*________Bakkwa. A saxophone enthusiast. But has given up practicing due to one reason or another.___________*
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
「 dancing away 12:36 PM 」


A quote from the newspapers caught my attention. Please note that this blog entry is not targeted against any person, government, association, religion or state. It is something from the papers which happened to catch my attention.

"An oath was valid as long as it was in the name of god". An oath is valid as long as he swears in the name of _____. The holy book did not specify conditions, such as the time or place, placing a had on the holy book or the subject matter, for taking an oath is not part of the court proceedings.

Perhaps there is a need to clarify the defintion of a term in this statement.
An OATH is defined as a solemn promise to do something or that something is true

The third statement of this quote from the papers actually highlight what i was thinking. Perhaps, elections now have become no more than great advertising campaigns and the outcome is dependent on which party has a high hand at the election campaigns. It is really odd that some electoral candidates have to resort to such means to ensure a sway in the constituency votes.

An oath, as seen in the quote, above is not part of the court proceedings. This means that even if an oath is made, it does not make the accused legally guilty. An oath might be taken into consideration by the court as evidence that an offence has been committed. But how would we know how true this oath is? It is currently no more than a baseless comment or allegation that has been made. I suppose many atimes, in some countries, attempts such as this have been made, so as to overthrow possible contenders in the elections. Eventually, the outcome is not up to us, but up to the people in the constituency. However, i am glad that the people who have supported the making of this oath have recognised that the accused is not even prima facie guilty.

Sense of uncertainty is obvious. In "Today" there are worries that if this new candidate takes over as the representative of this constituency, there is a likelihood that the locals are going to lose the benefits (be it financial or whatsoever) from the government since more chances are going to be given to others.

No prosecution has been mounted. So even if an oath is made, so be it. There is a dichotomy between legal guilt and moral guilt. They are not the same. Never try to bring them to the same level. Perhaps, in a place where there is no independent judiciary and the judiciary is likely to sway according to public sentiments, legal guilt might be the same as moral guilt.

But who knows? It is too early to make any conclusions.