Statement Of Damages Judicial Council: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Thanks for A2A SirMe being nosey i had to read all the responses before i would give my biased or unbiased answer. I will try to keep it short as my one year old son is wreaking havoc in the living room just like my country who since 1947 has thrown various tantrums while finding its position in the World Order.Pakistan:As a state Pakistan will move forward tremendously. we started our journey as an extremist society and now waves of reality have more or less tamed us. A country that was founded on the base of religion its religious vote went from 20% in 1970 to 9% 2018.if i go in technical details it is actually less than 9% because some of the feudal lords have joined religious parties in Balochistan, thanks to the charismatic leadership of Maulana Fazal ur Rahman or also known as Maulana Diesel who himself lost both of his seats and now sitting on a charpai thinking how i lost to a 40 year old honey seller.Military has done its adventures thanks to those fancy toys that US gave us and now have realised that India has more of them so no point showing them “Look i have this what you have” with India growing its conventional superiority this has forced the hand of Pakistani top brass to most extent accept the role of India in Subcontinent. Politically General Musharraf has done enough damage which changed the mindset of Generals and that hangover generation of soldiers who tasted defeat in 1971 is pretty much gone. Military will back institutions to run the state while playing the role of a closet monster to keep politicians in straight line.Supreme Court has emerged as third pillar of state after 2007 when same Chief Justice of Pakistan was removed twice in a year but was restored each time once by Supreme judicial council then the civilian government without a single bullet fired. Supreme Court will keep both military and civilian government in the limits of constitution. This will prevent incidents like when Nawaz Sharif attacked Supreme Court in 1997 and Cheif Justice had to call Army Chief for security or when Musharraf gained legitimacy through apex court in 1999 Coup.Rise of a third national level party under Imran Khan has changed the politics of Pakistan. A party that has won seats all over the country including Imran Khan winning 5 seats from all the provinces. This new ingredient in the political recipe will have a long lasting effect. In future respect of a voter will be the main goal of every political party rather than using ethnic/linguistic lines.Key note: MMA is an alliance of all religious parties and its Balochistan seats are all of feudal lords which is not a religious vote.NowI will start answering the question because many people just issue blanket statements about Pakistan like we are The Sentinelese.Pakistan will be economically be much better in 25 years as capacity building has started one example is of CPEC and other big projects which exposed the true face of Pakistani public sector where they were forced to share contracts with Chinese companies or lost it to private Pakistani companies. Energy requirements will be met by 2020. Terrorism has shown another dark side of Pakistani law enforcement agencies like Police who failed miserably and Khakis couldn’t be everywhere as a result a large chunk of Elite Task Force (Police) is now trained by Pakistan Military. Strengthening of Police is a positive sign for the internal security which will also keep Pakistan military in barracks in emergency.197 million population and 120 million mobile phones have connected the whole country and public opinion is widely shared through social media. Internet is spreading faster than ever. Pakistan will have more urban population than rural at the end of this decade.Banking sector has started to use blockchain on a limited scale with the partnership of Local Banking and Alipay (Alibaba Group) largely thanks to FATF. E-commerce is growing exponentially. New investment deals are coming to Pakistan thanks to improving security situation and infant democracy. Large amount of focus is on tourism and changing the perception of Pakistan globally. Pakistan’s film industry is reviving itself with young directors and producers. 55 countries including EU countries will get visa on arrival. Some EU countries have taken off the travel advisories e.g. France, PortugalA funny incident:Minister of Information calls to Visa section officer: Why have you refused the visa applications of Figo and Kaka?Visa Officer: Who is Kaka and Fiku?These small recent developments which are showing symptoms of a bright future. Big missing piece is our Big neighbor India who hopefully will commence dialogue after 2019 elections as Kartarpur gesture is shown from Pakistan. Please don’t attack me with “T” word.Afghanistan:As a kid who grew up in 90s i made tonns of Afghan friends and played cricket with them every weekend. Madrassa vs School matches were a fascinating spectacle. We used all unfair means to defeat each other sledging was frequent. Common words like Daalkhor, Naswaar Khan or Naswaaru etc some unpleasant or crude words were also used in close finals.Afghanistan has gone through similar change in last 17 years. A vibrant civil society has emerged though not big but noticeable. US and India have played a very big role in that especially that Library Modi G built. I am not joking knowledge is something that Afghanistan’s new generation really need. Afghans are a resilient nation and they will fight for their lifestyle of that i have no doubt.But they key issue is the power centres in AfghanistanKabul Government & NDSExternal forces and their favouritesTalibanJust like Pakistan, Kabul regime and their security agency pursue things differently this is evident from Hamid Karzai’s revelations. War lord culture is hard to change and when you have forces like Taliban to counter It makes things even worse. I don’t exactly know how much this democratic setup is empowered by US. Generally a Four Star NATO General takes all the security related decisions.Dialogue with Taliban is crucial to determining how to integrate them into mainstream. They cannot come back as undisputed victors which they might believe at this moment. What most people have mentioned in other answers is the 20th century approach and this is not game Pakistan and other regional powers want to play. This is why we saw Foreign Minister of Pakistan saying that India has an important role in Afghanistan and then further he said on Chinese tv CGTN that we have conveyed to Talibans that you cannot just ride into Kabul and Pakistan will not support that. Iranian FM also said recently in an Indian Tv interview that Taliban can not have a dominant role.This way Pakistan is signaling to India for talks so the concensus can be achieved regarding Afghan issue. There is another important factor is China which was a slightly different country in 1996 when Taliban took over. China has stakes or developing stakes in nearly all countries of South Asia. I have a positive feeling about this and hope that Afghans can live peacefully. Pakistan is fencing the Afghan Border to stop people who want to destabilise. Visa restrictions are also imposed from Pakistan to limit the flow.One positive thing is in this whole process is many regional countries are trying to stabilise Afghanistan. This can also be a “Too many Chefs in a kitchen” sort of situation but lets see and pray it won’t.Economics will play a huge part in maintaining peace. At the moment there are over 300,000 Afghan security forces employed for which US is paying plus annually billions are given to Afghan govt to function. Afghanistan has never maintained this sort of force. This is where India, Pakistan and Iran can play central role. Ideally if India had transit route to Afghanistan through Pakistan, it would have been beneficial to whole region. But for now Chahbahar port will play a major part in Afghan economics.I will shed some light on Talibans before this question gets any longer. Pakistan has good relations with Taliban but they don’t have as much control as world might think. Former ISI General Hamid Gul was invited on national day parade in Afghanistan back in late 90s after Taliban took over Kabul. He tried to convince Taliban about various issues like girls education, separation from Al Qaida especially Arab fighters and justice system etc. Taliban accepted things but never implemented because the lacked the capacity to rule. They were good fighters but not good administrators. They went hard on poppy production and that resulted in collapse of their economy or whatever it was called. Their governance was medieval and rigid.It will be interesting to see what kind of change they have gone through as their leadership is changed. Mullah Omar motivated them to achieve goals but he was stubborn when it came down to old school honour and hospitality. This is why he refused to handover OBL after bombing of US embassies even though Pakistanis pleaded that it will bring death and destruction.Afghanistan could progress or fall back into chaos which will be a tragedy. There are so many unknown variables in Afghanistan’s future model that it takes me back to my Calculus class.Links:Pakistan’s digital revolution is happening faster than you thinkPakistan’s First Blockchain-Based Remittance Service Launched Using Alipay’s Technologyhttps://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thebrokebackpacker.com/travel-to-pakistan/amp/Pakistan's political shift raises hopes for tourism comebackPWC’s ‘brave’ report forecasts Egypt and Pakistan will surpass Canada’s economy by 2050Thanks for reading

Probably because most people in Western countries confuse the idea of democracy (or to be pedantic, representative democracy) with that of liberal democracy. Singapore’s elections themselves are free and fair, Singaporeans have alternatives at the polls, have secret ballots, and individual voters are neither investigated nor by-and-large retaliated against. Voting is even mandatory and considered a patriotic duty, and voter turnouts are routinely 90% and above, putting many Western countries to shame.So why, then, do many Westerners believe that Singapore doesn’t conform to their definition of “democracy?”The trivial, and largely wrong, answer that is often given by critics of Singapore’s political system is to point to the dominance of the PAP. But that is facile. The LDP has had a similarly almost unbroken hold on power in Japan, and no one really contested the fact that Japan had a democratic government. In fact, even absent other measures the PAP has done a remarkable job of being a dominant party by virtue of political tactics that in many other places would be considered both legitimate and masterful. These include:Solidly building, reinforcing, and constantly working towards a reputation for prioritizing national prosperity over self-aggrandizementNever being tied to a fixed ideologyCo-opting the most popular policies and politicians from opposition parties, thus often robbing them of electoral relevance and harming the cohesion of opposition parties while simultaneously strengthening their own platformStrategically timing elections to maximize supportThis has allowed the PAP to be a remarkably effective political organization, which bends according to the prevailing winds of public opinion but stays firmly rooted. All that being said, this is not all that the PAP has done to maintain dominance, and it is this that gives foreigners pause.The Singapore government, which at this point is still synonymous with the PAP, has a stranglehold on most forms of public discourse and on the judicial system. It uses its sovereign control over these institutions to make it an extremely hostile environment for opposition politicians. For example:The GRC system, ostensibly meant to increase minority representation, effectively Gerrymanders voting districts to such an extent that PAP dominance in parliament can be highly unrepresentative of actual voting tallies. In the 2011 election, widely considered to be a historic rebuke to the PAP, the popular vote tallies had a roughly 60% vote percentage going to the PAP (a highly respectable amount in most any other democracy) but 81/87 elected seats went to the PAP, a result that has miniscule chances of occurring in a properly representative systemPAP politicians are extremely litigious whenever they are subjected to what would in most liberal democratic nations be considered routine politicking or opinion. The PAP government has enabled this in large part by refusing to modernize their colonial-era defamation laws, removing safeguards such as jury trials and the right to appeal to the Commonwealth Privy Council, and establishing case law that fails to protect what in other Common law and Civil law jurisdictions would be protected speech. Judges that do not consistently support this are quietly reassigned.In particular, subjective value judgments about various politicians are often litigated and defamation awards are often in the millions of Singapore dollars. I’ve heard the objection made before - often by Singapore’s own politicians, too - that “politicians should not tell lies.” However, it’s instructive to bring up an example here. In the 1990s, the ertswhile head of the Workers’ Party in Singapore, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, said that “Lee Kuan Yew is not fit to be Prime Minister.” He was sued for civil defamation and paid damages in the millions. In the United States and the UK this would be protected speech, not tortious, on many different levels: It is a clear statement of opinion rather than of fact, the person being spoken about is a public figure and thus could win only under the restrictive “actual malice” standard which involves “reckless disregard of the facts” that goes well beyond journalistic fact-checking, and arguably it is also hyperbole which is also protected in the US (though not to the same explicit extent in the UK).In addition, Singapore’s defamation laws do not shield the publishers, printers, or other facilitators (such as internet hosting websites) from damages as in most liberal democratic countries. In fact they go farther and do not even allow newspapers or other media organizations to legally shield their sources.As a result, Singapore’s political discourse is stifled as opposition politicians must be careful not to step on the toes of PAP figures, engaging in vigorous self-censorship. The most prolific and partisan politicians, whom you might otherwise expecting to be leading their parties, are often legally barred from contesting in elections because they are constantly bankrupt from defamation judgments.The Singapore press is a frequent target of defamation lawsuits, both in the domestic and foreign press. As previously mentioned, media organizations are not shielded by merely being facilitators, publishers or distributors of material. As a result a strong culture of self-censorship is prevalent in Singapore, and all major newspapers whether foreign or no will toe the government line. Very little local political debate makes it into newspapers, which either largely ignore local politics (if foreign) or consistently present the government viewpoint.Anecdotally the government engages in some borderline shady tactics by making it difficult for people to attend rallies for opposition parties, changing venues and such, but as I’m not a Singapore citizen and have never actually participated in their political process, opposition or otherwise, all I have are secondhand accounts.The Singapore government still has the Malayan Emergency-era Internal Security Act on the books, amended since but still essentially a license to indefinitely detain without trial or judicial review anyone suspected of negatively affecting public order or security. The powers it gives have not been used in decades, but it still remains a Sword of Damocles hanging above all potential politicians.Now let’s make this clear: While this makes Singapore a decidedly illiberal democracy, it is still a democracy. Singapore also does not engage in most of the more heavy-handed tactics you see in truly repressive “democracies.” No armed thugs beat up political rallies. The government doesn’t stuff ballot boxes or intimidate groups of voters. Opposition politicians still hold rallies, albeit ones carefully scripted to avoid defamation lawsuits. For that matter, opposition politicians don’t mysteriously disappear and end up with their bodies tangled in the mangroves on Pulau Ubin or blocking seawater intakes on Jurong Island. Electioneering is orderly, people don’t get hurt, and at the very worst the impediments to candidates contesting jurisdictions are of the Kafkaesque bureaucratic variety, not of the “make you an offer you can’t refuse” variety.All of the pedants pointing out that Singapore has all of the trappings of democracy are technically correct (the best kind of correct). But they miss the substance of what makes Westerners uncomfortable. Singapore’s democracy is a mature, well-oiled, sparkling clean version of what Viktor Orbán wants for Hungary, PiS seems to want for Poland, or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan wants for Turkey: A self-perpetuating government form with all of the trappings of Western-style legitimacy but none of the dangers of losing power.And here’s the real killer: unfortunately for the Western idealists, this form of government is very stable so long as the party in power is deft enough to maintain relative prosperity, remain reasonably non-corrupt, and doesn’t become completely deaf to the concerns of their people.

Here in South Africa we too have a highest court in the land (the constitutional court) with the power to force government to comply with the constitution.The process is a bit different though as South Africa no longer has a senate (the senate was replaced by the National Council of Provinces in 1997) and the senate never had a role. Here the president nominates judges for vacancies on the court (court packing is not a thing because the constitution itself sets the number of judges at a fixed number of 11). Here the advise and consent role is fulfilled by the judicial commission - which is sort of a disciplinary board of and for judges, manned by senior (mostly retired) judges elected by the judiciary, that exists to ensure all judges in all courts actually work and act in the manner their position demands. If somebody believed a judge had taken a bribe to find somebody innocent for example - this is where the case would be heard.In 2009 a vacancy opened up - as it happened that of the chief justice. The president at the time was Jacob Zuma, universally deemed to be the worst president South Africa has had in it’s democratic era, very much the Trump of South Africa (only without the white supremacy). Corrupt to the core he used his office for personal self-enrichment, and gladly sold the organs of state off to the highest bidder for their self enrichment. A form of corruption we call “State capture”. Investigations to reveal the full extent of this crime is still on-going - but what is known already sounds like something out of a bad pulp fiction airport novel - oh and he was credibly accused of rape before he was president. So really I guess the similarities to Trump aren’t that glaring… /sSo when Jacob Zuma got to appoint a new chief justice of the organ of state which ultimately is our final defence against the likes of him South Africans were understandably concerned. While the concept and extent of State Capture was not yet known, we did have a president who had been ipso facto convicted in court of 783 charges of corruption before he was even appointed (another person Shabir Shaik had been convicted of having a corrupt relationship of bribery with then vice president Zuma - which ipso facto means there was enough evidence to convict Zuma of accepting the bribes). And had managed to avoid prosecution consistently, as president he had and would continue to keep this up, by appointing allies to head the state prosecution services and such, and with a lapdop party in government refusing to hold him to account.There was a legitimate fear in the country that Zuma would use the opportunity to install into the constitutional chief justice that would cover for him, one he could control or just a corrupt one.For once, Zuma missed an opportunity - or perhaps he just didn’t feel up to actually challenging the Judicial Services Commision. His nominee was Mogoeng Mogoeng. A judge of impeccable history, education and skill. Of course concerns were raised - the judge had on occasion made statements of significant religiousity which led people to fear that freedom of religion in this diverse nation or freedom to not live under the moral demands of any particular religion may not get due respect from him. Such concerns were raised and debated, but ultimately the commission gave it’s nod.It would become a classic example of a pyrhic victory. Zuma won his nomination onto to the court - and from that day forward the court was a constant pain in Zuma’s side. Under the leadership of Mogoeng it has not hesitated to find against him as president and subsequently as a citizen charged with crimes. It has not hesitated to make him personally pay for legal costs when he brought frivolous motions or appeals to try and stop investigations he didn’t want. It did not hesitate happy to reprimand the national assembly for failing in it’s constitutional duty to hold the president to account, it did not hesitate when it became clear that an early Zuma scandal (Nkandla) involved significant self-enrichment to order him to pay back the costs to the taxpayers that were missapropriated for his gain.So when I look at the American events now - I see the Kavanaugh saga as the culmination of a period of rapid decline of the very standards that should drive the management of a highest court which began with the nomination of Merick Garland. Judge Garland was an eminently qualified, centrist candidate who, in any other era, would have been one of the least contentious appointments ever. But the republicans want a conservative majority on the court. They’d been trying and failing to achieve one for decades.Sometimes their judges proved less conservative than they thought. Bork got blocked. One dissapointment after another in the greatest single goal the republicans have held since the days of the liberal Warren court. Merrick Garland’s centrist bipartisan approach to the law had no place in that.Instead they stole his seat to give it to Gorsuch and so began a tainting of the court. An air of distrust attends every Gorsuch decision - a genuine feeling that he didn’t deserve a vote and perhaps if Garland had gotten the seat the people had voted for Obama to fill then what many sees as travesties of justice would not be occurring.With the court so damaged already, Trump got the chance to appoint another judge. Here, finally and for the first time, was the opportunity for the republicans to achieve their decades-long dream of a conservative majority, a dream they had become so desperate for that they had already abandoned all norms and values, all sense of decorum and ethics, all reason and rationality. And they chose Kavanaugh.So worried were they that a blue wave would lose them the chance to appoint him unchallenged, that they rushed through a nomination of a deeply flawed and highly controversial choice. In their rushing they failed to properly vet the candidate (had they done so - then the existence of numerous credible allegations of sexual misconduct would have become known through those channels - and not laid with-held in the desk of one democratic senator respecting the wishes of one accuse until the press got a leaked copy). They were never interested in vetting the candidate, just in getting him confirmed before they risk the democrats picking up any more senate seats. And so, when the allegations became public and htey were forced to hold hearings it didnt’ actually MATTER if he’s guilty or not.The process had become such a sham, that if he is appointed the court itself would be a sham - for decades, perhaps forever, all faith in that vital democratic institution would be destroyed.If Brett Kavanaugh had any honour or patriotism at all he would step aside - even if he is innocent, because he would deem the reputation of that hallowed court to be more important than his personal reputation - more important by far than his career. He would refuse to let the taint of this process become the taint upon the court - which is now inevitable if he is appointed, even if you believe him you cannot possibly believe that I am wrong about that. It’s after all blatantly obvious that the most unpopular nominee of all time is not going to have the trust of any liberal or democratic plaintiff or defended to ever stand in that court.So I gave you the history of the most contentious candidate our highest court has yet had, tainted as it was by the taint of the president who nominated him. But we did well there, because the approval of a presidential nominee is left up to our best and brightest judges: people who value the trustworthiness of our court system above their own political desires and beliefs.America lacks such an institution - and the senate as an alternative has always been a weaker option because it’s populated by politicians, not judges. But the system has now been wholly corrupted. In America the worst president ever has with his judicial appointments, and a party desperate to achieve an age-old dream of a conservative majority court at any cost, turned the supreme court itself into a sham. And Bret Kavanaugh is the face of the destruction of trust in that court.Democracy and republicanism depends on a number of things to be functional, secure, free and non-tyranical. The most important of those things is the rule of law: so if your highest court cannot be trusted, your republican democracy is ALREADY DEAD.