THE MISER AND HIS PURSE
There
was once lived a miser. One day he want to go shopping. He had a thousand
rupees in his purse. As he was stepping into a shop, he felt for the purse in
his pocket. He could not find it. “It must have dropped when I took out my
handkerchief,” he thought. He hurried back along the street, looking for his
purse. He could not find it. He was in great distress.
The
miser rushed to the town crier and sought his help. “You must offer a reward to
the person who finds the purse, “said the town crier, “or you won’t get your
purse back.” The miser offered a reward of fifty rupees. The crier made the
announcement.
The
next day, a farmer came to the miser’s home. “I found this purse near the
lamp-post over there,” said the farmer. “Does it belong to you?”
“Yes,”
said the miser, and he counted the money in that purse. “Thank you very much
for returning my purse,” he added. But he did not give the farmer his reward.
“May
I have my reward?” asked the farmer.
“There
was a sum of one thousand and fifty rupees in my purse,” replied the miser.
“Now I find only one thousands rupees. You have already taken your reward.”
“But
I haven’t taken any money from the purse,” said the farmer.
“You
are lying,” shouted the miser and he left the farmer.
The
farmer was vey angry. Then he went to the court of law. The judge heard the
case and sent for the miser. He took the purse and examined it.
The
court session was going to start. When the judgeman asked some questions to the
miser, he explained directly, “There was a sum of one thousand and fifty rupees
in my purse. And in the day of returning back my purse by that farmer, I find
only one thousands rupees. I believe that that farmer have already taken my
money.”
Then,
the judgeman asked the miser, “You said that there was a sum of one thousand
and fifty rupees in your purse, don’t you?”, the judge continued “This purse
contains only one thousand rupees. So the purse can’t be yours.” And finally he
gave the purse to the farmer.
The second Article :
4 Months in Jail Sought for French Journos
Prosecutors asked on
Thursday the Jayapura District Court to sentence French journalists Thomas
Charles Dandois and Marie Valentine Bourrat to four-month jail terms and fine
them Rp 2 million (US$174) each for alleged visa violations.
Prosecutor Sukanda also asked that each of them be required to pay court expenses of Rp 2,000.
The sentence demand was delivered by prosecutor Sukanda during the trial presided over by judge Martinus Bala and judging panel members Maria Sitanggang and Irianto.
Dandois and Bourrat, said Sukanda, were proven to have violated Article 122 of Law No. 8/2011 on immigration, by carrying out journalistic activities while using tourist visas.
An aggravating factor is that both journalists could report negatively on Indonesia overseas, while a mitigating factor is that the defendants admitted to their wrongdoing and apologized for creating the case.
Evidence in the form of passports, laptops and press cards has been returned to its owners while other evidence, such as cameras, was seized by the state.
When asked why the prosecution had sought a five-year prison sentence but only demanded four months, Sukarna said the five-year sentence was just to act as a deterrent to ensure other foreigners did not commit the same violations when visiting Indonesia.
The defendants’ lawyer, Aristo MA Pangaribuan, appreciated the sentence demand but remained firm in his belief that Dandois and Bourrat should be released because they had not been proven guilty of misusing their visas.
“Based on witness testimonies and evidence presented in court, Dandois and Bourrat were not proven to have conducted journalistic activities. An expert witness from the Press Council also testified that both of them had only conducted research, and that conducting research was not a journalistic activity,” said Aristo.
Aristo appealed to the panel of judges to acquit his clients and restore their good names as well as dignity, and asked that the case expenses be borne by the state.
The defense lawyer presented expert witness Yoseph “Stanley” Adi Prasetyo, head of the Indonesian Press Council’s legal commission, who said the case against the French journalists was a red mark for press freedom in Indonesia, adding that he hoped it would be the first and the last such case in the country.
“If there are journalists who violate immigration laws, just deport them. Why should they be criminalized?” he said.
The activities carried out by Dandois and Bourrat in Papua, said Prasetyo, could not be categorized as journalistic because the pair was simply conducting research for a documentary project.
“If they were just conducting research, it’s not a journalistic activity. Anyone can do research. Journalistic activity is when they take pictures and publicize them in the media,” he said.
He cited that journalists and intelligence agents both gather data and then record it in writing, but that intelligence agents report to their superiors and do not publicize their work, while journalists write to publish, which he defined as journalistic activity.
Prosecutor Sukanda also asked that each of them be required to pay court expenses of Rp 2,000.
The sentence demand was delivered by prosecutor Sukanda during the trial presided over by judge Martinus Bala and judging panel members Maria Sitanggang and Irianto.
Dandois and Bourrat, said Sukanda, were proven to have violated Article 122 of Law No. 8/2011 on immigration, by carrying out journalistic activities while using tourist visas.
An aggravating factor is that both journalists could report negatively on Indonesia overseas, while a mitigating factor is that the defendants admitted to their wrongdoing and apologized for creating the case.
Evidence in the form of passports, laptops and press cards has been returned to its owners while other evidence, such as cameras, was seized by the state.
When asked why the prosecution had sought a five-year prison sentence but only demanded four months, Sukarna said the five-year sentence was just to act as a deterrent to ensure other foreigners did not commit the same violations when visiting Indonesia.
The defendants’ lawyer, Aristo MA Pangaribuan, appreciated the sentence demand but remained firm in his belief that Dandois and Bourrat should be released because they had not been proven guilty of misusing their visas.
“Based on witness testimonies and evidence presented in court, Dandois and Bourrat were not proven to have conducted journalistic activities. An expert witness from the Press Council also testified that both of them had only conducted research, and that conducting research was not a journalistic activity,” said Aristo.
Aristo appealed to the panel of judges to acquit his clients and restore their good names as well as dignity, and asked that the case expenses be borne by the state.
The defense lawyer presented expert witness Yoseph “Stanley” Adi Prasetyo, head of the Indonesian Press Council’s legal commission, who said the case against the French journalists was a red mark for press freedom in Indonesia, adding that he hoped it would be the first and the last such case in the country.
“If there are journalists who violate immigration laws, just deport them. Why should they be criminalized?” he said.
The activities carried out by Dandois and Bourrat in Papua, said Prasetyo, could not be categorized as journalistic because the pair was simply conducting research for a documentary project.
“If they were just conducting research, it’s not a journalistic activity. Anyone can do research. Journalistic activity is when they take pictures and publicize them in the media,” he said.
He cited that journalists and intelligence agents both gather data and then record it in writing, but that intelligence agents report to their superiors and do not publicize their work, while journalists write to publish, which he defined as journalistic activity.
source
A. STATEMENT
1. Direct speech :
“You
must offer a reward to the person who finds the purse, “said the town crier, “or you won’t get your purse back.”
Indirect speech :
The town crier said that miser must offered a
reward to the person who found the purse, or else miser wouldn't get his purse
back.
2. Direct speech :
“But I haven’t taken any money from the purse,” said the farmer.
“But I haven’t taken any money from the purse,” said the farmer.
Indirect speech :
The farmer said that he hadn’t take some money
from the purse.
B. QUESTION
1. Direct speech :
“May
I have my reward?” asked the farmer.
Indirect speech :
The farmer asked that where was his rewards.
2. Direct speech :
Why should they be criminalized?” he said.
Why should they be criminalized?” he said.
Indirect speech :
he wants to know why they to be criminal.
C. IMPERATIVE
1. Direct speech :
Journalistic activity is when they take pictures and publicize them in the media,” he said.
Journalistic activity is when they take pictures and publicize them in the media,” he said.
Indirect Speech :
he asked that journalistic activity to take pictures and publicize them in the media.
2. Direct speech :
Mother said "close the window!"
Indirect speech :
Mother asked me to close the window.
