關於 british constitution ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#國際戰線【黃之鋒x鄺頌晴｜投稿《華盛頓郵報》：北京立法宣告「一國兩制」死亡】

Oped of Joshua Wong & Glacier Kwong in Washington Post: This is the final nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s autonomy (Scroll down for English)

《港版國安法》從醞釀到正式宣佈，至今只是不夠一個星期的時間，形勢相當緊迫與嚴峻，爭取國際盟友反對惡法已是爭分奪秒的事情。當路透社報道白宮消息人士表明考慮制裁，當下國際戰線手足必然會推波助瀾，我亦繼昨晚在英國《獨立報》發表文章後，與鄺頌晴在《華盛頓郵報》發表文章，爭取西方政界關注，切實執行對香港官員制裁。

同時，有幾句說話想講。

就係想多謝俾我拖咗落水一齊寫文夾專欄嘅鄺頌晴，要知道自從國安法宣佈左之後，呢個唔知有冇追溯期嘅惡法，根本就能夠隨時以言入罪，分分鐘呢篇外媒投稿文章，都能夠成為所謂叛國或者顛覆國家嘅證據。

無錯，國際戰線嘅成本係提高左唔少，但家陣香港都去到存亡號召嘅境地，別無他選都只能夠頂硬上。所以，無論有無同我合作，取態定位一唔一樣，甚至我認唔認識都好，依家仲會開樣開名，所謂「喺枱面上」嘅國際戰線手足，希望大家都可以俾多啲鼓勵佢哋每一位。

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/24/this-is-final-nail-coffin-hong-kongs-autonomy/

————————————————

中國全國人民代表大會（全國人大）公布了一份與香港《國安法》相關的決定草案，聲稱有關草案可以「建立健全的法律制度和執行機制」，以及「維護香港特別行政區的國家安全」。一旦通過，此決定草案將授權全國人大常委會，在完全繞過香港本地立法程序的情況下，直接在香港實施惡法。字面上，《國安法》的目的是禁止任何分裂國家丶顛覆國家政權丶恐怖活動以及境外勢力干預香港事務的活動。然而，此舉實為香港本已千瘡百孔丶極度脆弱的「高度自治」以及公民自由再添上致命的一擊。

2003年，香港政府意圖以本地立法程序，強推與《國安法》性質相近的23條時，遭到廣泛社會強烈反對，因而宣佈撤回方案。在如此具爭議性的議案面前，暴露了香港政府欠缺民主荃礎。十多年後，香港政府及中央政府的正當性在2019年的反修例運動當中，再次面對挑戰。

然而，正當國際社會忙於對抗疫情，北京卻藉此機會對香港的自治作出一連串的打壓。它先是將中聯辦對香港的「監督權」制度化，現在全國人大更是繞過香港立法會的立法程序，將港版《國安法》直接放在《基本法》附件三，稍後由香港政府公布實施。

香港2019年的運動得以持續多時，有賴三條不同的戰線：街頭抗爭丶議會選舉以及國際遊說的工作。北京以「國家安全」為名，引入一系列的法律條文，一方面藉此取得不受制約的權力，任意打壓示威者以及選舉候選人，另一方面則可以隔絕香港與國際社會之間的連結，阻撓外界對香港的支持。

與此同時，北京已經進一步加強在港的政治宣傳工作，不管示威和平與否，多次指是「本土恐怖主義」抬頭。這亦意味著，於接下來的日子，示威者會極易墮入新《國安法》的規管，並且面對更嚴苛的法律制裁。令人更為擔憂的是，這條法案亦表明針對境外勢力「干預香港事務」。這意味著，不論是議員或抗爭者，單單因為曾經參與國際遊說工作，就可能會被剝奪參選的資格，甚至面臨監禁。而國際非政府組織（INGOs）以及其他組織丶團體，他們的員工以及資產均可能遭受法律清算。

在沒有一個妥當、民意基礎的立法程序下，定義含糊的法律用詞像「分裂國家」以及「顛覆國家」極易會被用作打壓、迫害的工具，侵害我們與生俱來的自由和權利，包括言論自由、集會自由以及宗教自由。所有對於中國以及香港政府的批評，甚至只是支持香港運動的聲音，極有可能被視為分裂或顛覆國家的行為，受到法律制裁。這種寒蟬效將會持續發酵，城內將會出現大量的自我審查，而這種審查勢將蔓延至國際社會。

香港的自由─不論是她作為國際金融中心的角色，還是她充滿生命力的公民社會─都關係到國際社會的利益。再者，基本法所承諾的「一國兩制」丶「高度自治」以及普選，本就得到國際法下所簽訂的《中英聯合聲明》認可。是次中央政府自上而下推行的《國安法》已經不只是香港的本地事務，更是對國際社會的威嚇，讓其噤聲。

一直以來，香港是異見者丶思想破格的人以及革新者的容身之所。縱然面對著日益強大的中國，我們堅持發聲，道出真相。在疫症期間，中國已經顯示出它實為流氓政權的真面目。而在過去一年，我們一直站在對抗中國極權的最前線。

我們衷心希望，世界並不會因中國承諾的經濟利益而妥協，犧牲一直所秉持的核心價值——亦即對人權的尊重；不應因疫情所帶來的經濟衰退，而靠攏日益橫蠻的中國威權。經濟貿易應建立於平等和公平的基礎之上，而非透過威脅以及霸凌來達致。我們呼籲美國執行《香港人權民主法》，歐盟通過《全球馬格尼茨基人權問責法》，對中國實施制裁，以及在即將與中國達成的貿易協議內加入與香港人權狀況相關的條款。

我們再一次懇請世界與香港同行。

————————————————

Beijing has just hammered the final nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s autonomy. The promise of “one country, two systems” is dead.

Last week, the National People’s Congress (NPC) introduced a draft decision that purports to “establish and improve the legal system and enforcement mechanisms” to “safeguard national security” in Hong Kong. Once passed, the decision will empower the NPC’s Standing Committee to entirely bypass the local legislative process in Hong Kong and implement the infamous “national security law” in the city. On paper, this law aims at prohibiting any act of secession, subversion against the central government, terrorism and foreign interference with Hong Kong affairs. It constitutes, however, a devastating blow to Hong Kong’s already fragile autonomy and civil liberties.

Back in 2003, the Hong Kong government’s forceful attempt to pass a similar piece of legislation in the local legislature was met with uproar from civil society and was aborted. The undemocratic nature of the government proved to be its Achilles’ heel.

More than 15 years later, the legitimacy of the local and central governments faced yet another major challenge amid the 2019 anti-extradition bill movement. But now, Beijing has taken advantage of the global covid-19 pandemic and initiated a series of assaults against Hong Kong’s autonomy while the international community has its hands tied by the virus. It first attempted to institutionalize the “supervisory power” of China’s Liaison Office in the city. The NPC is now further attacking “one country, two systems” by circumventing Hong Kong’s Legislative Council: It legislates by way of inserting the national security law directly to the Annex III of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution, which will later simply be promulgated by the Hong Kong government.

Three elements helped sustain the 2019 movement: street protests, local electoral institutions and international advocacy efforts. By introducing a series of legal instruments in the name of national security, Beijing wields massive discretionary power to punish protesters and electoral candidates on the one hand, and to cut off Hong Kong from the international society and its crucial support on the other.

Beijing has stepped up its propaganda efforts in Hong Kong by framing the recent protests, peaceful or otherwise, as terrorism. In the future, under the national security law, protesters might easily be subject to much more draconian legal punishments. Worse still, the law explicitly takes aim at foreign interventions “meddling in Hong Kong affairs.” Not only can activists or legislators who have participated in international advocacy efforts be barred from running in elections or even imprisoned, international nongovernmental organizations and other organizations, including their personnel and assets, can also be subject to legal persecution.

Ultimately, without a proper democratic legislative procedure, vague legal terms such as “secession” and “subversion” easily devolve into repressive tools that intrude on our fundamental freedoms and rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and religion. It is not implausible that any criticism against the Chinese or Hong Kong governments — or even demonstration of support for the Hong Kong movements — will soon be construed as a subversive act, punishable by law. This chilling effect will eventually snowball: It starts with widespread self-censorship in the city and then spills over its borders into the rest of the world.
The liberty of the city — from its role of international financial hub to the vibrancy of its civil society — has always been important to the interests of the international community. Furthermore, the promises of “one country, two systems,” “high degree of autonomy” and universal suffrage enshrined in the Basic Law are backed by the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which was recognized under international law. Top-down insertion of the national security law goes beyond a local matter in Hong Kong: It is intended to silence the will of the international community.

Historically, Hong Kong has been the safe haven for the dissident, the liberal-minded and the nonconformist; we speak truth to an increasingly powerful China. Amid the virus, China has revealed its true colors as a rogue state. And in the past year, we have been standing at the forefront against China’s encroaching authoritarianism.

We sincerely hope that the international community will not give in to the economic benefits China has to offer and sacrifice respect for human rights. The economic recession brought by the virus ought not to be resolved through succumbing to China’s encroaching authoritarianism; trade happens on equal and fair terms but not threatening and bullying. We urge the U.S. government to execute the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, impose sanctions on China and include human rights terms in relation to Hong Kong into trade treaties they are about to conclude with China.
We ask you, once again, to stand with Hong Kong.

《The Washington Post》：加速削弱自治做成危機

又係講22條。

//With the statements, the Chinese government explicitly doubled down on its position that Beijing has the power to intervene politically in Hong Kong. The move created further doubt about the credibility of the Hong Kong mini-constitution that ostensibly guarantees the city a high degree of autonomy from Chinese interference until 2047, half a century after its handover to China from British rule.//
（用一編聲明去加強對香港政治干預，咁搞咪令人更加質疑香港嘅「小憲法」嘅可信性囉。明明承諾咗直到2047年香港有高度自治，唔受干預㗎喎。）

係囉，依家先發覺係咁咩？

結果，惠譽國際 (Fitch Ratings)星期一降低香港評級，因為深層次嘅社會政治分歧（“deep-rooted, sociopolitical cleavages”）危及香港呢個國際商業城市嘅運作同信譽。

係喇，影響外國人揾錢就係再痛嘅事。

#邊個說三道四
#邊個攬炒

原文：
《The Washington Post》
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hong-kong-crisis-escalates-as-china-moves-to-hasten-demise-of-citys-autonomy/2020/04/21/0a0afcd8-839c-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html

*********************************
呢個Page同我嘅努力，係需要大家支持，Patreon：
https://www.patreon.com/goodbyehkhellouk
*********************************

泰晤士報人物專訪【Joshua Wong interview: Xi won’t win this battle, says Hong Kong activist】

Beijing believes punitive prison sentences will put an end to pro-democracy protests. It couldn’t be more wrong, the 23-year-old says.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joshua-wong-interview-xi-wont-win-this-battle-says-hong-kong-activist-p52wlmd0t

For Joshua Wong, activism began early and in his Hong Kong school canteen. The 13-year-old was so appalled by the bland, oily meals served for lunch at the United Christian College that he organised a petition to lobby for better fare. His precocious behaviour earned him and his parents a summons to the headmaster’s office. His mother played peacemaker, but the episode delivered a valuable message to the teenage rebel.

“It was an important lesson in political activism,” Wong concluded. “You can try as hard as you want, but until you force them to pay attention, those in power won’t listen to you.”

It was also the first stage in a remarkable journey that has transformed the bespectacled, geeky child into the globally recognised face of Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy. Wong is the most prominent international advocate for the protests that have convulsed the former British colony since last summer.

At 23, few people would have the material for a memoir. But that is certainly not a problem for Wong, whose book, #UnfreeSpeech, will be published in Britain this week.

We meet in a cafe in the Admiralty district, amid the skyscrapers of Hong Kong’s waterfront, close to the site of the most famous scenes in his decade of protest. Wong explains that he remains optimistic about his home city’s prospects in its showdown with the might of communist China under President Xi Jinping.

“It’s not enough just to be dissidents or youth activists. We really need to enter politics and make some change inside the institution,” says Wong, hinting at his own ambitions to pursue elected office.

He has been jailed twice for his activism. He could face a third stint as a result of a case now going through the courts, a possibility he treats with equanimity. “Others have been given much longer sentences,” he says. Indeed, 7,000 people have been arrested since the protests broke out some seven months ago; 1,000 of them have been charged, with many facing a sentence of as much as 10 years.

There is a widespread belief that Beijing hopes such sentences will dampen support for future protests. Wong brushes off that argument. “It’s gone too far. Who would imagine that Generation Z and the millennials would be confronting rubber bullets and teargas, and be fully engaged in politics, instead of Instagram or Snapchat? The Hong Kong government may claim the worst is over, but Hong Kong will never be peaceful as long as police violence persists.”

In Unfree Speech, Wong argues that China is not only Hong Kong’s problem (the book’s subtitle is: The Threat to Global Democracy and Why We Must Act, Now). “It is an urgent message that people need to defend their rights, against China and other authoritarians, wherever they live,” he says.

At the heart of the book are Wong’s prison writings from a summer spent behind bars in 2017. Each evening in his cell, “I sat on my hard bed and put pen to paper under dim light” to tell his story.

Wong was born in October 1996, nine months before Britain ceded control of Hong Kong to Beijing. That makes him a fire rat, the same sign of the Chinese zodiac that was celebrated on the first day of the lunar new year yesterday. Fire rats are held to be adventurous, rebellious and garrulous. Wong is a Christian and does not believe in astrology, but those personality traits seem close to the mark.

His parents are Christians — his father quit his job in IT to become a pastor, while his mother works at a community centre that provides counselling — and named their son after the prophet who led the Israelites to the promised land.

Like many young people in Hong Kong, whose housing market has been ranked as the world’s most unaffordable, he still lives at home, in South Horizons, a commuter community on the south side of the main island.

Wong was a dyslexic but talkative child, telling jokes in church groups and bombarding his elders with questions about their faith. “By speaking confidently, I was able to make up for my weaknesses,” he writes. “The microphone loved me and I loved it even more.”

In 2011, he and a group of friends, some of whom are his fellow activists today, launched Scholarism, a student activist group, to oppose the introduction of “moral and national education” to their school curriculum — code for communist brainwashing, critics believed. “I lived the life of Peter Parker,” he says. “Like Spider-Man’s alter-ego, I went to class during the day and rushed out to fight evil after school.”

The next year, the authorities issued a teaching manual that hailed the Chinese Communist Party as an “advanced and selfless regime”. For Wong, “it confirmed all our suspicions and fears about communist propaganda”.

In August 2012, members of Scholarism launched an occupation protest outside the Hong Kong government’s headquarters. Wong told a crowd of 120,000 students and parents: “Tonight we have one message and one message only: withdraw the brainwashing curriculum. We’ve had enough of this government. Hong Kongers will prevail.”

Remarkably, the kids won. Leung Chun-ying, the territory’s chief executive at the time, backed down. Buoyed by their success, the youngsters of Scholarism joined forces with other civil rights groups to protest about the lack of progress towards electing the next chief executive by universal suffrage — laid out as a goal in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution. Their protests culminated in the “umbrella movement” occupation of central Hong Kong for 79 days in 2014.

Two years later, Wong and other leaders set up a political group, Demosisto. He has always been at pains to emphasise he is not calling for independence — a complete red line for Beijing. Demosisto has even dropped the words “self-determination” from its stated goals — perhaps to ease prospects for its candidates in elections to Legco, the territory’s legislative council, in September.

Wong won’t say whether he will stand himself, but he is emphatically political, making a plea for change from within — not simply for anger on the streets — and for stepping up international pressure: “I am one of the facilitators to let the voices of Hong Kong people be heard in the international community, especially since 2016.”

There are tensions between moderates and radicals. Some of the hardliners on the streets last year considered Wong already to be part of the Establishment, a backer of the failed protests of the past.

So why bother? What’s the point of a city of seven million taking on one of the world’s nastiest authoritarian states, with a population of about 1.4 billion? And in any case, won’t it all be over in 2047, the end of the “one country, two systems” deal agreed between China and Britain, which was supposed to guarantee a high degree of autonomy for another 50 years? Does he fear tanks and a repetition of the Tiananmen Square killings?

Wong acknowledges there are gloomy scenarios but remains a robust optimist. “Freedom and democracy can prevail in the same way that they did in eastern Europe, even though before the Berlin Wall fell, few people believed it would happen.”

He is tired of the predictions of think-tank pundits, journalists and the like. Three decades ago, with the implosion of communism in the Soviet bloc, many were confidently saying that the demise of the people’s republic was only a matter of time. Jump forward 20 years, amid the enthusiasm after the Beijing Olympics, and they were predicting market reforms and a growing middle class would presage liberalisation.

Neither scenario has unfolded, Wong notes. “They are pretending to hold the crystal ball to predict the future, but look at their record and it is clear no one knows what will happen by 2047. Will the Communist Party even still exist?”

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1119445/unfree-speech

Get ‘Asiany’ Merch at our new merch store!: https://standard.tv/kentobento

Support us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/kentobento

★ Has McDonald's Conquered Asia?: https://youtu.be/pgHiRsk2UjY
★ Where Are The Asian Borders?: https://youtu.be/vPupwlZlNMY
★ 'Asian Eyes' Are More Common Than You Think: https://youtu.be/WxTnVWgOGLc
★ How Would You Escape North Korea? (The 7 Choices): https://youtu.be/6A0ZOkMDLw0
★ 10 Things You Didn’t Know About FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR DISASTER: https://youtu.be/HpOG4WFKBZQ
★ 10 Things You Didn’t Know About HIROSHIMA ATOMIC BOMBING: https://youtu.be/wETSBaFwzu0
★ 10 Things You Didn’t Know About 2011 JAPANESE TSUNAMI & TOHOKU EARTHQUAKE: https://youtu.be/VuWTETyzR9Y
★ 10 Things You Didn't Know About RAMUNE: https://youtu.be/4boZ1op4Zrs
★ 10 Things You Didn’t Know About NATTO: https://youtu.be/Hyuyk7GJgd8

-----------------------

10 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE JAPANESE EMPEROR 天皇

Just prior to Christmas, on the 23rd of December, it is the current Japanese Emperor, Akihito’s birthday. It is a national holiday in Japan (天皇誕生日).

1) WORLD'S OLDEST MONARCHY

The Japanese monarchy, The Imperial House of Japan, is the oldest, continuous hereditary monarchy in the world.

Compared to other monarchies, you have the British Monarchy starting at 1066 and the the Danish Monarchy at 935. For the Japanese Monarchy, we’re going back to 660BC, which started with the legendary Japanese Emperor Jimmu.

2) DESCENDENT OF GODS

Shinto is the largest religion in Japan, and the line of Japanese Emperors are said to be the direct descendants of several Shinto gods, the most notable being the Sun goddess, Amaterasu.

The Emperor is the ceremonial head of state in Japan, but it makes sense that with his divine ancestry, he is also officially the head of the Shinto religion itself.

3) TERRITORY-INDEPENDENT PHENOMENON

As odd as it may seem, the title of Emperor (or Tennō) has never really been about territorial designations. Contrast this with European monarchs who often wanted to conquer and control additional territory.

In fact, the position of Emperor is a territory-independent phenomenon. In other words, the Emperor is the Emperor regardless if he has followers in the whole of Japan or in only one province.

4) EMPEROR'S CAPACITY

From 1192 to 1867, the shoguns held the real power (Shoguns being the military commanders of the time). The Emperor still officially nominated the Shoguns to their positions, but this was largely ceremonial.

Today, the Japanese Constitution vests executive power in the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.

5) POLYGAMY

The Japanese imperial dynasty consistently practiced official polygamy.

Besides his empress, the Emperor could take several secondary consorts or concubines; which helped produce more offspring for the imperial clan

6) FIRST COMMONER WIFE

In the history of the Japanese Imperial Family, there was never an Emperor who had a commoner as wife or even concubine. That is, until now.

The current Emperor of Japan married Empress Michiko, a commoner! She was not from the former court nobility nor from one of the former branches of the Imperial Family. Michiko was the daughter of an industrialist

7) FISH SCIENCE

(Ichthyology = Fish Science)
The Emperor is a published ichthyological researcher, having written papers for several scholarly journals, and has specialised studies within the taxonomy of the family Gobiidae. Random

8) STOP GAP EMPRESSES

Generally, it has been males who have ascended Japan’s Chrysanthemum Throne. However, if a suitable male was not available, there have been times where women have ascended the throne; almost as a stop gap measure.

Of the 125 monarchs, there have been 8 women who have reigned on 10 different occasions. 2 of them reigned twice.

Once a suitable male descendant was considered old enough to rule, many Empresses, and even Emperors, abdicated or relinquished the throne

9) CHILD EMPERORS

Over a thousand years ago, a tradition started that an Emperor should ascend young. If he had passed his toddler years, he was said to be old enough. Being a child was apparently a fine property

10) ABDICATING TREND

Abdication was very common. Actually it was more frequent than death on the throne. The Emperors tasks involved so many repetitive rituals that after about ten years of service, it was deemed a reasonable compensation to live the rest of their lives in pampered retirement!

----------------------

ABOUT
We do videos on interesting 'Asiany' topics - Asian stereotypes, Asian pop culture, Asian issues, Asian history, AMWF, and things you just didn't know about Asia!

TEAM KENTO BENTO
► Script, Narration & Editing by Kento Bento
► Artwork by Nina Bento
► Interested in working with us? Get in touch now!

*** If you're interesting in being a contributor for Kento Bento, let us know what you would like to do (research, video editing, etc) & we can figure something out together!

In 1905, the Qing Empire was on the verge of collapsing. In order to pacify the political turmoil at home, the Qing government plans to reform politics. In the name of creating China’s first Constitution, five high-rank officers, Zaize 載澤, DAI Hongci 戴鴻慈, XU Shichang 徐世昌, Duangfang 端方 and Shaoying 紹英 were sent to Japan and the West to survey their constitutional politics. Upon hearing the news, WU Yue, a revolutionary, fearing that constitutional monarchism would kill off true democracy, decided to stop the change. He bomb attacked the five officers in Zhengyangmen East Railway Station and he was killed. The “Diplomatic Credential Presented to the Great British Empire” and “Diplomatic Credential Presented to the Great French Republic”, collected by the National Palace Museum, were Diplomatic Credentials prepared for these diplomatic missions. Because of Wu's opposition, they remained in Forbidden City and then went to Taiwan. They witnessed the decline of constitutional monarchism and the rise of democracy in China.

Hindraf emerges from the shadows

THE ISSUE: The Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) was relatively unknown until it provided Indian Malaysians the opportunity to vent feelings pent up over 150 years. The grouping is led by lawyers and brothers P Uthayakumar and Waythamoorthy, who have taken up issues that have plagued the grassroots of a downtrodden community.

From alleged police brutality and deaths in custody, they duo have zeroed in on marginalisation and discrimination of Indians. In defence of the right to religion, they have also been calling attention to the demolition of Hindu temples nationwide.

The first sign of Hindrafs growing base of support was when it gathered some 2,000 Indians at Putrajaya to hand over a memorandum detailing the communitys problems. It did not even get the courtesy of a response.

Waythamoorthy then gave the campaign an instantly international image by suing the British government for RM14 trillion - on grounds that colonialists had brought Indians to Malaya as indentured labourers and later failed to factor in their interests when the Federal Constitution was being formulated.

The brothers, along with other Indian lawyers, began a nationwide roadshow to explain the suit and publicise Hindrafs intention to petition the British Queen to support the suit by appointing a Queens Counsel to represent Indian Malaysians.

On Oct 29, about a week before Deepavali, a century-old temple in Kampung Rimba Jaya in Padang Jawa, Selangor, was destroyed as part of a wider operation by the Shah Alam Municipal Council to clear a squatter settlement which included a surau.

This proved to be the proverbial straw - it even produced a rare sighting of MIC president S Samy Vellu, as Hindraf lawyers pitched into the chaos that ensued.

It was a short hop from that incident to the Nov 25 mass rally at Kuala Lumpur, which saw some 30,000 Indians backing a bid by Hindraf leaders to submit a petition to the British High Commission.

The police response was a crackdown on protesters, followed by charges of attempted murder (since dropped), illegal assembly and causing mischief. Five Hindraf leaders have been detained for two years under the Internal Security Act.

The communitys cause has resonated with individuals, civil society groups and political parties, even if some have distanced themselves from certain Hindraf claims.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has been pressured into meeting with Indian-based NGOs to hear the communitys long list of grouses.