Iran's retaliatory strike on Israel for bombing its Consulate - after the UN failed to respond as required? When UN fails, victimized States will act on its own- not good?

Iran's RETALIATORY STRIKE - it was Israel that attacked Iran first...

If only the United Nations had responded speedily and  strongly to the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Syria by Israel  on 1/4/2024 - but sadly the UN Security Council did not. Neither did the UN Secretary General?

On Monday, Israel bombed a building that was part of the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, killing seven people, including Gen. Mohamad Reza Zahedi, who oversaw Iran’s covert military operations in Syria and Lebanon, and two other senior generals. - New York Times, 2/4/2024

Then, after waiting and waiting for a response from the world body...

Iran unleashed a barrage of missiles and drones on Saturday and during the early hours of Sunday, targeting Israel in retaliation for last week’s suspected Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus that killed 13 people. - Al Jazeera, 14/4/2024

After waiting for about 2 weeks, Iran retaliated  and look at the speed of the UN's response to Iran's retaliatory strike that did not even result in deaths...(No report that any or many were killed in Israel to date)

Well, the UN Secretary General 

I strongly condemn the serious escalation represented by the large-scale attack launched on Israel by the Islamic Republic of Iran this evening. I call for an immediate cessation of these hostilities. - UN Secretary General, 13/4/2024

Points to note

The UN Secretary General makes no mention of the fact that this was a RETALIATORY STRIKE after Israel bombed an Iranian Embassy in Syria. Was there even a statement after the Iranian Consulate bombing that killed 13?  Is the UN Secretary General demonstrating BIAS?

The EMERGENCY UN Security Council  

He[António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations] said the emergency session was held upon an urgent request by Israel following what it described in a letter as a direct attack launched by Iran of over 200 unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles towards Israel in clear violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.  In a separate letter, Iran stated that it had carried out a series of military strikes on Israeli military objectives in the exercise of Iran’s inherent right to self-defence as outlined in Article 51 of the Charter, and in response to the Israeli recurring military aggressions, particularly its armed attack on 1 April 2024 against Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus.

The Secretary-General said that according to the latest reports several missiles reportedly struck within Israeli territory.  One damaged an Israeli military facility in the south of the country.  Overall, a few civilians were injured. 

Wow, the speed when Israel was attacked - compared to lackadaisical attitude when Iran's Consulate was bombed killing 13 is shocking? Note that after the 1st April attack, Iran brought the matter to the UN..

Hence, the question of DISCRIMINATION of the UN, the UN Sec Gen, UN Security Council - are not all UN Member States treated equally?

LANGUAGE - The Media and some UN statements tries to paint an incomplete picture to give the impression that IRAN attacked ISRAEL - when clearly based on facts, it is a RETALIATORY RESPONSE - a weak response at that for the Iranian strike seem to have not killed anyone but just damages a military facility.

What should Iran or any other country do when the UN fails to ACT when some other nation bombed and killed people in their embassy/consulate or their country? Sit quietly and take it...Well, Iran brought the issue to the UN... but how long will the victimized State have to wait for JUSTICE.

The UNITED NATIONS have the power to act speedily - imposing economic sanctions, stopping the flow of arms to the perpetrator State, sending in a UN Peacekeeping Force, even sending a UN armed force against perpetrator State as it did against North Korea before...

So, what is BLOCKING or preventing to act - well, simply put it is the VETO that is held by 5 countries - China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States

When the United Nations was formed 24 October 1945, the Big Five, [now the permanent members with VETO power], made it clear that there would be no United Nations if they were not given the veto.

Francis O. Wilcox, an adviser to the US delegation, described the dramatic negotiations: "At San Francisco, the issue was made crystal clear by the leaders of the Big Five: it was either the Charter with the veto or no Charter at all. Senator Connally [from the US delegation] dramatically tore up a copy of the Charter during one of his speeches and reminded the small states that they would be guilty of that same if they opposed the unanimity principle. 'You may, if you wish,' he said, 'go home from this Conference and say that you have defeated the veto. But what will be your answer when you are asked: "Where is the Charter"?'"[i]

Harry S. Truman, who became President of the United States in April 1945, wrote: "All our experts, civil and military, favored it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."[ii]

---

[i] Wilcox, Francis O. (October 1945). "II. The Yalta Voting Formula". The American Political Science Review. 39 (5): 943–956. doi:10.2307/1950035. JSTOR 1950035. S2CID 143510142.

[ii] Truman, Year of Decisions: 1945, p. 207. See also US Department of State: "The United States and the Founding of the United Nations" Archived 23 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine. October 2005. Retrieved 1 March 2012.

This VETO has unfortunately been abused by the said 5 countries - it has been used to CURTAIL the United Nations from acting against not just these 5 VETO holding countries, but also their 'friends' - We all know how the US has used it to prevent UN Action against its friend, Israel.

Not, the VETO can also be used to 'paint a false picture'. Who was responsible for the attack of Israel, that also resulted in 'kidnappings'? Well, Israel, US and 'friends' placed the blame on HAMAS - and insisted even the UN Security Council and other UN decision making to accept this as fact. 

YES, we know that some terrorist group was responsible - so, the UN too initially did not want to lay blame on Hamas, and said that those responsible was 'Palestinian armed groups in Gaza'.. not HAMAS.

On 7 October 2023, Palestinian armed groups in Gaza launched thousands of rockets toward Israel and breached through the perimeter fence of Gaza at multiple locations, entering into Israeli towns and killing and capturing Israeli forces and civilians. The Israeli military declared “a state of war alert,” and began striking targets in the Gaza Strip, including residential buildings and health care facilities. Since then, thousands of people have been killed and more than one million have been displaced, as parts of Gaza have been reduced to rubble. =https://www.un.org/en/situation-in-occupied-palestine-and-israel

Gaza was governed by HAMAS, after it won the last Parliamentary Elections in 2006. Gaza had been governed by HAMAS since then. With the long history of many Israeli's excessive retaliation that result in deaths of Palestinians by reason of alleged bombings by Palestine, it is MOST UNLIKELY that HAMAS would have 'attacked' Israel... The people that bombed, killed and kidnap Israelis must be identified, tried and punished ... Therefore, it is most dangerous to simply believe what Israel, US or any country that quickly lays blame to HAMAS

The Islamic group Hamas has won a huge majority in parliamentary elections, with Palestinian voters rejecting the long-time rule of the Fatah movement.Of the 132 seats in Parliament, Hamas won 76 and Fatah 43, the election commission announced on Thursday.Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, and his cabinet resigned, even before the official results were announced, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was to ask Hamas to form the next government.- Al Jazeera, 26/1/2006

But, sadly the VETO power was used to lay blame on HAMAS for the October attack...Sadly, media and what was previously considered INDEPENDENT Media also started accepting the US Narrative. We recall the 'weapons of mass destruction' reason used for the military invasion of Iraq - which now has been found to be nothing but LIES.

So, watch how the MEDIA reports on the Iran's retaliatory attack on Israels bombing of its embassy. Or will there be a 'SPIN" painting a picture that Iran attacked Israel...

If any US embassy/facility is bombed - the response is always an immediate military response...they do not wait for a UN Resolution or response.

YES, IRAN should not have retaliated on its own against Israel - but with the FAILURE of the UN to ensure justice be done, what can any victim sovereign nation do..?

With regards to Gaza, Israel has not even complied with the International Court of Justice(ICJ) Order - to immediately stop killing Palestinians, etc 

26th January ICJ, amongst others, orders ISRAEL to stop killing of Palestinians,etc but the killing and other things continues - What should we do with Israel? What will ICJ do? What will UN do? READ the ICJ ORDER of 26/1/2024

Why has the UN not started sending UN Peacekeeping Forces into Gaza? Why has the UN not acted to force Israel back to its original borders, out of all Occupied Territories? Why has the UN been so lame and 'toothless'? Without the VETO power, the UN would have most likely acted strongly not just in Gaza, but also Ukraine, and other countries that demand a stronger response by the global body.

UN must practice DEMOCRACY, and acknowledge the equality of every nation State, and not be dictated or blocked by any of the 5 States that have the VETO power..

Besides the VETO, the Big Countries can use economy and political power to 'control' weaker nations...but that we cannot do anything about, but the ONE thing we can do is to remove the VETO powers - and will make the UN more effective in fulfilling its role.

We need the UN, the global body that can ACT in conflicts between nation states... against member States that did wrong, against member States that violates human rights and commits injustices against people...

We need an INDEPENDENT MEDIA that will simply not be 'dishing out' perspectives of certain nation states as the TRUTH...

Restore peoples' equal right to Parliamentary representations -

Malaysians sadly do not enjoy EQUAL RIGHTS OF REPRESENTATION in Parliament. 

Take a look at selected parliamentary constituencies in Selangor. In Klang (208,913 voters in 2022), Bangi (303,430), Kota Raja (244,712) and Subang (230,940), the number of voters is several times more than a string of previously Umno-held constituencies in the state. Look at the much smaller number of voters in Kuala Selangor (102,951), Tanjong Karang (62,194), Sungai Besar (64,382) and Sabak Bernam (51,609). 

Should not the people in Klang or Bangi deserve to have 2 or 3 MPs in Parliament.  There are 300,000 plus voters in Bangi, and just like Sabak Bernam.

For EQUAL REPRESENTATION in Parliament and/or Government, every Parliamentary Constituency must have almost equal number of voters - but in Malaysia, the problem nationwide is that some Constituencies are too large and some are too small.

This must be REMEDIED speedily.

WHY WAS THIS PROBLEM NOT REMEDIED SOONER?

Well, some say that during the time the UMNO-led Coalition(Alliance then BN) was ruling, the strategy was ensure more Parliamentary seats are won by then government parties, and reduce the number of seats won by the Opposition parties. Thus, where Opposition likely to win, the number of constituents were large. Even, if we look at maps of Constituencies, for some it is ODD as the borders look like there was 'tampering' to reduce number of Opposition MPs or attempts to try to change borders to give government parties better chances. 

It must be noted that our Federal Constitution never provided for the number of MPs per State, and the Constitution has been amended several times over the years (See below this post the relevant Art. 46, and the Notes that tells us roughly this Article has been amended over the years. 

In determining the Constituency Boundaries, several factors are mention in Thirteenth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, but today they may no longer be relevant considering the development in the country...especially things like..

...(b) regard ought to be had to the administrative facilities available within the constituencies for the establishment of the necessary registration and polling machines;

(c) the number of electors within each constituency in a State ought to be approximately equal except that, having regard to the greater difficulty of reaching electors in the country districts and the other disadvantages facing rural constituencies, a measure of weightage for area ought to be given to such constituencies;...

Anyway, the one point that is always there is that the number of electors in constituency must be equal or 'approximately equal'. When the PH government finally ousted the BN government and came into power after GE14 in 2018 - they could have dealt with this problem but they did not..

Will our Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim and the PH-led coalition government deal with this issue and finally all all Malaysians EQUAL RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION in the Dewan Rakyat, the lower House of the Malaysian Parliament. 

As it is, Malaysians are already being denied the right to elect Senators, Local Government(Council) peoples' representatives, ...and even their village, taman heads...All these need to be changed

 

 

 

 46  Composition of House of Representatives

(1) The House of Representatives shall consist of two hundred and twenty-two elected members.

(2) There shall be—

(a) two hundred and nine members from the States in Malaysia as follows:

(i) twenty-six members from Johore;

(ii) fifteen members from Kedah;

(iii) fourteen members from Kelantan;

(iv) six members from Malacca;

(v) eight members from Negeri Sembilan;

(vi) fourteen members from Pahang;

(vii) thirteen members from Penang;

(viii) twenty-four members from Perak;

(ix) three members from Perlis;

(x) twenty-five members from Sabah;

(xi) thirty-one members from Sarawak;

(xii) twenty-two members from Selangor; and

(xiii) eight members from Terengganu; and

(b) thirteen members from the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya as follows:

(i) eleven members from the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur;

(ii) one member from the Federal Territory of Labuan;

(iii) one member from the Federal Territory of Putrajaya.

NOTES

Art. 46

1. This Article as it stood on Merdeka Day read as follows:

"46. (1) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred elected members except that the first House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and four.

(2) After the completion of the first census to be taken after Merdeka Day Parliament may by law alter the number of members of the House of Representatives.".

2. This Article was amended by Act 14/1962, section 14, in force from 21-06-1962, by substituting "one hundred and four elected members" for "one hundred elected members except that the first House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and four" in Clause (1), and repealed Clause (2).

3. This Article was substituted by Act 26/1963, section 9, in force from 16-09-1963, which read as follows:

"46. (1) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty-nine elected members.

(2) There shall be—

(a) one hundred and four members from the States of Malaya;

(b) sixteen members from Sabah;

(c) twenty-four members from Sarawak;

(d) fifteen members from Singapore.".

4. This Article was amended by Act 59/1966, section 2, in force from 09-08-1965, by substituting "forty-four" for "fifty-nine" in Clause (1) and deleted paragraph (d) of Clause (2).

5. This Article was again amended by Act A206, section 12, in force from 23-08-1973, by the substitution of the whole Article which read as follows:

"46. (1) The House of Representatives shall consist of one hundred and fifty-four elected members.

(2) There shall be—

(a) one hundred and forty-nine members from the States in Malaysia as follows:

(i) sixteen members from Johore;

(ii) thirteen members from Kedah;

(iii) twelve members from Kelantan;

(iv) four members from Malacca;

(v) six members from Negeri Sembilan;

(vi) eight members from Pahang;

(vii) nine members from Penang;

(viii) twenty-one members from Perak;

(xi) two members from Perlis;

(x) sixteen members from Sabah;

(xi) twenty-four members from Sarawak;

(xii) eleven members from Selangor;

(xiii) seven members from Terengganu; and

(b) five members from the Federal Territory.".

6. The present Article was substituted by Act A566, section 5, in force from 16-12-1983. However, the substitution shall not affect the composition of the House of Representatives or any elections to that House until the dissolution of Parliament occurring on or after 31-12-1984—See P.U. (A) 475 and 476/1984.

Clause (1)

Amended by Act A585, paragraph 14(a), in force from 16-04-1984, by substituting the words "seventy-seven" for "seventy-six".

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A585, paragraph 14(b), in force from 16-04-1984, by substituting for paragraph (b) the following new paragraph (b):

“(b) eight members from the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan as follows—

(i) seven members from the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur;

(ii) one member from the Federal Territory of Labuan.".

Clause (1)

Amended by Act A631, section 2, in force from 24-02-1986, by substituting the word "eighty" for "seventy-seven".

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A631, section 2, in force from 24-02-1986, by substituting the word "seventy-two" for "sixty-nine" in paragraph (a) and the word "twenty-seven" for "twenty-four" in subparagraph (xi) of paragraph (a).

Note:

This Article, as amended, shall not affect the composition of the House of Representatives or any election to that House until the dissolution of Parliament—See Art. 57(1A).

Clause (1)

Amended by Act A837, section 2, in force from 20-11-1992, by substituting the word "ninety-two" for "eighty".

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A837, section 2, in force from 20-11-1992—

(i) by substituting the word "eighty-one" for "seventy-two" in paragraph (a);

(ii) by substituting the word "twenty" for "eighteen" in subparagraph (a)(i);

(iii) by substituting the word "fifteen" for "fourteen" in subparagraph (a)(ii);

(iv) by substituting the word "fourteen" for "thirteen" in subparagraph (a)(iii);

(v) by substituting the word "eleven" for "ten" in subparagraph (a)(vi);

(vi) by substituting the word "three" for "two" in subparagraph (a)(ix);

(vii) by substituting the word "seventeen" for "fourteen" in subparagraph (a)(xii);

(viii) by substituting the word "eleven" for "eight" in paragraph (b); and

(ix) by substituting the word "ten" for "seven" in subparagraph (b)(i).

Note:

The above amendments shall not affect the composition of the House of Representatives or any election to that House until dissolution of Parliament occurring on or after the date of the coming into force of the Order made under section 12 of the Thirteenth Schedule—See section 4 of Act A837.

Clause (1)

This clause was again amended by Act A945, paragraph 2(a), in force from 07-06-1996, to increase the composition of the House of Representatives from one hundred and ninety-two to one hundred and ninety-three, i.e. specifically increasing the composition of the members from the State of Sarawak from twenty-seven to twenty-eight.

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A945, paragraph 2(b), in force from 07-06-1996—

(i) by substituting the word "eighty-two" for "eighty-one" in paragraph (a); and

(ii) by substituting the word "twenty-eight" for "twenty-seven" in subparagraph (a)(xi).

Note:

However this amendment shall not affect the composition of the House of Representatives or any election to that House until the dissolution of Parliament occurring on or after the date of the coming into force of the Order made under section 12 of the Thirteenth Schedule to the Federal Constitution following the review undertaken pursuant to Clause (2) of Article 113 of the Federal Constitution and the said Thirteenth Schedule. Clause (1) Amended by Act A1095, paragraph 16(a), in force from 01-02-2001, by substituting the word "ninety-four" for "ninety-three".

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A1095, paragraph 16(b), in force from 01-02-2001, to enable one member of the House of Representatives to be elected to represent the Federal Territory of Putrajaya.

Clause (1)

Amended by Act A1198, paragraph 2(a), in force from 15-08-2003, by substituting the words "two hundred and nineteen" for "one hundred and ninety-four".

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A1198, paragraph 2(b), in force 15-08-2003, by increasing the number of members of the House of Representatives consequent upon the delimitation of the constituencies undertaken by the Election Commission from 8 August 2002 until 7 September 2002. The increase is as follows:

(a) six members from Johore;

(b) one member from Malacca;

(c) one member from Negeri Sembilan;

(d) three members from Pahang;

(e) two members from Penang;

(f) one member from Perak;

(g) five members from Sabah;

(h) five members from Selangor; and

(i) one member from the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.

Clause (1)

Amended by Act A1260, paragraph 2(a), in force from 19-01-2006, by substituting the words "two hundred and twenty-two" for "two hundred and nineteen".

Clause (2)

Amended by Act A1260, paragraph 2(b), in force from 19-01-2006, to increase the composition of the House of Representatives from two hundred and six to two hundred and nine, i.e. specifically increasing the composition of the members from the State of Sarawak from twenty-eight to thirty-one.

 

Anwar, the clock is ticking! Where are the reforms?

One key issue is the lopsided weighting of parliamentary constituencies

10 Apr 2024

Bersih held its first meeting with a serving prime minister when the team met Anwar Ibrahim on 28 February 2024 - ANWAR IBRAHIM/FACEBOOK

Follow us on our Malay and English WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, Tiktok and Youtube channels.

By Sarujun Hoda Abdul Hassan

The recently elected chairman of Bersih, Faisal Aziz, and his steering committee members, must be congratulated for bringing the coalition back on track to its core business.

The key objective of the electoral reform group is to correct the lopsided and overly manipulated electoral process, which appears to blatantly favour one ethnicity and the government in power.

Every time constituency boundaries are redrawn, many opposition constituencies appear to be overly conflated with boundaries drawn along ethnic lines. Meanwhile, government-held constituencies favouring a certain ethnicity seem to be kept small for easy wins.

The malapportionment of votes is often staggering.

The Election Commission rarely entertained objections from affected voters – another major flaw in its approach.

Look at the shape of the Klang constituency, for instance. It looks like a thin elongated grasshopper-like insect. One cannot help but wonder if this was done maliciously.

Green grasshopper? – SELANGOR.GOV.MY

The Election Commission had no shame nor qualms in undertaking such an absurd exercise – to please its political masters? 

Take a look at selected parliamentary constituencies in Selangor. In Klang (208,913 voters in 2022), Bangi (303,430), Kota Raja (244,712) and Subang (230,940), the number of voters is several times more than a string of previously Umno-held constituencies in the state. Look at the much smaller number of voters in Kuala Selangor (102,951), Tanjong Karang (62,194), Sungai Besar (64,382) and Sabak Bernam (51,609).

The value of one vote in some of these smaller constituencies is equivalent to four to eight votes in the larger seats.

Still, the lopsided weighting didn’t work for Barisan Nasional the last time around. Voters, shocked by Najib Razak’s corruption and his 1MDB grand thefts, shifted their support in a big way to the other ethnic and religious party, Pas, which is part of Perikatan Nasional. PN found these seats delivered to them on a silver platter and quickly gobbled up most of them.

If the “Madani” (civil and compassionate) government does not correct this lopsided weighting before the next general election, it is a foregone conclusion that PN will reap the advantage and possibly form the next federal government.

It all hinges on whether the electoral boundaries will be redrawn to redress the acute gerrymandering and malapportionment, to remove phantom voters and to eliminate any postal votes fraud. 

Still, this was the first time a prime minister agreed to meet with the Bersih steering committee and listen to their desired reforms.

The Bersih team highlighted the need for clean, free and fair elections and the institutional reforms to strengthen democracy and good governance.

Bersih reminded the PM about the public disgust over several cases where prominent politicians from a party within the “unity government” were given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal. Imagine, these elite politicians had been charged with corruption – the very plague the PM wants to eradicate as his priority.

Bersih is also pushing for an immediate moratorium on similar conditional acquittals in existing corruption cases.

Many among the public were also appalled at the fast-tracking of the Pardons Boards hearing for the unrepented and unremorseful Najib. Even more unacceptable was the 76% reduction in his fine and the 50% reduction in the duration of his prison sentence.

Few are convinced Anwar was helpless, if not instrumental, in this atrocious lapse of judgement. All this happened while many ordinary people suffer heavier sentences for far lesser crimes and while far more deserving cases never reach the board or take much longer.

Bersih also renewed calls for the full repeal of the Sedition Act. The electoral reforms group wants reforms to the process of appointments of election commissioners.

Among its demands is the call for the declassification and release of the recommendations in the report on institutional reforms.

Another reform demand is a more effective Election Offences Act and a political funding act.

Bersih insists on the separation of the powers and functions of attorney general and public prosecutor.

Included in the Bersih agenda is the call for a parliamentary services bill and reforms to the rules of parliamentary conduct. The group also wants a fixed parliamentary term law and a two-term limit to the PM’s tenure.

It’s about time the government fulfils 100% its manifesto promises and provides full autonomy to Parliament. - Aliran Website