Thursday, October 23, 2008

Bar-red by Council's Double Standards

Rule 62. Waiver.
The Bar Council may, in writing, with the approval of the Attorney General in writing, waive any of these Rules ...
Wither, Tun Salleh Abas? For nearly three years, the former Lord President was hoping to move on. Not move up, just move on. He wanted to rejoin Salleh Abas, Yaacob & Sofiah, the small legal firm that he established in Aug 1993, five years after his controversial dismissal as Lord President of Malaysia, as a Consultant.
The rules require him to get the approval of the Bar Council of Malaysia so the firm wrote to the Executive Director of the Bar Council, Ms Catherine Eu, on 27 Feb 2006 requesting that the Bar allows the Tun, who had left practice in 1995, to rejoin the firm as a Consultant.

Bar Council secretary Mr Regunath Kesavan wrote a reply on 3 March 2006 to express its regrets and drew the firm's attention to Rule 60 (1) of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978.
Rule 60. Use of "consultant" and "associate"
(1) An advocate and solicitor may have his name appear as "consultant" on the letterhead of a firm of advocate and solicitors if:
(a) he has a valid practising certificate issued under Part III of the Act;
(b) he has been -
(i) in active practice at the Malaysian Bar for a period of not less than 20 years; or
(ii) in active practice at the Malaysian Bar for a period of not less than 10 years and, in addition, has served as a Judge or a member of the Judicial and Legal Service for a period which, aggregated with the period of his active practice at the Malaysian Bar, total not less than 20 years; and
(c) he is not a partner of legal assistant in any other firm of advocates and solicitors or engaged in any other capacity in any such other firm in the State of Malaysia.
Long Silence
The firm, in its reponse dated 14 March 2006, informed the Bar that former judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah had been allowed to rejoin the legal fraternity as Consultant even though he had never been in private practice either before or after service on the Bench.

Mr Regunath Kesavan did not respond to this letter. Instead, Ms Eu, the Bar's Executive Director, wrote a short reply to say that the Bar will refer the matter of Tun Salleh's request to its Legal Profession Committee.

Neither Saleh nor his firm heard from the Bar again after that, which prompted the former Lord President on 14 February 2007, a year after his original request to the Bar Council, to write a letter to the Attorney-General. Saleh was still full of hope that perhaps Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail could afford him similar dispensation given to K.C. Vohrah from strict compliance of Rule 60(1).

Gani Patail's office wrote back to the Tun two months later on 17 April. It informed Salleh that the AG could only provide dispensation if the Bar Council applies its discretion, which is provided for under Rule 62 of the Etiquette Rules 1978 (refer to the first paragraph of this posting).

Ambiga says No
The AG's letter also informed Salleh that it had contacted Bar Council President Ms Ambiga Sreenavasan (now a Datuk) about the request. Apparently, Ambiga had told the AG's office that the Bar Council intended to adhere strictly to Rule 60 (1).


On 27 Dec 2007, Salleh Abas' firm wrote to Ambiga, drawing her attention to the earlier correspondences between the firm and the Bar Council, the letter to the AG and Gani's response to the Tun, and for the first time directly urged the Bar to apply Rule 62 and that the same privilege extended to Vohrah could be extended to Tun Salleh.

There was no reply, so another letter was sent to Ambiga on 14 January 2008.

On 12 February, Ambiga wrote to the firm to say that "the Bar Council is not in a position to acceded to your request" in the light of Rule 60. However, she said the Bar Council has decided to liberalise Rule 60 and has submitted a proposal to the AG to amend that Rule. The matter was now under consideration by the AG, she added.

The next letter from Salleh's firm, dated 19 Feb, reflects a growing frustration on its part.

"Respectfully, we are of the the view that it is not a question of the Bar Council not being in a position to acceded (sic) to our request but more of its unwillingness to do in light of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 which reads as follows:
The Bar Council may, in writing, with the approval of the Attorney General in writing, waive any of these Rules.
"Furthermore, if the Bar Council's stand is not to waive compliance of Rule 60, how does it explain the admission of our good friend and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah as consultant in a KL firm despite him not having met with the aforesaid Rule 60 requirement?"

Ambiga does not respond
There was no response from Ambiga, so the firm wrote in again on 21 March. It got a response from Mr Lim Chee Wee, the Bar Council's current ecretary, who wrote that the Bar was liaising with the AG's Chambers to revise Rule 60 and are aware of the Datuk K.C. Vohrah precedent.

On 1 April, the firm wrote to Mr Lim Chee Wee, in what appeared to be its longest letter so far, tracing back the chronology of Salleh Abas' simple request starting from the first letter dated 27 Feb 2006 right up to Ambiga's apparent opposition on the matter.

Mr Lim wrote on July 22 to inform the firm that proposed amendments to Rule 60 together with Salleh's application to be a Consultant would be tabled in August.

In a 23 July letter, the firm noted the development with "some optimism" but placed on record "our disapoointment at what we feel a rather double standard effort on the Bar Council's part".

Bar Council tells Salleh to submit fresh application in March 2009!
On 9 October, Mr Lim of the Bar Council wrote to say the Bar had approved the proposed amendments to Rule 60 and that the amendments were expected to be gazetted "in due course". Based on said amendments, Tun Salleh would fulfill the requirements of Rule 60 on 24 March 2009. Mr Lim went on to suggest that Tun Salleh submit a fresh application after 24 March 2009.

Salleh Abas turns 80 next year. To say that he is dissapointed with the Bar Council is an understatement. A close friend of the Tun told me that the former Lord President felt cheated, betrayed even. The Bar had no qualms about using the Lord President's name and person to champion its cause, but was not willing to help him in a matter that it has discretion to.

The Firm's last letter was sent to the Bar Council early this week. Excerpts:

"Our Tun Salleh read your (9 Oct) letter ... with great disbelief.

"In our several correspondences with the Bar Council over this matter, we have often alluded to the fact that in at least one instance (involving YBhg Datuk K.C. Vohrah), the Bar Council had evidently utilised its discretion under Rule 62 ... to allow an "unqualified" (under the said Rules) person to be a consultant to a legal firm.

"Our Tun Salleh is of the view that the Bar Council's decision not to utilise similar discretion in the case of his application amounts to a rather despicable practice of double standards."

BRU notes: During the hours we spent nterviwing him for his biography, the former Lord President made no mention of how the Bar Council had been treating him on this issue. If he had told us, we would have strongly advised him against attending the Bar Council's dinner, supposedly in his honour, in April.

100 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why is everybody so quiet in the case of true injustice but have so much to say when the perceived injustice affects certain vested interests or parties concerned. Keep up your good work to expose injustice regardless of biases or prejudices. Sometimes I perceive it is politically incorrect to say the truth.

the witch's broo said...

Dear Rocky,

I am aghast by this whole episode.

I have my own speculations but I will keep it private.

This is certainly unacceptable.

Anonymous said...

Rocky
good of you to have highlghted this. BUT why other blogs dont report this. Bar Council and lots of english language blogs talk so much about principles !! Do we really trust people who shout A LOT about principles. 'MALAYSIAN'

nstman said...

what a fantastic article rock! almost fell asleep.

Sinatra_Z said...

Reading this post with all the rules, regulations, letters and bureaucracy made me thinking. If Tun Salleh Abbas, who has the backing of a law firm had to go to so much paperwork shit, what happens if I, a typical average joe without a big paycheck got into trouble with the law would have to go through.

The thing is, Malaysia's judiciary needs reform and not just the Judges but the lawyers and their paperworks and jurisdiction as well. We have to use lawyers for almost everything! When buying house, car, loans and etc.. The thing is for instance when we buy a house, a lawyer would just simply use an old template and chare you thousands for that stupid document. To make matters worse when shit happens, the lawyer goes missing.

So if I were to get into trouble with a big corporation or a lawyer with a backing of a big law firm, they did not necessarily have to prove me guilty, all they have to do is to bog me down into stupid paperworks till I can't afford any money or time into fighting it.

Indeed Shakespeare was right, let's just hang the lawyers. And to think that many of these lawyers became politicians just make a whole load of sense why politics these days is filled with crap.

The problem is politicians like most lawyers only know how to talk and not put it into action.

I call for a revamp not just in the judiciary but the whole legal system.

Judge Dread said...

The issue here I think is as you put it Rocky:

"A close friend of the Tun told me that the former Lord President felt cheated, betrayed even. The Bar had no qualms about using the Lord President's name and person to champion its cause, but was not willing to help him in a matter that it has discretion to."

It looks to me, as far as the evidence presented in your posting is concerned, like a case of I scratch your back (albeit in a largely indirect manner) so now you scratch mine, but Ambiga didn't seem to want to play along.

It would be good if Ambiga could explain why Vohrah's case was treated differently than Salleh's, and how many applications for similar dispensation in the past were approved and rejected.

And I wonder if we would pay any attention or be informed of this interesting state of affairs if it were a nobody facing a predicament similar to Salleh's.

It is ironic, isn't it, that a former Justice can't get what he feels is justice?

But does what Salleh seeks qualify as justice in the first place?

syed syahrul zarizi said...

Why the double standard?
Something fishy is going on here. Hope we can digg for the truth soon.

Syed Syahrul

Anonymous said...

Bro Bru,
Didn't I tell you that Estate Idiosyncrasy thrifed in the current Bar Council. Pak Lah "Law Reform" before he retires this March should include allowing establishment of parallel Alternative Bar Council.

Ahmad Chavez
ex-Kennedy School of Government
Harvard.

Anonymous said...

whoah

something fishy ...

this is sure some interesting times

morkymoqq said...

For all the walk to putrajaya
for all the talk of injustice in muslim marriage
For all the truth to uphold
and now we have the true colors of BAR Council
indeed, i would anticipate this to happen as whatever is not to their cause would be considered useless/baseless.
period

Anonymous said...

ambiga should be ashamed of herself,these leeches are there for their own personal benefits-datukship.
sam

Anonymous said...

Bru...
One of the best exposed articles that open a can of worm in our legal system... Wow.. it's not only the total reform for the judiary but also the so call Bar Council fighting for justice and equality... This is what "MALAYSIAN" all to be Malaysian but racist is the name of the game...
Bravo Rocky....

Joe Justice KL..

caravanserai said...

Why all the rules?
Follow Allah’s laws and be it so

Apparently here
When you are out
Nobody cares a shit
You have no power
So now you get the end of the stick

Salleh Abas has years of judiciary experiences
Holding the highest post as Lord President
Isn’t it sufficient to grant him his request?
The way the Bar Council getting it along
It smacks of lack of courtesy

Humans enjoying passing laws and rules
They want to feel the superior fa├žade
‘I am the boss now; you aren’t’
Why can’t they make it simple?

When Bar Council or companies have the power
They want to use it to its fullest cradle…………
Nothing will blow it away
When one loses it, it is the end
One becomes the herd unless one has powerful friends
It will make a lot of difference

If they want you
They use it to the fullest
When you are a spent force
They kick you out without a glance

Welcome to the world of reality shows
I have been there, done that, got the end of the stick too
But I wish Bar Council leaders should have compassionate feeling
Tun Salleh Abas is 80 years old
Give him his wish let him be a happy man
No way should he be forgotten

dansemacabre said...

Doesn't sound equitable. I'm disturbed by the fact KC Vohrah got in and Salleh Abbas didn't in a matter that requires discretion. Surely the Bar can exercise it?

Salleh's age should not be an issue. In Australia, they had a lawyer practicing till he was 100. He just died apparently.

Why must he wait till March 2009. If Ambiga wants to follow rules strictly, how come KC got in?

The issue is inconsistent application of policy. I hope u read this Ambiga.

Anonymous said...

The next time we Malaysians do things PLEASE have a kind heart to all matters, don't just follow blindly by the book like robots - if the matters do not cause life and death.

TheNationFirst

fly said...

racist? no?

devilmaycare said...

thats the

Anonymous said...

Haha, the irony..

Ambiga should respond ASAP. Talking injustice everywhere but in reality...

Good job Ambiga!

Nonpartisan73

kluangman said...

Teringat Haris Ibrahim - People's Parliament: Dia mungkin terlalu sebok dan terlupa atau tak ingat nak bercakap hal ini.

Anonymous said...

Was Tun Salleh used to prop up some political masters?

This is a fair question. Please explain. Where is Tun Salleh? A victim of hypocrisy and personal interests?

Hand Shake

Anonymous said...

i was surprised when i read this. i was under the impression that the Bar Council believe in fairness and justice etc. One of the the duties of the Malaysian Bar is
to represent, protect and assist members or of the legal profession in Malaysia and to promote in any proper manner the interests of the legal profession in Malaysia;

There is no point organising Walk of Justice if they can't even give justice to its own members.

From one frustrated lawyer,
W. Azliana

aku said...

loyars, lidah bercabang?

borh said...

Memang ramai loyar buruk dalam bar council.cakap tak serupa bikin.dulu ada yang samakan azan dengan salakan anjing.tak tahulah apa yang kutu dalam bar council buat.ni konon nak bela pak salleh, bila orang tua tu minta buka jalan nak buat kerja tak beri.. apa jenis persatuan loyar macam ni..kalau nak hentam islam dan orang melayu bukan main lagi.. dialah jaguhnya..

borh said...

borhan

aku said...

loyars, kata orang, dia yang lebih!

devilmaycare said...

The problem with the Bar is that they aspire to achieve greatness by championing higher causes by championing human rights, abolishing ISA, preserving independence of the judiciary etc. But look at the profession that they regulate. Its a mess. Junior Lawyers are underpaid,clients are overcharged,clients don't pay their fees, senior lawyers do as they like (because they've paid their dues you see), laws firms are managed with no discrenable form of governance in place, discounts to clients are given when they are not supposed to,bar Meetings are often susceptible to fisticuffs for one reaon or another,both Civil and Criminal court process remains inefficient (ofcourse the bar will blame the Judiciary for that), they cant work with the judiciary and worst all, most if not all members who hold office are POLITICIANS. I do feel sorry for Tun but at least he has a fair bit of money in his pockets courtesy of the Bar, the Malaysian Government (Pak Lah Reform) and the Malaysian taxpayers.

profit said...

Dear Rocky,
Sometimes intuition does tell a lot.The moment Ambiga was elected to the chair of the bar,i find her character does not fit in.Her facial expression and body language last but not least her eyes.Something tells me that this person is up to no good,this character is a selfish character and think she knows best,by playing with the loopholes of the law.Typical of that kind of race who sees they are the best and others are all fools.

Anonymous said...

bro, i knew ragunath kesavan during our days together at SM sains johor, kluang, about 28 years ago. a year junior, we often called him ragunath kasibantai. i spoke to him some years ago but he wasnt that friendly anymore even thou we used to share a dorm with 8 others.

Anonymous said...

If i may, concerning the appointment of Dr Badariah as a judge, the Bar Councl was against it since she was an academician. But in a previous case where an academician was appointed as a judge (Dr. Visu)????? Funny.
-GET REAL-

Anonymous said...

let the bar council replt this properly, now its image is at stake here.....

Anonymous said...

Rocky,

Fishy very fishy
I can't believe that Bar council practices double standard.

Loyar buruk

Anonymous said...

Is there a SINGLE legal institution left in this country that we can TRUST?

If the facts of this article is true, then the Bar Council certainly owes the public an explanation for its apparent double standards. As the highest body representing the legal profession, its integrity and fairness should be unquestionable.

Non-Legal

balan said...

Ambiga & the bar must have their reasons. But looking at the fact presented by Rocky, it's evident that something has gone wrong somewhere.

Let's not speculate, but how to when the Bar does not want to clear the air.

Something must have happened between TUN and the BAR recently.

http://balankumarpremakumaran.blogspot.com/

aku said...

loyar ah! pejuang keadilan konon,ada wang baru boleh cerita! takde wang, sendiri defendlah! lintah2 tersohor!

Anti Bar Council @ Anti-K.P. said...

Abolish Bar Council!!!!

Enact a law to deny their power to regulate the profession.

They cannot even regulate themselves.

Anonymous said...

Bro, this is another classic case of double standard practice by BC or any other NGOs helm by non Malays.The correct words should be "systematic discrimination" against the Malays. Just wonder how would the Malays fare in a competitive Malaysia if govern by the non Malays. God forbid we shall never let this to happen.

Member of the KL / Msian Bar said...

Rocky,

Having read your article..I have run through the Msian Bar's website as at 2.40pm and noted that this article was not posted in the Bar's website. I suggest that you forward this article to be posted in the Bar's website and/ or The Sun. The Bar Council is accountable to its members and they will have to answer these discrepencies should these be raised in the Bar AGM. I am sure we will here an explanation in due course should this be highlighted in the Bar's website / The Sun.

Member of the Msian / KL Bar

Anonymous said...

Rocky,

Gani Patail passes the buck to Bar Council to continue to frustrate Salleh. This is despicable especially when justice is not tampered with mercy with all kinds of technicalities to disqualify Salleh. Malu tersangat!!!

Loyar Aman

Anonymous said...

Inilah wajah-wajah mereka yang sebenarnya. Belum lagi mendapat kuasa sepenuhnya. Kalau dah dapat kelak, mungkin hancurlah BANGSU ini

June

balan said...

Not sure how 'Malay' vs non malay come into the picture now. That's not very wise.

Never liked the bar and Tun Salleh Abas anyway. I would say ' padan muka' to their reputation on this issue, after all the secretive 'Kangaroo Court' session that they had on TDM and the tribunal recently.

Thanks to Rocky for bringing this out in the open.

kalam jauhari said...

Bro, The BAR Council is correct, correct,correct in their decision to follow its own rules. It just that they might bend it a bit to accomodate the learned KC Vohrah and Eusofee Abd Kadeer if I'm not mistaken.These are the same species with the Correct one.

Ever heard of a joke that when GOD want to build a bridge between Paradise and Hell. The one from hell completed even before the one from paradise can take off.

Reason? All the lawyers and the builders are in hell so the contract doucument to build the bridge is readied and signed early. While those in paradise cannot get their contract prepared.

Anonymous said...

Obviously there is existing vested powers availbale to officers within the Bar Council to waive rules and or policies. It is an appeal to those officers with those specific powers that the appeal should have been made. And this waiver is one that can only be executed together with the Attorney General, then the correct manner of appeal should ahve been adhered to. Considering a precedent is already there to follow, I guess it can be followed. But then again as rightfully pointed out Judge Vorah's waiver could be faulty if he had never had any private practice prior to this.

My concern is, the lack of willingness to exercise the powers of waiver of policy or rule, for that matter, by those vested with those powers in genuine cases is something that stinks of an unwanted power play. It would seem to me from what has been written above there are those with the power to waive a rule or a policy. It is the power to exercise the waiver that appears to be appealed to.

Sad man!!!

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess I can start behaving like DAP and accuse the Bar Council of racism.

Ingo

Anonymous said...

all this shitty happen because Tun Saleh is Malay. This is act of racist by bar council

Anonymous said...

Bravo YB Zulkifli Nordin. You are right about the bar council.

Kong-Kay said...

welcome to catch-22 malaysian style!

fly said...

loyar ah! wayang pandailah! habis semua orang lu nak kencing!habis semua orang lu nak gunakan!

Brunt Council said...

Didn't I tell you all this while that Bar Council is a den of rotten maggots and lawyers are the maggots?

Here we see that this Ambiga Ambigau is a fake and an evil liar. We see her as championing Tun Salleh's cause but in actual fact she is a heartless inhuman person in sensitive with the situation.

Hopefully her denial of Tun Salleh does not have any racial connotation becasue much talk among non Indian lawyers of the existence of some form of barrier against non Indian lawyers.

With this new revelation, I call upon the Government to investigate and probe further this abuse and seek immediately to suspend it's power for self governance.

If necessary, the Bar Cuncil Act should hereby be revoked and abolish.

Enough is enough, this episode has shown that the Bar Council is unable to play the role it is supposed to play ie professional body.

It has been swayed by it's committee to be an activist group with a partisan inclination and has been sowing the seed of interracial and interfaith discontent among the people.

With this abuse, the role to license and govern the legal professional must be taken over by the court or governmental institution.

Bar Council should cease to exist in it's present role and power. Zaid Ibrahim must take responsibility for hiding this matter.

Here onward, Bar Council has lost any locus standi and moral persuasion to be part of the Commision to select judges.

In addition, Bar Council has lost any moral standing to express any views pertaining to society.

Amiga Ambigau must resign immediately!!!!

A new president and committee must be put in place that will seriously look at the professional conduct of its members.

Anonymous said...

Bro,

Well done! This is a major scoop!

Your article has now been posted in the Malaysian Bar's website. Someone called Roger has responded to the article through the comment box. I'm not sure whether this person speaks o behalf of the Council, but here's his response:-

Dear all,

The current Bar Council's decision is a correct one. I am of the view that Rule 62 only allows the AG to waive the entire Rule 60 and not to waive it just to meet a particular application, in this case, Tun Salleh Abas'. Further, there is no cogent reason to have the entire rule waived.

It must be emphasised that just because the application is from Tun Salleh Abas, he should be treated differently.

But then whether he should be treated similarly as Datuk KC Vohrah or any other case prior to this, my own view is that the previous Council had erred in its interpretation of Rule 60. Also, it is a golden rule that just because the previous Council had erred, Datuk KC Vohrah should not be punished for our error of judgment.

Further, just because we had erred previously does not also mean that we must continue with the wrong precedent.

In fact, I believe we have turned down many other applications from other eminent retired judges. This in fact begs the question whether we should now even re-look at the practice of allowing retired judges to practise or there should even be a cooling off period before they are allowed to do so.

All said, the Council acted without fear and favour when rejecting Tun Salleh's application.

Roger Tan

donplaypuks® said...

TSA had a MILLION reasons or TWO to attend the Bar Council Dinner and would not have missed it for anything!!

Your other hero, Dr.M, however, believes that TSA was justifiably sacked, and that he and his cohorts did not deserve any monetary compensation.

How do you recocile this, Rocky?
http://donplaypuks.blogspot.com

damansara said...

You know apa yang tak best pasal this whole discussion?

Mana pergi suara-suara lantang yang sentiasa mendabik dada dan mengatakan hanya mereka yang memperjuangkan kebebasan dan keadilan?

Mana perginya suara-suara yang cepat mengherdik rakan perbincangan sebagai racist dan sebagainya?

Kenapa sunyi membisu?

Negara kita tidak akan maju jika kita mempunyai sikap 'ikhlas yang memilih bulu'.

Anonymous said...

It's wonderful what a datukship can do. We've seen it often enough. Newspaper editors, gangsters, conmen, you name it. The government is smart enough to bestow its critics and enemies with it. It's it greatest weapons to turn enemies around.

Alibaba

Anonymous said...

looks like hidden hands somewhere..or someone playing cock.

-cocksure

Anonymous said...

I'm amazed Tun Salleh Abbas agreed to attend the Bar Council dinner to accept the PM's offer of monetary compensation for his dismissal. Why didn't Zaid Ibrahim exert his influence and help Tun Salleh?

BON

Anonymous said...

Dear Bro,

Is this could be the Malaysian Judicial System Reformation desired by Zaid Ibrahim, endorsed by the Bar Council and despiced by Tun Mahathir.

Zaib

Anonymous said...

Dear citizens

Please read here http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/legal/general_news/bar_red_by_council_s_double_standards.html for an explanation.

Regards
CT

Anonymous said...

Hi Rock,
Let's have a Royal COmmission on the discretion of the Bar Council.
We want transparency!

BarIsAJoke.

matdeboq said...

Dear Rocky,

Well, I do hope this matter will be brought to attention of all the "Yang BerBlogger-YB's" at the next sitting of the ..Peolpe's Parliament...!!
This case subject of Tun Salleh Abas will be disqualify...if found that the person mention is an 'Alien' in the nation of the 'Bar Council'..!!
In that instance 'YBlg. Haris Ibrahim' need not persue...more futher. Case close...period...!!

Attention to Tun Salleh Abas....your faded colour are not the same as the people's in the nation call 'Bar Council'...
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I would just like to conclude that Tun Abbas was being used by Bar Council against Tun Dr Mahathir. After they got their wish, he is just a nobody. Discard him. That is how Anwar is being used now. Or perhaps, he is using them. Anyway, Tun Dr Mahathir is a fighter who when is being pushed to the corner he will get stronger. Look what happen to him now. People are squarming all over him. Ha ha ha.

Rocky... you really are something. Hopefully you know what you're getting at and what is your aim in life apart from being a good muslim.

Ikhwan

Anonymous said...

Dear Rocky,

Looks like poor Tun Salleh was used by Zaid Ibrahim (then on behalf of the PM & Gang) for their common vendetta against Dr M.

Ambiga (and her supporters in the Bar Council) probably made the coterie because of shared animus and promises of rewards in kind.

Shame on them for such dishonest and cavalier treatment of a former Lord President.

What a loathsome bunch!

mekyam

Anonymous said...

rocky bru, if i may ask majority of those who went against u the other day when u write about defending Utusan.

where those bast"$ds gone?? they will only bark if things seems to be their way. If u write something in their face like this.. they shrink to useless piece of junk.

bark n bark n bark.. ambiga is just anwar's tool in bar council.. who can deny that????

-hate anwar inc.-

MOHD FADZIL said...

Dei Ambiga. Kasi explain siki. Tapi tolong pakai satu lidah wokay!
And Mr Balan. Jangan jadi loyar atau ular lagilah. semua orang sudah start faham apa yang ada dalam you punya underwear.wokay!

Col Roseli said...

Get Tun Salleh Abas to join HINDRAF. Perhaps, he would have got it by yesterday!!!

Anonymous said...

Sayadahbosan said:

Aku ingatkan kambing jiran aku lagi civilized rupa-rupanya kambing aku pun sama je tahap civilized nya dengan kambing dorang.

Apa bezanya kambing aku dengan dengan kambing dorang nih?

Sama je busuk macam kambing sapa-sapa pun.

Haris ibrahim suka kambing2 sana sebab kambing2 sana guna deodarant?

Apa supernya kambing2 di sana tu?

FREEcondom of speech kah?

Anonymous said...

hahahaha ambiga lu sudah kena beb...

FROM:
~if pot call a pot la if kettle say kettle la all have black bontot one just don't force yourself~

kunena said...

The complete silence from those bloggers who champion of democary, law reform, abolition of ISA is perplexing?

Any comment from Anwar Ibrahim? Where are Pakatan Rakyat bloggers? Are you there? RPK (oops he is Kamunting), zorro, ronnie liu, anilnettp, the People Parliament, susan loone, malaysiakini, tonypua, lim kit siang, nat etc


On othe note, look here:

Pakatan pun semua boleh!!!!!

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/10/22/nation/20081022181905&sec=nation

Published: Wednesday October 22, 2008 MYT 6:21:00 PM
Updated: Wednesday October 22, 2008 MYT 6:32:22 PM

No wrongdoing in construction of ‘Istana Mat Deros’
By DHARMENDER SINGH and EDWARD RAJENDRA


SHAH ALAM: The Selangor Government has not initiated any action over the mansion belonging to the late Port Klang assemblyman Datuk Zakaria Md Deros as it has not found any proof of wrongdoing.

Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim said soon after Pakatan Rakyat came into power, a study was carried out on the legal, social and political aspects related to the construction of the mansion in Pandamaran.

He said however until now it had not found any proof of fraud or abuse of power involving the construction of the mansion.

“Whether we agree with it or not, we have to accept that a title for the land (occupied by the mansion) was issued by the previous state government so the occupation of the land is legal.

“We have to study whether any offence was committed in the other aspects of the construction of the mansion before taking any action and we cannot act as we wish,” he told a press conference in the lobby at the Selangor state assembly.

Khalid said the state government also wanted to do the right thing and not act in haste even though it could have won political mileage by taking action.

He was answering to a challenge issued by former Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo to the state government on Tuesday to take action since many Pakatan Rakyat leaders had then slammed the previous government for failing to act.

The controversy began when it was discovered that Zakaria had built his palatial home in a low-cost housing area without submitting building plans to the Klang Municipal Council (MPK) for approval.

Zakaria, who died just days after the general election in March, had also operated an unlicensed satay restaurant built illegally on government reserve land and had not paid assessment for another property for 12 years.

All these occurred while he was an MPK councillor.

Anonymous said...

Bro,

the whole story is a bloody joke. nobody knows the law in bar council.


Zealot.

buyong said...

There are lots of Bars opposite my house,....Smoke Bar, Korean Snake Bar, Kikilala Bar, I may find Ambiga in one of those bars...

Anonymous said...

what IS the matter with the legal fraternities? takkan benda kecik camni pun susah? pening aku!!

farha

Anonymous said...

I believe, it is all relationship. who you know is important to approve your application even if you have TUN title

Smokinlala2002

Anonymous said...

this truly is racist ? where are you all blogers ? are blogers, lawyers, politicion racist ? voice up !!!!!!!




Antiracist.

Anonymous said...

bro,

where is zahid ibrahim ??

fly said...

damansara bertanya :-Mana pergi suara-suara lantang yang sentiasa mendabik dada dan mengatakan hanya mereka yang memperjuangkan kebebasan dan keadilan? - mereka telah terkelu lidahnya kerana mereka baru mendapati bahawa mereka juga tergolong didlm golongan yg cakap tak serupa bikin!

-Mana perginya suara-suara yang cepat mengherdik rakan perbincangan sebagai racist dan sebagainya? - suara2 itu telah boomerang dan hinggap pada wajah2 mereka seperti satu tamparan yg terus membingaikan mereka!

Kenapa sunyi membisu? - sebab dah terkejut beruk!

nowhere man said...

Any comment from Anwar Ibrahim? Where are Pakatan Rakyat bloggers? Are you there? RPK (oops he is Kamunting), zorro, ronnie liu, anilnettp, the People Parliament, susan loone, malaysiakini, tonypua, lim kit siang, nat etc - they have been checkmated!

Anonymous said...

Sue Bar Council and the laid-y Datuk MR30 million !! Singapore style.

Cackling Catwoman

Anonymous said...

I doubt there was a racist slant to this sorry episode. The Bar Council was so busy playing politics, it forgot to act humanely for an old man.

I have no faith in the legal aid bureau for the same reason - unless you have a political slant, you will be put on a long waiting list.

As for Salleh Abas, Ambiga decided that the Bar Council has milked the cow until it is now dry and of no use to the Council.

Shame Shame Shame.

Godfather

justmy2SEN said...

I'D SAY

TRUE HYPOCRISY...THE MALAYSIAN 'PERASAN BAGUS' WAY

SO MUCH FOR KETUANAN RAKYAT...POODAHHCHIT

Anonymous said...

This is supposedly a comment by one Roger Tan in Bar's website

"But then whether he should be treated similarly as Datuk KC Vohrah or any other case prior to this, my own view is that the previous Council had erred in its interpretation of Rule 60. Also, it is a golden rule that just because the previous Council had erred, Datuk KC Vohrah should not be punished for our error of judgment."

All along the Bar had been saying that the sacking Of Tun Salleh was wrong and the government should do something to right the wrong. The Bar even managed to hold that grand dinner with government consent, supposedly to bring justice to Tun Salleh and the gang.

Now that the council had erred in its interpretation of Rule 60, why still allow Datuk KC Vohrah to practice ?

The thing is race play a major role here ... and this coming from people who shouted meritocracy is colour blind. What meritocracy ? MY-RACE-TO-KASI ade ler !!!

pigidah

Anonymous said...

Every one is into politics these days, including lawyers and the Bar Council.

Tun Salleh has been made a scape goat by both sides of the political divide.

Nonetheless, Tun Salleh has already been paid an undisclosed 'ransom'and that should have put the matter to rest.

After being used to the maximum,he just got abandoned.

We have to accept this as part and parcel of our complicated life. Not all people are born lucky, but some are lucky to be born.

A former statesman once quoted :

Life Was Never Meant To Be Easy.

When you are at the top, everyone clamours to be by your side. But when you are no more there, they will even help to kick you into the drain.

Look at our current PM. Once upon a time, he was the hero and everybody wanted to be seen with him.

Where are those ungrateful people now? New camping site???

A GOOD MAN DOES NOTHING

The said...

Ambiga is unambiguously ambiguous.

And the Bar Council is barring council.

pilot said...

bro,

A fact joke - if you enter UK and lining up to get your passport stamped by the immigration staff, avoid the line if the counter is manned by a British Indian staff as they are more strict than the British English staff.

Anonymous said...

Calling Malaysian lawyers! Time to kick asses. Take back your association from those morons!

Anonymous said...

Ambiga! yes I hope you read this! Watch out, I am watching your ass.

Silva
Madras

eddy said...

Let call a spade, a spade.

So, lets see here, Tun Salleh is a Former Lord President has been given the runaround by the Bar Council President and Executive Committee members but Former Court of Appeal Judge Dato' Vohrah application to become a Consultant was accepted.

Now Bar Council Roger Tan conveniently said that Dato Vohrah's case was a mistake. OK, if its a mistake then the Learned President and Executive members of the Bar Council should rectify it by withdrawing the permission given to Dato' Vohrah. Then its fair.

Roger Tan also said that there are other former/retired judges who applied but were not approved. Bar Council should come clean and give the public the names of the judges who applied and those who were accepted and rejected. Let us "Mat Public" scrutinise the list before we judge you as practising discrimination.

Otherwise, the Bar Council President and Executive Committee are just a bunch of hypocrites who discriminates people while unashamedly shouting for Freedom and Human Rights and in the first sign of trouble, then hides behind the Law.

Damansara said...

Dear Roger Tan,

What? You have a golden rule? Stated and printed or just a rule of thumb?

I do not like Salleh Abbas.

For me he was not being truthful about his personal problem with the King during his sacking. But yet, he conveniently scapegoat and named only one of his enemies to justify his claim, knowing that hitting the King will be a grave mistake.

In addition, it is a pure disgust to have a Lord President who sent a letter to all Sultans just because the renovation in Istana Negara was making a lot of noise. His level of maturity is a big question?

This is the single most important issue that the law community chooses to conveniently ignores in their so-called ‘Pursuit for Salleh Abbas Justice’.

But still, he is a human being and a fellow citizen of ours.

If Ambiga and Co can used the oldman's name and parade it for his alleged wrong dismissal, then why can't she do the same to highlight his plea to practice.

He just wanted to earn an honest living. Isn’t that the most basic human right?

What is her excuse? Bureaucracy?

It seems that both Ambiga and Ghani Patail were playing ‘passing parcel’

Yet this is the superhuman law community that knows all and proudly claimed ‘A Justice Delayed, Is A Justice Denied’.

Bunnies said...

Wahahahaha.. so many words.. belit here, putar there.. don't know what is it all about. All I know is this is one BOLLYWOOD STORY!!!

Damansara said...

I read in Malay Mail yesterday about a singh brother of ours yang being denied his pencen.

Anybody can explain whats going on with his case?

How can we help him?

Anonymous said...

If racism is practised behind closed doors, then it is not called racism??

X Files

NURAINA A SAMAD said...

Bar Council.....i am appalled.

Anonymous said...

Both the Bar Coucil and Tun Salleh Abas deserved each other...Tun Mahathir and his supporters are very happy now and that sooner or later people would see the conspiracies behind the setting up of Judiciary Commission. Padan lu punya muka!

-tunsallehkenamain-

Anonymous said...

Bro TQ,

So now our Mr PM ,dun sleep anymore...Pls wakeup n REVAMP d Bar Council.

Now its proven Ambiga n d gang r bias n double standard!!

(Antu)

ewoon said...

The Bar Council. The Attorney General. KC Vohrah. The PM. What do they have in common?

They are all birds of a feather.

Tun Salleh Abas, thank God, is no bird. He's a gentleman. Nuff said.

rejal said...

Its not just the Judiciary that needs reforms. Its the Bar council that needs it more than anybody else. The hypocrisy of it all, they seem to take pleasure in lambasting all and sundry for lack of justice and objectivity but the Executive Committee headed by the Ambiga fellow is the worse of the lot.
And why the double standards in allowing an Indian but not approving a Malay. Isn't this being racial. But its not surprising considering the make up of the office bearers.
So I was not surprised at the call made by PKR MP Zulkifli Nordin for a separate Council for Muslim lawyers.

Sushi Bar said...

Call that King of Royal Commission Inquiry Lim Kit Siang, to propose that Royal Commsion of Inquiry be set-up into the Double Standard of Bar Council.

Anwar and all his konco-konco and his Pakatan infactuated bloggers team must also call. Hold some vigil nites with millions of candles. Can ah?

alioh said...

This is disgusting. Bar Council cry the loudest of independence, justice and democracy. But only when it serves its interest I suppose

Anonymous said...

hahahaha..

now we see who has the last laugh..bravo Rock, the hyprocrites never wrote anything about this in their blogs..just show us all who they really are..

and that's the real reason why Hindraf supporters always worship the lawyers like their gods...

kesian.. 5 org "tuhan" anda kini kena makan makanan anjing di Kamunting dibawah kuasa "Melayu Muslim racist & terrorist"....

All Malays should never ever give any face to these brethren of snakes... show no mercy.. the worst will come once they got power to rule in their hand..

their hidden agenda & hypocracy being exposed by their own action..ular terbelit sendiri..

..go stuff those candles in your ass and light it up..may i recommend fire cracker as a better subsitute from now on (only to be applied into lawyers ass..Bar Council approval not needed).. hahahaha..

-anti hindraf-

Anonymous said...

Kepada semua yang percayai dan sayangi kebenaran,

Saya sesungguhnya merayu kepada semua, janganlah jadi isu ini isu perkauman.

Pada pandangan sayu, isu yang relevan adalah:

1. mengapa Tun Salleh tidak diberi kelonngaran untuk menjadi Consultant seperti yang diberi kepada Datuk KC Vohrah?

2. mengapa Bar Council dalam Press Statement-nya tidak memberi penjelasan tentang kelonggaran yang diberi KC Vohrah?

3. betuke Bar Council yang terdahulu yang membernarkan KC Vohrah menjadi Consultant salah dalam tindakannya seperti dihujah oleh salah seorang dari ahlinya?


Sekali lagi, saya merayu kepada semua agar tumpu kepda isu dan fakta di hadapan kita dan bukan kepada spekulasi dan isu tidak relevan yang akan membawa kita kepada fitnah.

Damansara said...

WHO ACTUALLY BARKS THE WRONG TREE?

The least Bar Council and its so-called learned members can do is to explain, why despite knowing that they erred in Vohrah case, he was allowed to continue.

To belittle views made as ‘inability in appreciating legal principles’ is purely arrogant.

Is the same statement also directed to all the six applicants denied the privileges granted to Vohrah?

Because it seems that an ex-Lord President does not enjoy the same view.

Is he not legally trained?

Is he unable to appreciate legal principles?

READ HIS VIEW

"Respectfully, we are of the view that it is not a question of the Bar Council not being in a position to acceded (sic) to our request but more of its unwillingness to do in light of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 which reads as follows:

The Bar Council may, in writing, with the approval of the Attorney General in writing, waive any of these Rules.

"Furthermore, if the Bar Council's stand is not to waive compliance of Rule 60, how does it explain the admission of our good friend and former Court of Appeal judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah as consultant in a KL firm despite him not having met with the aforesaid Rule 60 requirement?"

"In our several correspondences with the Bar Council over this matter, we have often alluded to the fact that in at least one instance (involving YBhg Datuk K.C. Vohrah), the Bar Council had evidently utilized its discretion under Rule 62 ... to allow an "unqualified" (under the said Rules) person to be a consultant to a legal firm.

"Our Tun Salleh is of the view that the Bar Council's decision not to utilize similar discretion in the case of his application amounts to a rather despicable practice of double standards."

It’s a very simple case.

Just tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

the bar has a lot of explanation to do to every single citizen of this country with respect to the issue of salleh abas now.

this is the largest ? in the history of malaysia

Anonymous said...

Now why is Ambiga downnright ambiguous. The BC is capable of such a fantastic fiasco!It has become redundant really. Maybe it should just be scrapped.

Iqbal Azim