 70 and the consultants at 30, 100 remains the fixed set price. It is interesting that the 70 is set towards the foreign owner of the program and a value of 30 remains behind. Of course the consultant was more (a lot more) expensive, and as this is all within one corporation the consultant will get his monthly income. Yet, was there a case of tax evasion?

It becomes an interesting debate, more important, it becomes the environment of global corporations and even more interesting is where the revenue and taxable revenue should be placed. I would share the view that this is more than a sign of the times; it is now fast becoming THE sign of the future.

In the age of technology today, many government types (PM, MP’s and exchequers alike) might look at certain developments of ‘new technology’ moves, as corporations go to the cloud and digital distribution, yet there seems an apparent lack of ‘comprehension’ is not the right word, perhaps it is ‘realisation’ that all these revenues would no longer be taxable and Microsoft is not even close to being a frontrunner. At present Adobe is far in the lead there. Consider all these advertising and publications houses, they are in abundance in the UK and those houses have moved to some extent, or are largely moving to the Adobe creative cloud, software, that is no longer sold in the UK, costs that are paid for in the UK and are therefore tax deductable revenue, which is shrinking the UK government revenue pie chart by a lot, especially as revenue from the other side of that equation is no longer in the UK for any level of taxation.

Whether we realise it or not, the old tax deduction scheme was designed on some level of equilibrium. We had tax deductions on one side, because we bought certain items like hardware and software. Hardware is now no longer the expensive post it used to be and the software part that is still steep in some cases is no longer bought, it is leased. As such the equilibrium is gone and a nation cannot continue on one side to hand out deductions as the other side of the scale no longer exists. This gives us two dangers. The first is that certain parts would lose deductibility as the other side stops existing; this should be seen in the light that the cost of business is going up, whilst revenues will not get better. This approach is set by the bulk of cloud providing ‘solutions’ and that group is growing really fast. If the UK government (not just them) loses out on taxable revenues exceeding 15 billion pounds on software alone, where will they get the money from? When we consider the trillion pound debt, then we should worry about such changes and it is not just the UK who is facing them. These companies as mentioned before are doing this on a global scale, which means that Europe is getting hit hard all over the place and it is not unlikely that as cloud servers are placed all over the planet these companies will move into new group that could be labelled as ‘the global non-taxable core of corporations’.

In the past I proclaimed strongly that when we saw the information about Microsoft with their Xbox One approach and the cloud was not about gamers. Gamers do not warrant the implementations of over 300,000 servers. Yet, add the earlier mentioned events to the equation and we end up with a global customer base of software and as Microsoft stated it themselves, an entertainment provider of TV, Movies and Software, all in the cloud! As we see the situation now, likely less than one tenth of a percent might end up being taxable. In that same light should you wonder why NTT DoCoMo was so happy to get into the Indian market, then here is the evidence. Out of a very rough estimation (by me) of a total value of entertainment products that is cloud distributable which exceeds 350 billion (business and entertainment products), consider that these products would in future yield less than 0.5 billion in tax revenue on a global scale. This means that national infrastructures on a global scale are about to get hit really hard (unlikely before 2014). So as NTT DoCoMo starts streaming 4G based entertainment solutions, a massive amount of taxable revenue would no longer end up being taxable at all. So long Tax department of India!

It was exactly for these reasons that I advocated an approach where taxability of services are charged on the consumers side, to avoid the pitfall many governments are about to get faced with. That approach would end the dangers of Google, Amazon, Vodafone et al to walk away with a ‘non-taxability’ based commission solution.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 11, 2013 · 22:24

Boosting Pensions

Would you like to lose your pension? This is more than just a simple question. If you live anywhere in Europe, then the danger to your pension is a lot more realistic and will have a larger impact then you thought there would be.

Let’s take a look at a few countries.

Netherlands.
This was already under review, however, at present there are discussions going on to get a handle on accessing pensions for all kinds of reasons. The image in part is that the Dutch government needs this treasure vault to deal with more immediate issues as well as well as the application of spending to start an economy. As reported yesterday by the NOS, the issue at present is that the government thinks it is getting access to billions a year extra. The ABP comes to the conclusion that the changes will in the end cost billions, not save them. This comes as the government is presently trying to cut almost 3 billion Euro in retirement funding. The cut back was based on the fact that businesses and employees will save-up less per year, which might save 1000 euro, which would suit the government, as this gives them a taxation windfall of 2.3 billion. In the new system it is stated that not only do people lose the 1000 euro advantage, they will have to pay more. So there would be zero advantage, even worse, considering the amount of government jobs the treasury would be down a billion, so in the end no savings at all for the poor poor coffer, only additional losses to deal with. At a time when 6 billion in cut-backs are needed, this is not the bad news they want to hear. All this has a few more hooks. Especially when we consider the questions by Hachchi (D66) in regards pension premium raises that the ABP added in January 2012. The costs were raised by 300 million euro, as documented in  2012Z01310 (source: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/03/06/antwoorden-inzake-de-verhoging-van-de-pensioenpremie-door-het-abp/antwoorden-inzake-de-verhoging-van-de-pensioenpremie-door-het-abp.pdf)

It is interesting that a similar issue is now appearing only one year later. There is more!

In one view we read that the ABP in 2010 was set at 105% coverage (which means that if 100% pension is paid out, 5% remains for growth). It is however interesting to read from the NRC (at: http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2011/12/01/abp-verhoogt-pensioenen-niet/) we read that in December 2011 the coverage was only 94%, so in one year they went down to some degree. The same can be read at http://www.pensioenbelangen.nl/label/abp/ , more interesting, the numbers state that per September 2012 is was only at 101%. So if we recall the blog I wrote a week ago “The Age of ‘no retirement left’ is coming“, it is interesting that in that case the government is stating so much wealth. As the ABP is considered to be the largest one, we should wonder whether the Dutch politicians have any clue on what they are doing. More important, is this about short sighted cutting avoidance, or is it about more. Do not worry, they are not alone, we will have some fun looking at the UK situation next.

Is there actual evidence to support my theories? Well, the sources above clearly show that the ABP is only marginally above 100%, yet they had remained below 98% for a decent amount of time, so there is a valid amount of concern. In addition, when we consider the questions as stated in

2012Z01310, then certain issues in the recovery measures of pensions were not known, yet the initial billing would have been there, so this again is a piece of evidence that reflects 11th hour budgeting. The fact that this was never completely properly addressed remains a worry and not a reflective concern considering that in part the same issues are now again in the news.

The issues are only part of the entire picture. The fact that the Dutch pension administrator PGGM, has stated that there are issues with Walmart, could have some serious repercussions. Reuters quotes that “PGGM held 2.76 million shares of Wal-Mart as of March 31” (at: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dutch-pension-group-halts-wal-211416613.html) this was only last week. Should the PGGM pull out then there would be concerns on both isles of the Atlantic river. Those shares represent well over 200 million, which means that Wal-mart might get some renewed problems down the line. Whether this would be due to PGGM is not a given, the fact that questions from a shareholder holding almost 3 million shares are not answered is certainly matter for concern. If we consider the economic downturn the Dutch have faced over the last 2 years, considering the issues the IMF reported in 2011 on Dutch pension funds. In that time, people entering their retirement saw their funds cut and a support capital of 50 billion was needed. So when we read less than 2 years later that those finds are so rich and that they should be opened for additional means, whilst a week later we read on some of the alleged dangers, it seems to me that playing politics with pensions is a very bad and not too bright idea. The 2011 article can be found at http://www.europeanpensions.net/ep/imf-team-recommends-adjustments-to-dutch-second-pillar-system.php

United Kingdom.

So, let’s take a look at Australia’s baby brother UK (as UK is only 3% of the size of Australia). The UK is in dangers no less immediate. The Guardian reported last November that issues would impact greatest on savers and pensioners. Yet, the story behind several issues is not brought here. For that we should look at what is happening now. Part of that is set here as http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/capital-markets-climate-change-pension-funds. Is that even a fair assessment? If we read the quote “The way pension funds invest will determine the future, which means that to thrive they’ll need to wake up to climate change” I will wonder whether this is wishful thinking of whichever politician or investor whispered to the author. When we looked at the Netherlands and other places, these nations are all looking at sustainability solutions. Yet at present the ROI of these options are not up to scrap, so WHY use pensions there. These are fields that have been ignored be several administrations. If it is SO lucrative, then why not invest in it yourself (me asking governments)? Yes, it will be the future, but at present too expensive, so getting articles out there for pension funds to invest in the future might read nice, but as ROI reports falter it will not hold a candle up to the coming rage. This view is shared by James Cameron, chairman of cleantech investor Climate Change Capital. I know that the next part sounds dodgy as hell, but when we consider the quote “Future pensioners are going to have to bear more of the investment risk themselves“. In that case Pension funds are much better of owning parts of Raytheon and Northrop-Grumman. It seems that governments all over the world are seemingly ready at the drop of any hat to buy missile technologies, and as such the ROI for pension funds are much better off going to those places. I agree that the statement is less appealing to read, but why should pensions now be put under more and more pressure whilst, those behind the scenes refused to budge when they should have done so. The investment risk reads like a joke considering the article published in May at http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/may/22/one-five-poverty-line-state-pension where it states that  20% of those retiring this year will fall below the poverty line. This is in my mind the consequence of a housing issue never properly dealt with for over 27 years, whilst pensions were left alone. Taking both in the balance, then pensions might cover 80%-100% of the rent for this year, and those will come up short 2014 and later. So that is in the most positive case where people do not need to eat or drink ever. This is only for those not living in London, living there would almost amount to instant suicide. At least the Dutch can claim that their retirement issue had never been THAT bad. So, as there is a collective boost to raise the value of the RBS, that former bastion might be used to actually boost and increase value and strength of British pensions as they focus on getting back on the horse of profit (or at least try to get on that horse). Pensions are being cut in other ways too. That part can be read at: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/expats-call-for-fairer-pension-payouts-8659717.html. Some of these pensioners (almost 10%), saw the unaffordable future they saw coming their way and as such they moved to other areas. Some saw the light in time and bought a small place on Crete, some left for alternative Mediterranean locations and some went to the warmer regions of South Africa. These people saw the light, saw the non-linear growing costs and chose a better solution. It goes even further. What is less than possible in the UK becomes very affordable in India, where a week’s pension gets you a 2 bedroom secured apartment for a month, considering that rent is the most expensive part, three weeks of pension should keep a person well fed. So why not consider this? Instead of going on an exotic vacation, live in an exotic place, and of course, the Indians are all on average Cricket nut, so not the worst place to be during Cricket season. If these people are forced back because of pension issues, would the British government have the means to suddenly appoint housing to these people? They might not get an option in this as they froze pensions. In that regard, I do hope that the Exchequer George Osborne considered the consequence of even part of those 1.2 million pensioners returning to England and his 2 billion pound winter fuel allowance. That is only one post. On the other side, there is a genuine and acceptable concern of the people who are abusing that system. There had been earlier mention of the situation where UK men marrying Thai brides is a reason for the foreign pensions increase. If we voice the scenario where a pensioner marries a woman under 25 and she then gets the allowance after he is gone, then this would indeed be an unfair use of the system. We could argue that a marriage, not validated in the UK would not be seen as a marriage (I know, the legal nightmare behind this is so not nice). However, that those who never added to the British system, not being eligible for those funds would be slightly better phrased, yet the consequences for consulates to keep track of these people would be almost disastrous. Even though this would be spread over several countries, the fact that they could be required to deal with over 700,000 additional requests a year, is not likely to become a ‘relief’ to the system. Yet I must agree that something must be done. The dangers of cutting the transferred pension, if there was a marriage, could mean that these people might have a claim on humanitarian grounds to receive full Visa and transfers into the UK, which in the end might add up to be a lot more expensive. The only solution could be legislative, yet which of the ‘evils’ to choose from is not really for now. In my mind the options grows to make the pension only transferable if the marriage was longer then a certain period (5 years) or the spouse must have been a UK resident or lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for no less than 10 years. I am just grasping the 5 years out of thin air, yet this would limit the dangers of UK pension abuse, it would also give a clear message to the valid pensioners that THEY are protected, yet that there are limits on passing over a basic state pension. In regards to those who are valid recipients of the basic state pension and their foreign setbacks there is more information at http://pensionjustice.org/.

 

Germany.

We should consider the German system, even though it is thought to be strong, secure and to some extent safe. They share the dangers those in the UK currently have. As reported by The Spiegel at http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germans-fear-poverty-in-retirement-even-after-life-of-work-a-855352.html, even though their economy is in a strong state, the lost investments, the futures of retirement are almost none existing. In fact, their pensions are a lot worse of then the UK ones. A person there would end up getting a mere 32% of their income. If we consider the Dutch system where 70% does not even foot the bill, the desperation of 32% is a lot less appealing. The question becomes important when we consider the required pension buffers these pension funds need to have. The interesting addition is that a report in 2012 from the labour ministry stated that “the Labour Ministry itself, which indicates about a third of current full-time employees could end up receiving social welfare unless the pension system is changed. Those who have spent 35 years working full time but earn less than 2,500 euros a month would also end up depending on welfare.”

So this is the third country playing politics for non-visible short gain and massive shortages in the long term. This gives serious concern for the bill the Germans adopted that as of January 2013 “for a reduction in the statutory pension contribution rates”. And that helps your citizens…..how?

So this is not just a national issue, this is a European issue on several levels. Unless some strong actions are taken, a large part of Europe will enter living conditions worse than that of several 3rd world countries, whilst comfortable living would be found for those moving to places like India and Argentina.

Go figure!

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 7, 2013 · 19:02

Be the change you want to see in the world

Well, here is my second attempt to today’s blog. The first one went almost into burn down mode, so it is not getting published, but it does have elements that might make it later.

Why mention this?

It seems that there are several areas where we could look for a probable initial solution to diminish the danger to women in India. Yes, a straight law and a ‘functioning’ police system there would work, but the overwhelming feeling I had was the oddity of it all. India is not a little village in the middle of nowhere. That place has a few more people than most. Almost 20% of the entire population of the planet lives there, so what to do?

So, now I mention the next fact that bothered me. NO ONE helped! Everyone was standing by all in a state of apathy. This got my goat! I’ll happily spend 20 years in prison for decapitating some rapist in the street, and I know I am not the only one feeling that way (I am likely the only psycho who would actually do it though). SO, if we consider the aggravation a population has when so many people live close together, then the inaction makes even less sense to me. I personally do not belief it would be a religious thing, because we were all children, and most of us become parents, so that primal rage to protect innocence is in all of us.

Good Samaritan laws are there to do something in aid of others. I personally belief that it is for the simple reason that the police cannot be everywhere all the time and the following duty to rescue that follows from it could drive down violence statistics and it also means that people will come to the aid of these innocent women. Isn’t it interesting that hundreds get raped, yet Richard Gere got a warrant instantly for a kiss? How interesting this looks against the rape victims who have to wait for week to get any kind of acknowledgement (especially by the police).
So let’s talk about the Good Samaritan Act.

The US does have Good Samaritan acts; however this does not seem to be the same for all states. In many states this umbrella will only protect professional assistance. Nurses, rescue workers are in those cases protected against liability (as it should), however, a bystander rendering assistance, could in theory get sued in several states, and under certain conditions. Volunteers are often protected (unless gross negligence can be proven).

The Good Samaritan act exists in almost identical forms in many Common Law countries. It is important to note that this is only their as a defence in criminal and Tort law cases. It is not a duty to rescue, a duty that professional workers are bound to (fire fighters, emergency medical staff and so on). We could see the Good Samaritan Act (GSA after this) as a moral compass for those who do not act. Do you really want to be bystander telling a judge in court that you wanted to help, but alas. That darn broken nail prevented you from applying pressure to a fatal wound bleeding out (of course some faint at the sight of blood, and that in not something they can control).

There are however places where the Duty to rescue applies to its citizens. In Germany and Canada (yes go figure), these two have a law in place that OBLIGES a person to give aid where needed, and as long as their assistance was given in good faith, this law also protects them from prosecution. It is a much stronger version then the GSA, I personally am on the fence whether we should go for GSA or Duty to Rescue. However, the Canadian version was short to the point and in simple English written, so it seems to be a simple ‘rule’ to follow. I personally think that it is not a bad thing to render aid when needed. Personally I must notice that Canadians tend to be much too nice and will give aid and render assistance at the drop of a hat (any hat). This makes life north of the US extremely liveable and friendly flavoured.

The Daily News and Analyses from Mumbai reported on the 6th of January “Coming to someone’s rescue — an accident victim or a woman violated — is fraught with risks. The good Samaritan will be summoned to the police station several times, sometimes at odd hours, forced to become an eye-witness, and seldom offered any protection, even if he/she is ready to testify in court against a dreaded criminal who probably has the means to hurt the witness.”

From these words it seems that there is no proper GSA active in India. This changes everything, and the fact that many newscasts seem to have ignored that little fact seems to bias us in the wrong way about India. When the need is there we would all happily help, but often not at our own expense. So it seems that in India the consequences to the financial stability (and therefor the family of the one helping) could be very consequential. It therefor becomes clear that this stops people people from rendering aid. Why was this not tackled?

The interesting part is that:

  1. I am not that clever (really I am not).
  2. This has been going on in India for some time.

No one in Indian Legislation, or the Bar council of India could have started this? This has been going on for years. It is time that questions should be raised quite loudly in this regard and in my humble opinion.

My first thought is that a group of people that others might have heard of at some point should speak out on this issue. For example Prime Ministers Julia Gillard (AUS), David Cameron (UK) and President Barack Obama (US). Then off course a few other names come to mind. Lord Neuberger, Lord Hope, Lady Hale to name just 3 of the 12 that come to mind at present. In that regard Australia might have a few titans to contribute to this cause. There is former Justice Michael Donald Kirby and not to forget Sir Gerard Brennan who is actually presently in office holding the position of Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. These people are not just names to throw around.

The reason for the three UK justices I mentioned is because I have always seen England as the foundation of law in Australia (it actually is). They are also the roots of law for India, and even though most of us have adapted the protection through the Good Samaritan act, it is interesting that India does not have such an approach (or so it seems to me, so if I am wrong please correct me).

Now, it seems to me that others might be able to help in this regards. The UK at present still enjoys an annoying (read frustrating) amount of red tape all over the place (also locally known as rules of the game). These rules dictate that at some point people become members of an elite squad of people given long term paid vacation (aka pushed into mandatory retirement, and at times against their wills). Amongst these people are Lord Walker, Baron Walker of Gestingthorpe (as per march 2013) and Lord Hope, Baron Hope of Craighead (as per June 2013). These two are Legislative Titans!

As law lords they could be the experts to offer expertise with their views of Legislation, which could assist India direly needs for implementing a clear and quality Good Samaritan Act; one that might give actual support to the women of India, aiding their protection against the current waves of violence that they face. More important, the gang rapes would then be stoppable by all. It would be a strong first step to make things a lot better for women in India.

So, from the thoughts we all might have had on who to blame for their non safety, we moved to a how to fix this. I do think that additional changes are needed. As mentioned in the Daily News and Analyses, people who helped are picked up, have to give statements and it seems that the approach there is extremely discouraging to give aid. That part would have to change too. Combined it will bring improvement to the women in danger there.

Perhaps I am still too naïve at times, but if we selected the field of law, is it not in our interest to make the laws better, more just and more protective for victims?

These thoughts also reflect the thoughts of the founding father of modern India, the Honorable Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Inner Temple), stated as displayed at the bar council of India website “Be the change that you want to see in the world”, words to live by!

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , , , , ,

January 4, 2013 · 13:55

Just and Unjust alike?

We have all heard the utter unacceptable act against a young woman in India. She did not survive the events!

Now for most people from the most just person to the most unjust dealer of narcotics, we all seem to have two things in common. We all hate sex offenders and we hate offenders against children even more. These two events give way to feelings, that we as a people have hope. No matter how we feel about weapons, about drugs and about adult entertainment. We have a genetic drive to protect children and most of us see a woman as respected, admired and desired (not regarded as to be raped and beaten).

There are two issues with this highway of events as they happened the last few months (involving several rape cases).

First of all, most people all reacted in anger when we were told on the news (in my case BBC News) that a woman was raped on Nov 13th and that nothing was registered by the police until November 27th. The New York Times (Jan 3rd 02:00) mentioned in their article that in a similar case the police had done nothing for over 5 weeks. However when reading the Huffington post, they reported that the police allowed time for the families via elders to broker a deal. The even more unsettling part is that the elders tried to marry her to one of the attackers or the pressure on the family to accept a monetary settlement. Now for me the question becomes, how usual is this? I do not proclaim to have inside knowledge into Indian/Hindu affairs. So when reading this, I wonder whether the news was correctly portrayed, and if it was a correct/legal way to set things straight in India. (and no matter how legal, I still find it utterly disgusting that a woman would be treated in this way)

Now, let me be clear. Rape is NEVER EVER an accepted thing, and change as pushed for at present is a good thing in my mind.

I always believed in equal rights, and taking into consideration that out of 1 billion, 500 million people are unjustly treated is a big wrong, however, in my mind, it also means that criminals should be properly represented, or my idea of justice is just a farce at best. So, when I saw the news made mention of an event, that the Indian order of advocates made a move to not represent these criminals, I stood up in disbelief. Now, I will admit that I am not overly against capital punishment (especially against that group), but no matter what. They do deserve representation. They deserve decent defence, if only to make sure that we as a people do not turn into a quick lynch mob. There are rules of processing, rules of evidence, and as such, any party deserves correct representation, so that the law can be kept high, and it keeps the courtroom as a proper place for processing the criminals and the innocent alike.

Now, secondly, the need for a better system, so that the rights of women are correctly addressed is always a must, and it seems that the Indian way of life should be making a change for the better for everyone, not just men. My current concern is that these acts of violence against women are too common, and as such, India as a Commonwealth nation, should have been addressing these issues a long time ago. Why was it not?

Now to get back to the issue at hand, the honourable Sanjay Kumar from the Saket District bar council was quoted stating “We have decided that no lawyer will stand up to defend the rape accused as it would be immoral to defend the case”. Is this not the whole issue? How can justice be an actual issue, when only one side is represented?

In addition, there is an interesting part that became visible to me today. Out of the 228650 cases of violence in 2012, 89% of these cases were against women. THIS IS SHOCKING!

The fact that this is coming out now, to the extent it does. When we read about rights left, right and centre, this remained so undisclosed? Why is there not a lot MORE visibility of this injustice? I do not remember an overly visible amount of reports on this until last week. So, who were reporters representing? Big business perhaps?

However, I do still belief that both parties should be represented. ABC reported that “A panel to recommend changes to the criminal law dealing with sexual crimes was set up last week.” This is only the first week of January and over 650 cases of rape are already reported. I find it more shocking that it took a heinous act of such size for the Indian government, as well as the international press to take notice of this level of injustice.

It is my belief that the Indian government should face visible public scrutiny and that the current Prime minister Mr. Manmohan Singh, should answer the following issues:

1. Why are women’s rights so trampled on in India, a Commonwealth nation no less!

2. Why is due process not correctly attended to? No matter how immoral, if we belief in commonwealth justice (common law), then both parties should be represented. If only to make sure that correct due process is adhered to, and that the law is properly applied. I understand the disgust of the honourable Mr. Kumar, but they do not set policy, and a refusal to represent a party is a change of jurisprudential policy, and it is interesting that current information implies that the government did not respond to the statement by Mr. Kumar. Why not?

3. We seem to go the great lengths to avoid Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and several other nations as business partners as human rights are trampled on. How is this any different? And if we accept that, why is India not on the list? Because many industrialised nations use them for cheap labour? Their moral values seem highly sanctimonious to me.

My biggest fear is that in the end too many men will walk away, as they will at some point shout the defence that no proper defence was allowed for them, which must be prevented at any cost, as it allows for even more injustice.

As for all these so called upset captains of industry. Perhaps you all should consider another solution. In stead of outsourcing TO India, i say that we start pulling out of India. In this day and age of recessions, that should have a very visible consequence in India, and that might be a clear signal for change. When this level of violence against women (89%) is tolerated by western worlds by doing business with these people we clearly have more problems then we admit to. I will not pretend to have all the answers, or even have some of the answers. However, it is clear that a lot more needs to be done, it should be done correctly and it should happen very very soon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law

Tagged as , , ,