Terjemahan Teks Hukum

Sunday, March 15, 2015 5:35 PM Posted by Unknown


Indonesia - English Translation of a passage in  'Surat Perjanjian'
  
Naskah Indonesia
JAMINAN DAN SAKSI
1.      Pihak pertama menjamin sepenuhnya bahwa tanah yang dijualnya adalah benar-benar milik atau hak pihak pertama sendiri dan tidak ada orang atau pihak lain yang turut mempunyai hak, bebas dari sitaan, tidak tersangkut dalam suatu perkara atau sengketa, hak kepemilikannya tidak sedang dipindahkan atau sedang dijaminkan kepada orang atau pihak lain dengan cara bagaimanapun juga, dan tidak sedang atau telah dijual kepada orang atau pihak lain.
2.   Jaminan pihak pertama dikuatkan oleh dua orang yang turut menandatangani Surat Perjanjian ini selaku saksi.
3.    Apabila pihak kedua pada tanggal yang telah ditentukan diatas tidak memenuhi perjanjian ini yaitu memberikan tanda jadi sebagaimana disebutkan dalam pasal 2 ayat (1) maka perjanjian ini batal secara hukum.
4.  Apabila pihak kedua pada tanggal yang telah ditentukan diatas untuk pelunasan sebagaimana disebutkan dalam pasal 2 ayat (2), secara hukum perjanjian jual beli ini batal dan pihak pertama akan mengembalikan uang tanda jadi setelah tanah dalam perjanjian ini terjual dan tanda jadi akan dikembalikan sepenuhnya.

English translation

WARRANTIES AND WITNESSES

  1. The First Party guarantee that the land sold is actually owned or the right of First Party and no other person or parties have the right, free of encumbrances, do not in a case or dispute, ownership rights are not being transferred or being secured to the person or others in any way, and not being or has been sold to another person or party.
  2.  The First Party’s guarantee was confirmed by two people who also signed this agreement as witnesses.
  3. If on the specified date above the Second Party do not meet this agreement which is to give a sign to be referred to in article 2, paragraph (1), the agreement is canceled by the law.
  4. When the Second Party on the specified date above for repayment referred to in article 2, paragraph (2), legally this agreement is void and the first party will reimburse the money after land in this agreement be sold and money will be refunded in full payment.
0 comments

Discussion Text - Whether Or Not British Monarchy Should Be Abolished

Monday, June 23, 2014 11:05 PM Posted by Unknown


Whether Or Not British Monarchy Should Be Abolished
           
Monarchy is a system of government by a king or a queen. Britain or United Kingdom is one country which until right now still using Constitutional Monarchy. Its leaders are devive into two, head of government and head of state. The head of state or Monarch right now is the Queen Elizabeth II. Even if she is a queen but her power is not like the queen in the old era, her power is ‘limited’. Second is the head of government or Prime Minister, alongside with cabinet they handle the government matter. On legislature, British has Parliament which consist of Head of Lord and Head of Commons. The differences between them is Head of Lord appointed, while Head of Common is chosen through election. All political stuff are handled by Prime Minister and the Parliament, queen has no more power to interfere in government and political thing. From this condition, some people propose that monarchy should be abolished then latter replaced into republict.
            Those who support on British Monarchy abolition mostly are republicans. They believe that monarchy only bring harm than good for United Kingdom. It would be better for UK to abolish monarchy since it will improve its economy. If we see Spain’s condition right now, it is really chaotic. Spaniards demand a referendum to monarchy abolition because their irresponsible King abdicated when Spain economy condition getting bad to worse. What support them more is the fact that Spain royal family do corruption. The brave picture of Spain monarchy is something that can be happen in another monarchy country, especially British. Queen spends for about ￡40 million in a year and this number does not equal with what the Queen has done to the country. She only stand as an icon, smiling and waving there and there. It is two different picture between life of monarch and life of worker. In some side of British there still people who hardly get something to eat, while Britain people pay taxes for the queen sake. Monarchy only create social jealousy. Just because someone born as the first born of royal family, he/she become the most important person, his/ her life will prosperous and glamorous until he/she die without any hard work. The monarchy system is ineffective because the leader is two. So beside country pay the Queen, Britain still pay for its Prime Minister, Ministers and thousands of House of lords and commons.
On the other side, Monarchy also seen as a good government system. It had been Britain trademark from ages ago. People are used to with this system, even if the role of monarch is not as important as monarch in the past, but it has to be conserve. The ‘limitation’ for the monarch comes without no reason, it prevents a single leader which can lead into dictactorship leader. By dividing the leader into two role, both symbol (the queen) and government (parliament) can run well. The amouth number of money waste for the queen is already covered million of tourists from all over the world who want to visit places related to the monarchy attractions, the monarchy earns Britain £500million a year from tourists visiting Royal attractions. Landmarks such as the Tower of London, visited by 2.5 million people a year, net half a billion pounds in fees. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle also featured highly, drawing in nearly four million visitors.
            For me personally against the idea of abolishing monarchy. Until now, Britain is a great country, their people is also comfortable already with monarchy system instead they adore royal family. To change a system is not as easy as we change our cloth, it is the country foundation. Moreover, it will be akward if United Kingdom has no kingdom.


image source : www.brandchannel.com
0 comments

Review Text - The Review of The Movie Lord of The Rings

2:14 AM Posted by Unknown


Review of Lord of The Rings


Lord of the Rings is trilogy movie based on the novel with the same name written by J.R.R Tolkien. The movie was directed by Petter Jackson and received a big success. The first movie The Fellowship of the Ring was released in 2001, next year latter the second movie The Two Tower was released, following in 2003 the third movie The Return of the King. The setting of the movie is an imaginary world named Middle Earth.
The story is about Frodo Baggins, a hobbit who heritage his uncle’s ring, The One Ring. Without he knows, The One Ring was the lost ring of The Dark Lord, Sauron who was destroyed thousand years ago by the last line of man king. However Sauron was still living in the ring. That ring must not be found by Sauron’s army because it will only destroy middle earth. That ring must be destroyed and the only way to destroy it is by throwing it into the mountain Mordor’s fire.
It is not simply to walk into Mordor moreover Sauron’S army are everywhere. Frodo was accompanied by Sam (his gardener), Gandalf (the wizard), Arragorn (the lost king of Gondor), Legolas (the prince elf from Mirkwood), Borromir (Gondor steward’s son), Gimly (a dwarf), Marry and Pippin (Frodo’s hobbit friends). They are the Fellowship of the Ring with Frodo as the ring bearer. Their journey was a difficult journey, they have to lose Gandalf who fall into the darkness when he defeated Balrog in Moria mine. After a nice hospitality in Lothorien, Borromir he cannot resist the temptation to own the ring. Make Frodo, the ring bearer, lost his trust to the rest of the fellowship. When a bunch of orcs attack them, he separate himself. He is going to walk into Mordor alone, and destroy it by himself. However Sam insisted to join with him. They continued the journey together. The guilty Borromir try to protect the other hobbits (Marry and Pippin), but he was stabbed by arrows and died. The orcs took the hobbits, hoping one of them is the ring brearer. Arragorn, Legolas and Gimly chased the orcs after giving the last respect to Borromir.
Frodo and Sam was lost, fortunately they were attacked by Gollum, a sticky ugly thin creature who own the ring for hundreds years before it was stolen by Frodo’s uncle. They defeated Gollum and made him guide the save way into Mordor. The Hunters (Arragorn, Legolas, Gimly) still run to chase after their friends, but the riders from Rohan had burned alive the orc. Fortunately Pippin and Marry was able to escape from the orcs into Fangorn forest. They met an Ent, which latter helped them in the war. The Hunters met newborn Gandalf, they save two man kingdoms, Rohan and Mordor.
With a hard struggle by Frodo and Sam, the ring was destroyed. Arragorn become King of Gondor. The hobbits back to their land (the Shire). Everything was happy, until Frodo was sailed with his uncle and elves into Valinor.
Lord of The Rings is the best movie ever. The picture, the costume and the battle seems so real. Lord of The Rings is one of few movie adaptation which better than the book. I do not say that the book was bad, but by in the movie out imagination of middle earth and its creatures was perfectly reflected. The actors’ acting is also superb. No wonder if this movies won 11 oscar categories.
0 comments

Analytical Expository - Against Prostitution

2:11 AM Posted by Unknown


Say No to Legalized Prostitution
           
Gang Dolly problem is something not new but newly discovery by media. The government wants to abolish this prostitution place, but some people reject this proposal. They act as if prostitution is something normal that has to be preserved. Even they see it better if government legalize prostitution, like in Nevada.
            A good mother will correct or punish her children when they do wrong, only because she does not want to see her children destroy their own life. Let’s imagine if a son is opium addict and his mother gives him ecstasy? Maybe it is what he wants, but not what he needs. What he needs is rehabilitation. 
So do this nation. What should the nation do is giving protection, and correction to its people. When a person feel not save, government should protect them, not to let them living inside their nightmare forever. Like when prostitute need a better life, government should help them by giving a better job, not to let them become prostitute forever. When its people do wrong, government should correct them, not support them or even facilitate them to carry on the wrong thing.
What I mean by something wrong here is prostitution practice. From every aspect it is wrong, about SDT disease, about cheating on your spouse, about throwing the self esteem, about fulfilling your lust to a stranger, about abortion practice, about selling your body. Government should not support their practice, because when it legal, that means government declare it is fine, then people also thing it is fine, since it does not against the law anymore. When people think it is fine, they will do it freely. So their proposal is only makes the number of prostitute and the beast increase.
This country is not suitable with that. Why do you think Pancasila put religion as the first point? It is because Indonesia is a country with moral consciousness. It is harm the national ideology. It is against the sense of Indonesia which is religious and moral country. Indonesia is not ready to be the next Las Vegas.  It harms the name of Indonesia to the world.
Legalize prostitute is not decreasing sex crimes which happens to the children and in teenagers. If we see the object here is children and teenagers. The rapist of children is an pedophile who never in a million years has any desire to a mature woman. So they are not interested to use the prostitute services. They will if the prostitute is also consist of children. However if government wants to hire underage prostitute to prevent a pedophile rape random child that is really psycho. They sacrifice a small little figure to be raped, to be abused, to be violated, just because they want to avoid something that can be prevent by law. A high punishment to the rapist is the wise solution for rape case.
If government offers prostitute as a new job, it only shows how incapable government is to handle unemployment problem until they offer this kind of job to them.  Even if maybe when they are young, they make money easily, but after prostitutes are old, over 40 years old for example. What can they do? They do not have any skills to support their old life, and there is impossible they still have customers at that age. They die suffering. Will government take a full responsibility for them? No. Or maybe, government will give them a pension? But if so, everyone wants to be a prostitute. Since it is more easy and prosperous.
            Prostitute is not consist of female only, you know the male and children prostitute. Male—it means government support homosexual, but if it is not, it create gender discrimination that prostitute is woman, only woman is born as prostitute, it degrading the woman level. It makes it complex. Children, it will increase the number of child exploitation and children and woman raffling. Based data from 150 country which legalize prostitute – human raffling from inside of country and the outside is an increasing problem when prostitution legal. They are prostituted neglecting their will.
Become a prostitute is not option, it is a self survivor action. They choose it because they do not have skill or job offering. Even if it is their own body and they can do whatever they want with it, but most of them are not willing. It is like you giving the gun to a desperate person, what happen? They kills themselves.
0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
abcs