Sejarah putrajaya

Putrajaya atau nama rasminya Wilayah Persekutuan Putrajaya ialah pusat pentadbiranKerajaan PersekutuanMalaysia bagi menggantikan Kuala Lumpur. Putrajaya, bandaraya pintar dalam taman terletak 25 kilometer di selatan Kuala Lumpur merupakan sebuah bandaraya futuristik yang menempatkan pusat pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan.

Daripada beberapa tempat yang dikaji dan ditinjau di Selangor, Negeri Sembilan dan Perak, Kerajaan telah memilih Perang Besar kerana ianya dekat dengan Kuala Lumpur dan terletak di antara Kuala Lumpur dengan Lapangan Terbang yang baru di Sepang, dengan jarak yang lebih kurang sama. Perancangan yang teliti telah dibuat oleh satu konsortium empat belas arkitek Malaysia dengan diketuai oleh arkitek Jabatan Kerja Raya. Ibukota pentadbiran ini dirancang untuk menjadi sebahagian daripada `Multimedia Super Corridor' yang menyambungi lapangan terbang antarabangsa baru di Selatan dan Kuala Lumpur di Utara dengan mempunyai semua kemudahan yang tercanggih dan terkini.

Dari sebuah tempat terpencil yang dikenali dengan nama Prang Besar, kawasan ini melonjak membangun dengan nama Putrajaya mulai 12 Oktober 1994. Berbanding dengan Kuala Lumpur, sebuah bandar tinggalan penjajah, Putrajaya dibangunkan oleh anak bangsa sendiri dengan bercirikan budaya tempatan. Mula dibina pada 16 April 1995, Putrajaya akan menggunakan aplikasi teknologi maklumat (IT). Dengan terbinanya Putrajaya, suatu hari nanti Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, dan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Kuala Lumpur (KLIA) akan menjadi Bandar gergasi setanding dengan Tokyo dan Yokohama di Jepun.

Untuk mencapai matlamat ini, Wetland Putrajaya telah dibina untuk menyingkirkan sedimen dan membersihkan aliran permukaan yang tercemar sebelum ia memasuki tasik. Sesuai dengan lokasinya di tengah-tengah bandaraya, Wetland Putrajaya menjadi titik penting dalam membawa rakyat untuk bersama-sama mencapai matlamat dari segi rekreasi, pendidikan dan penyelidikan. Lokasinya yang berada ditengah-tengah Koridor Raya Multimedia, Putrajaya seluas 4,931 hektar ini dibangunkan dengan kos RM20.5 billion mengandungi Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan, Perumahan, Kemudahan komersial, kemudahan sosial dan kemudahan keagamaan.

Pembiayaan projek ini tidak akan membebankan negara kerana cara-cara `financing' yang tertentu akan digunakan. Sebahagian daripada wang yang diperlukan sudah pun diadakan kerana beberapa projek bangunan Kerajaan di Kuala Lumpur telah ditangguh untuk dibina di Pusat Pentadbiran baru ini. Pembinaan Pusat Pentadbiran ini adalah juga satu pelaburan yang besar oleh Kerajaan Pusat dan akan membawa banyak manfaat kepada Kawasan Perang Besar dan sekitarnya. Bersama dengan Lapangan Terbang Antarabangsa Sepang ia akan membawa pembangunan yang pesat kepada wilayah yang terpencil ini. Hari ini pun penduduk berdekatan sudah menikmati banyak rahmat.

Putrajaya dibina oleh anak bangsa Malaysia dengan memberi fokus kepada seni reka tempatan. Selain berperanan khusus sebagai Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan, Putrajaya turut diilhamkan sebagai sebuah bandar yang terurus, bersemangat, bertenaga dan makmur, bagi memenuhi keperluan sosio-ekonomi, rekreasi dan rohaniah penghuni, warga kerja dan pelawatnya. Untuk itu, perancangan pembangunan Putrajaya bukan sahaja berfokus untuk memenuhi ciri-ciri bandar sejahtera yang selamat, bersih dan indah untuk didiami, bekerja dan berekreasi; malah penggarapan aspek nilai-nilai murni di kalangan warganya turut diberikan penekanan penting bagi menggalakkan aktiviti ekonomi serta kemudahan perbandaran berkembang secara terurus tanpa mengenepikan keperluan generasi akan datang.

Memandangkan bahawa Putrajaya adalah sebahagian dari ibukota sebuah negara maka Kerajaan berpendapat ianya eloklah diberi nama yang ada kaitan dengan sejarah Malaysia yang merdeka. Dengan itu pusat pentadbiran Malaysia ini diberi nama Putrajaya bagi mengingati Bapa Malaysia, Almarhum Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang pertama. Justeru itu, pada hari ini, 20 Julai 1995 bersamaan 22 Safar 1416, segala hasrat Kerajaan ini akan dimetrikan di Upacara Menandatangani Perjanjian Berhubung Dengan Penubuhan Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan di Putrajaya di antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dengan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. Perjanjian ini juga merupakan satu detik sejarah yang mana persetujuan yang dicapai mengikut Fasa (8) perkara 83 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, akan membolehkan Putrajaya di dalam Daerah Sepang di Negeri Selangor diwujudkan sebagai satu kawasan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan dan Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan yang baru.

Pada 10 Mei 1999, Kompleks Pejabat Perdana Menteri mula beroperasi di Putrajaya. Putrajaya menjadi penanda aras kepada pembangunan dan pentadbiran sesebuah bandar baik di peringkat dalam negara mahupun di peringkat antarabangsa.

sex

Tourism and prostitution- Sex tourism requires Third World women. Sex tourism is defined as you travel the main motivation or at least part of the trip is to consummate or engage in commercial sexual relations (Graburn 1983; Hall properly or engage in commercial sex (Graburn 1983; Hall 1991; Ryan and Hall 2001; Truong 1990).- In Kenya, Thailand, the Philippines, sex tourism industry has made lawful in the policies and politics of government.- In the past, popular destinations for sex tourism 'the red light, particularly to Southeast Asian countries like Bangkok, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea and Sri Lanka (Enloe 2002; Hall 2001; Lim 1998; Robinson and Bishop 1998) .sex tourism has spread to other regions in the world, including Goa, Cuba, Brazil, Costa Rica, Costa Rica, Tunisia, Eastern Europe and some African countries like Kenya, Tunisia, South Africa and Gambia (Ryan and Hall 2001, Enloe 2002;Chissim 1996;). Sex tourism that continues to increase as the developing tourism industry.KENYA- Kenya's economy has been more influential in policy-related travel, including sex tourism.Economy in Kenya contributed through sex tourism. tourism in Kenya said that sex tourism represents an unfair social order and economic exploitation of women's agency (Awanohara 1975; Cohen 1988; Montgomery 2001).- Gender inequality is often regarded not just for women, especially women and the creation of African women (Ennew 1986; Young 1973; Sindiga 1999). Direpresentasikan women as passive, ready, and as objects to possess. Pictures exotic women in the tourism industry is used to strengthen the market and this is often the patriarkal.Thailand- Thailand is the first country in Southeast Asia is considered the country of prostitution and women known as''paradise''for foreign tourists.- Sex tourism in Thailand was initially saw the military presenceUnited go rest and recreation During the Vietnam War from 1962. This Day in Thailand to make sex part of a thriving sex industry.-Most of the girls do not have a citizenship card.This means that they do not have health care or school entry for the government to limit their education to fit or work opportunities. Difficulties in the life force of Thai girls trapped in prostitution by force or voluntarily.Philippines- The Philippines has the fourth largest number of prostitutes in the world, estimated at around 75,000 (Rowthorn, Choy, Grosberg, Martin and Orchard 2003).There is a center-NATO military bases such as the infectious cause prostitution for the center, known as gong pat it closed the NGOs and the private sector has turned into a place of prostitution. Pat gong provides prostitution services, bars and massage parlors- Olangapo Bay presents' R and R "(Rest and Relaxation), which offers' shows', Western style, music and a hotel.

drug

Drug tourism is travel for the purpose of obtaining or using drugs for personal use that are unavailable or illegal in one's home jurisdiction. Drug tourism can be also defined as the phenomenon by which one's travel experience involves the consumption and usage of drugs that are considered to be illegal or illegitimate in either the visited destination or the tourist’s country of origin. This would include crossing a national border to obtain drugs over the counter that are not sold in one's own country, or traveling to another country in order to obtain or use narcotics that are illegal in one's own country, or even traveling from one U.S. state to another in order to buyalcohol or tobacco more easily. Drug tourism to other countries is also popular among college students in theUnited States younger than 21 who are not yet of the legal drinking age for alcohol purchasing and consumption. Empirical studies show that drug tourism is heterogeneous and might involve either the pursuit of mere pleasure and escapism or a quest for profound and meaningful experiences through the consumption of drugs.

Drug tourism has many legal implications, and persons engaging in it sometimes risk prosecution for drug smuggling or other drug-related charges in their home jurisdictions or in the jurisdictions they are visiting, especially if they bring their purchases home rather than using them abroad. The act of traveling for the purpose of buying or using drugs is itself a criminal offense in some jurisdictions.

In Europe, Amsterdam is a popular destination for drug tourists, due to the Dutch government's liberal attitude toward marijuana use and possession. Another Dutch city which is visited frequently by drug tourists is Maastrichtbecause of its position close to the borders of Germany andBelgium. Drug tourism thrives because legislation controlling the sale, possession, and use of drugs varies dramatically from one jurisdiction to another.

In Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have a more liberal approach to marijuana use, promoting interstate drug tourism, particularly from Victoria and New South Wales. In addition, some areas of northern New South Wales have a liberal recreational drug culture, particularly areas around Nimbin where the annual MardiGrass festival is held. Other popular destinations include Melana, India where famous Indian hashish is produced, and the Rif Mountains in Morocco where hashish is produced. In South America, some tourists are attracted to Amazonian villages to try a local liquid called ayahuasca which is a mixture of psychedelic plants that is used in traditional ceremonies. Similarly, tourists in Peru try hallucinogenic cactus called San Pedro which originally has been used by local tribes.

Thousands of “drug tourists” sweep into this small, picturesque city in the southeastern part of theNetherlands every day — as many as two million a year, city officials say. Their sole purpose is to visit the city’s 13 “coffee shops,” where they can buy varieties of marijuana with names like Big Bud, Amnesia and Gold Palm without fear of prosecution.

It is an attraction Maastricht and other Dutch border cities would now gladly do without. Struggling to reduce traffic jams and a high crime rate, the city is pushing to make its legalized use of recreational drugs a Dutch-only policy, banning sales to foreigners who cross the border to indulge. But whether the European Union’s free trade laws will allow that is another matter.

The case, now wending its way through the courts, is being closely watched by legal scholars as a test of whether theEuropean Court of Justice will carve out an exception to trade rules — allowing one country’s security concerns to override the European Union’s guarantee of a unified and unfettered market for goods and services.

City officials say they have watched with horror as a drug tolerance policy intended to keep Dutch youth safe — and established long before Europe’s borders became so porous — has morphed into something else entirely. Municipalities like Maastricht, in easy driving distance from Belgium, France and Germany, have become regional drug supply hubs.

Maastricht now has a crime rate three times that of similar-size Dutch cities farther from the border. “They come with their cars and they make a lot of noise and so on,” said Gerd Leers, who was mayor of Maastricht for eight years. “But the worst part is that this group, this enormous group, is such an attractive target for criminals who want to sell their own stuff, hard stuff, and they are here too now.”

In recent years, crime in Maastricht, a city of cobblestone lanes and medieval structures, has included a shootout on the highway, involving a Bulgarian assassin hired to kill a rival drug producer.

Mr. Leers used to call the possibility of banning sales to foreigners a long shot. But last month, Maastricht won an early round. The advocate general for the European Court of Justice, Yves Bot, issued a finding that “narcotics, including cannabis, are not goods like others and their sale does not benefit from the freedoms of movement guaranteed by European law.”

Mr. Leers called the ruling “very encouraging.” Coffee shop owners saw it differently.

“There is no way this will hold up,” said John Deckers, a spokesman for the Maastricht coffee shop owners’association. “It is discrimination against other European Union citizens.”

If Maastricht gets its way, many other Dutch municipalities will doubtless follow. Last year, two small Dutch towns, Rosendal and Bergen op Zoom, decided to close all their coffee shops after surveys showed that most of their customers were foreigners.

The situation has not made for good neighborly feelings. Many residents of border towns criticize Belgium, France and Germany for tolerating recreational drug use but banning the sale of drugs. “They don’t punish small buyers,” said Cyrille Fijnaut, a professor at the University of Tilburg law school. “But they also don’t have their own coffee shops, so that leaves us as the suppliers. Our policy has been abused, misused, totally perverted.”

As business has boomed, many of the Dutch coffee shops — dingy, hippie establishments in the ’80s and ’90s with a few plastic tubs of marijuana on the shelves — have become slick shops serving freshly squeezed orange juice and coffee in fine china.

The Easy Going Coffee Shop has a computer console at the door where identification documents proving that customers are 18 or older are scanned and recorded. Tiny pictures on driver’s licenses are blown up to life-size on a screen, so guards can get a good look at them. Behind the teller windows, workers still cut the hashish with a big kitchen knife, but all sales are recorded on computerized cash registers.

Mr. Bot’s ruling last month is only an early step in determining whether Maastricht can enforce a Dutch-only policy. A final ruling by the full court is expected by the end of the year.

But Mr. Bot’s finding, a veritable tirade on the evils of drugs, surprised many legal scholars, who expected the European Union’s open market rules to trump any public order arguments, as they have in other cases. Sweden, for instance, which has a long history of struggling with alcohol abuse, was obliged to take down most of its anti-alcohol laws restricting store hours and sales, as they were seen as impinging on free trade.

Polls show that a majority of the Dutch still believe that the coffee shops should exist. But the Netherlands once had 1,500 of them; now, there are about 700. And every year, the numbers decline, according to Nicole Maalste, a professor at the University of Tilburg who has written a book on the subject. “Slowly, slowly they are being closed down by inventing new rules, and new rules,” Ms. Maalste said.

Much of the criminality associated with the coffee shops, experts say, revolves around what people here call the “back door” problem. The government regulates what goes on in coffee shops. But it has never legalized or regulated how the stores get the drugs they sell — an issue that states in the United States that have legalized medical marijuana are just beginning to grapple with.

In recent years, the tremendous volume of sales created by foreigners has prompted an industry of cultivating cannabis and other drugs within the Netherlands — some estimate that it is now a $2 billion a year business — much of it tangled in organized crime and money laundering operations, experts say.

Advocates for legalized sales and coffee shop owners argue that trying to restrict foreigners will only encourage them to buy illegally in the streets. They also say that coffee shops have other selling points: they pay 450 million euros a year in taxes and provide thousands of jobs.

Mr. Deckers, the shop association spokesman, said coffee shop owners were so skeptical that the European Union would allow restrictions on sales based on nationality that they encouraged the city to get a ruling on the subject.

money laundering case changed

BY ROSEMARY MIRONDO

6th August 2010

The prosecution on Wednesday subsituted charges in a conspiracy and money laundering case of 338.9m/- involving six people, including Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) accountant Justice Katiti.

The public prosecutor read new charges to the accused before Resident Magistrate Aloyce Katemana.

Other accused in the case are Fortunatus Muganzi, Robert Mbetwa, former Barclay’s employee Godwin Paulla, Gidion Otullo and an employee of Tourism Promotion Services (Tanzania) Limited Company Joseph Rutto.

Principal State Attorney Fredrick Manyanda, assisted by Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) officer Benny Lincoln, read out the charges to the accused including conspiracy to steal 338,935,337/46 from Barclays Bank, forgery and money laundering.

On the new charges Rutto was exempted from the money laundering count.

It was alleged that between September 29 and October 6, 2008 in the city of Dar es Salaam, the accused conspired to steal from Barclays Bank.

It was further alleged that the accused Rutto and Paulla on the same date forged bank transfer forms, showing that Tourism Promotion Services Company had paid the said amount of money to East Africa Procurement Services Limited as furniture payment, while knowing it was false.

On the next count it was alleged that accused Katiti forged documents showing that Tourism Promotion Services Company had paid its revenue tax, while knowing it was not true.

Accused Katiti, Muganzi, Mbetwa, Otullo and Paulla are accused of transferring money from CRDB Bank Holland Branch owed by East Africa Procurement Services to Barclays and Kenya Commercial banks.

The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges.

Following the substitution of the charges, accused Rutto is no longer charged with money laundering count, which is not bailable.

Because of that, the court told him he could be bailed on conditions that he produces two sureties, who would produce in court 169m/- in cash or property equivalent to the same amount.

He was not able to meet bail conditions and the case was adjourned to August 9, this year.