Sunday, October 26, 2008

Bru barks wrong tree?

Bru Notes: This article first appeared in www.malaysianbar.org.my yesterday 25/10/2008. You may leave comments here or at the Bar Council's website, h e r e.

Is Rocky's Bru barking up the wrong tree? PDF Print E-mail
Contributed by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng
Saturday, 25 October 2008 11:16pm
Is Rocky's Bru barking up the wrong tree?

Senior lawyer Robert Lazar: "We recognise that Tun Salleh personally did suffer but to say that the Bar made use of him is a gross insult to the Bar and a gross distortion of history. I am confident in saying that what motivates the Bar is the cause not the person."



KUALA LUMPUR, Sat: Since Thursday, October 23 - the day blogger Ahirudin Attan or better known as Rocky's Bru highlighted Tun Salleh Abas' application to be allowed to be called as a "consultant" in his article entitled Bar-red by Council's double standards, more than 150 comments were posted by the readers on his blog in the aforesaid article and two subsequent articles that followed.

Sadly, majority of these commenters (and writing anonymously) showed a deep ignorance of the real issue and went on a rampage, hurling abuses with racist overtones at the Bar Council and its officers. Even retired Court of Appeal judge, Datuk KC Vohrah was not spared.

This led to one reader writing, "Rocky, I believe you are really barking on the wrong tree. The perception you have moulded your readers to believe is that Tun Salleh has been deprived to practise meaning being deprived of earning a decent livelihood. This is definitely not the case... Nobody is depriving Tun Salleh from practising and he does not need the blessing from the Attorney General nor the Bar Council to practise. That's a fact. He is applying to have the title "consultant" which of course carries more status as not all members of the Bar can be a consultant as you would need to fulfil the relevant rule 60." (Edited]

Another anonymous commenter even alleged that: "Talk had it that Tun Salleh has fallen out with them because the couple (Datuk Dr Yaacob Hussain Merican and Tunku Sofiah Jewa) - once great supporters and relatives of Tengku Razeleigh vowed never to talk to Tun Mahathir again are now close friends of Tun Mahathir. So Tun Salleh so pissed off because Tun Mahathir sacked Tun Salleh! In the Lingam inquiry, Tunku Sofiah even acted as counsel for Tun Mahathir!" He went on to say: "So you Rocky Bru and gang, if you bother to ask any senior lawyers, they will tell you in the 1988 judicial crisis, the Bar fought for judicial independence and not Tun Salleh. As a judge, Tun Salleh wasn't of good temperament and some lawyers even preferred to appear before the old Lord President Tun Hamid!... Vohrah's application was approved years ago and not by the present Council who looked at principles and not personalities. If you had checked the legal directory on the Bar Council's website, KC Vohrah was called to the Bar on 19.12.1964. This means Vohrah must have practised for sometime before he became a judge... Tun Salleh should learn to be grateful for what the Bar did for him!" [Edited]

Rocky's articles have also been reproduced on this website. Generally, members of the Bar were rather astonished by two remarks made by him in his first posting:

"Salleh Abas turns 80 next year. To say that he is disappointed 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.

"BRU notes: During the hours we spent interviewing 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."

Robert LazarThe first remark drew a strong response from senior lawyer, Robert Lazar who wrote here: "On a different note I was rather peeved to note the following comment in Rocky Bru's article. "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." In the first place the "its cause" which must mean the pursuit of justice for all does not belong exclusively to the Bar. Secondly it was not Tun Salleh's personality that drove the Bar in 1988. If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988 and neither did many of his actions and judgements. But it was the seat of justice and the institution that was attacked and it was that that the Bar rose to defend. We recognise that Tun Salleh personally did suffer but to say that the Bar made use of him is a gross insult to the Bar and a gross distortion of history. I am confident in saying that what motivates the Bar is the cause not the person."

To exemplify Robert's reference to "judgements", Tun Salleh Abas' decision in the famous case of Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang in 1988 virtually dealt a death knell to public interest litigation in Malaysia.

Rocky's final shot was rather perplexing. He seemed to imply that Tun Salleh Abas ought to be treated differently, but what the current Council has demonstrated is that there should be equality before the law, and the earlier decision on Vohrah's application should now be best regarded as res judicata.

Be that as it may, perhaps blogger Rocky, being not legally trained, should be forgiven for his inability in appreciating legal principles and the real issues involved.

74 comments:

profit said...

Dear Rocky,
Never engage in a brawl with lawyers,you can never win.They are loyar burok.

abu said...

If you are not legally trained, then don't simply talk lah!

Check your facts first, brother. Get a lawyer who is sound in law to give you an opinion first.

mas said...

Justice nowadays is how the loyars in the Bar Council can goreng. Example, look at Nurul Huda's case, we know he did it and the little girl died, but where is the justice?
Whatever it is rocky, have faith in Allah. No one can escape his judgement.

Loyar bodoh said...

Word twisters of the highest class - so you wanna have any problem with those loyar buruk again?

Anonymous said...

Dear rocky,
Never trust any lawyer n thats why they always wear black clothes cause they always twist their tongue...
As a citizen of this nation, you has every right to say whatever you want, regardless of being legally trained...ok keep up man!

Lawyer=twisted tongue=always cheat=never has any concrete stand=for money sake=the most lowly standard community of people in the world...even worse than strippers....loyar buruk!

Never trust a lawyer, they speak anything for your money!

-lowly lawyer

Jed Yoong said...

Isn't Lazar the guy who the now notorious V K Lingam accused of lobbying for a meeting with Dr M to discuss being judge?
Lazar has reportedly denied the allegation which was raised in the Royal Commission Inquiry earlier this year.

"equality before the law,"
So should the Bar Council own up for practising favoritism in that V guy's case?

Lawyers. Malaysian Lawyers.

Anonymous said...

freedom of speech or freedom of press and freedom of bloggers only applies when articles are anti govt.time you learn that bro rocky.
all these lawyers are anti govt because thay get no govt jobs, just a bunch of soar grapes.
i would like to see liberalisation of the legal practice by the govt and allow better lawyers from outside malaysia to practice here.

Anonymous said...

The real issue here is, was Tun Salleh treated differently from Datuk Vohrah by the Bar Council?. The short answer is Yes.

The Bar Council can issue all the excuses and non-explanations they want. Keep this up, and their credibility will soon descend to the levels enjoyed by some of our politicians - none or very little. To some of us, it's already in the gutter.

Bullfighter

Rocky's Bru said...

Dear Profit,

For whatever they tell us about lawyers, we still need them to win court cases bro!

In my case, I am reliant on three fine men.

Thank you for your sound advice though. I am drafting a reply to the article by Ban Cheng and hope to send it to the Bar's website after Deepavali.

Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart said...

Let me just set the record straight about Malaysian lawyers.

Most Malay lawyers are byproducts of local varsities while only a handful of the non-Malays made it to the local varsities. The majority of the rest comprise of external students from varsities in UK or Australia.

Almost 50% of these students start a career in law (after completing CLP/ Bar and Chambering) but sadly 50% of that figure are utterly ignorant of what a career in law is all about.

It has been the same in the 60s, 70s and even today. Thus most of those in the Bar Council are utterly ignorant of their role in society as at the end of the day law is just a business.

It is very easy for one to simply taint another by saying, "if you're not legally trained, then don't simply talk". I do have my reservations towards Rocky's writings at times, but it's very unfair, to me, to simply label.

Sometimes those who read law don't even know their law.

Just a word of advice (and I don't charge by the hour); lawyers ought to control their tongues. Always remember there are others with legal backgroud as well but choose not to be part of a corrupt system which you legal eagles politely term as justice.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHA

Wey loyar buruks, cakap in plain org putih speak lah instead of rambling on in your pompous legal lingo. Just explain to us whether you DID or DID NOT practise double standards.

Kuku Bar

wandererAUS said...

Commentators who throw loose insults at the law professionals is most uncalled for and tasteless. Stick to the issue and if you have a valid point to contribute, make it. Otherwise, zip up!
No one will say you are dumb for staying mum.

Anonymous said...

bro,
they're all lawyers after all. They will come up with all the reasons in the world to defend murderers, rapist & drug dealers as long as there's a retainer fee upfront. Mattau

Anonymous said...

Rock,

I know what's your intention are and I am with you 100%. As far as the "legally trained" comment, well it's because the so called lawyer are well trained do they elect a minority racist like Ambiga to lead them..huh..

Patriot.

Patriot Selatan said...

ala........... writing blog is different from piece article in a mainstream newspaper. It can be written in anyway the author(one person) wants subject to his own views, principles, tendencies etc. Even NST with Kali was predisposed to write glowing articles for certain personalities.

So, BAr Council.. kena paham aja la...

Anonymous said...

Can someone from the Bar Council going to address the double standards issues put forth by Bru over Vohrah's appointment vis a vis Salleh Abbas's?

eddy said...

Bro, I think saudara profit is right, if you are forced to engage the lawyers in a brawl then to win you need the help of another lawyer.

Contrary to what some of these big headed lawyers thinks, even though we are not legally trained we are are not idiots and we strongly agree with your point, we believed you have a raised a good point with the Bar Council about allowing Tun Salleh application to practise as a consultant based on a discretionary ruling, a ruling which was applied to former judge Dato' KC Vohrah to allow him to practise as a Consultant.

Instead of answering straight to the point some members of the Bar Council attempts to turn the table, side step the issue and say that we do not understand and are ignorant of the issues at hand.The commentator who wrote that you are barking the wrong tree seriously misunderstood your article or did not finish reading it before he commented and what do you know the Bar Council used that misunderstood comment to strenghthen their twisted argument.That bro, is really pathetic.

Its not about whether Tun Salleh can cari makan or not as his pension would be enough for him to lead a very comfortable life. Its about why a former Lord President was not given the same treatment that was afforded to a former Court of Appeal judge in their application to be Consultant to their respective law firms.

I hope you can give a good reply to that Lazar fellow Bro, maybe consult a lawyer or two first to proof read your reply just in case.

Anonymous said...

why waste time, men! Lazar is a snake so is Bar Council.

shar101 said...

"Once a final judgment has been handed down in a lawsuit, subsequent judges who are confronted with a suit that is identical to or substantially the same as the earlier one will apply the res judicata doctrine to preserve the effect of the first judgment. This is to prevent injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps mostly to avoid unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents them from multiplying judgments, so a prevailing plaintiff could not recover damages from the defendant twice for the same injury..." - Sourced from wikipedia.

Now, can some loyar burok from the Bar explain the above in plain, simple english which laypersons can understand.

As far as I know about how lawyers operate, it's always based on legal precedents. So, it was ok for KCV but not TSA due to some technical interpretation of laws which the Bar seem at odds to explain, except in even more legalistic jargon.

Waaay to go, lawyers! And trust me, that's not a compliment.

antubiul said...

I beg to differ for Bar COuncil views on who they champion Judiacy or Tun salleh Abbas. Since 1988 what they show, their action, their says and critics only point to championing Tun Salleh Abbas since he's the merits to their cause. Even though the final resolution for Tun Salleh case is compensation and not overturn of the tribunal verdit it has push the BAr image one step up when the truth is they won nothing. They champion Tun Salleh is becasue they aint on good term with the them PM and that the facts!. They are a disgrace to the nation when the tribunal was set up with the consent of the Agong at that time and was given the full power to trial Tun Salleh was being discredited by the BAR. They made the public believed it a scam by the then PM. The Bar is not sincere in championing Tun Salleh neither are claiming to champion the Judaciary. If it so true that the judiacy was tainted with Tun Salleh case, the Bar should have fought for a retrial and only the tribunal or a high court could overturn the judgement unfortunately the BAR choses to fight via the polical platform in the name of justice. The compensation was awarded thru 'politics' and not thru a retrial or anything in the name of the law. In facts Tun Salleh did not use the law to defend himself rather he use politics to uphold justice. The BAR used Tun Salleh issue to champion their personal cause not Tun Salleh or for judiacry.Lawyer make a fortune from other people misfortune and you right Bru, you need them to win cases. It doesnt mattger if you are the real killier or wahat ever. Either they win or loose the money will keep flowing. The more they twisted the law to win a case the prominent they will be.Look at Nurul Huda case, no doubt the lawyer managed to prove a third man was in the room and has doubt who killed her either Abbas or the third man. In fact Abbas knew who the third man was and why is that the third man was not taken to court? Abbas confessed and it is the third man semen against Abbas confessions. Pity Nurul Hida family, justice was not fair to them instead in the Law protected Abbas. Lawyer are only human. You right Bru, you need them to win a case and that why they wore black. There men in black.

Anonymous said...

Bro you do not know whats res judicita means thus it makes you incapable of knowing the real issue.

It was not Tun Salleh that was defended, its the seat. But Tun Salleh did get sacked and eventually paid the money.

But the comment made by the Senior Lawyer proved that there were more than meets the eye in the 1998 so-called Judicial Attack.

I would prefer to name it Monarch-Judicial-Executive-War. Unfortunately only the 'Bad' Tun willing to tell his side of the story.

Some Judges did, like Justice Chin, but obviously behind the Jubah.

Funny, if the Government alone did not want to disclosed the amount paid to any people, everybody will scream, BAR COUNCIL included. They may even walk..not too far though..panas

But as BAR AND ZAID were parties its okay to hide the amount from us, member of the ignorant public.

Anonymous said...

to all fellas..

wish everybody just might distinguish between lawyer and bar council's council.

Anonymous said...

My friend Rocky,

The way I see it, both the Ole Grand Idiot (TSA) and the Big Ole Club Of Tongue Twisters are the same. They are being who they are. TSA should not ask anyone at all to 'bend rules'just for his ego/need (just like the case of '98 Judiciary 'so-called' crisis'). There you have it, Rocky. The the ole man you have been championed all the while.He is a crook who was in a good man's office. That's all he is.

I am sorry for you.

Omong said...

great job Rocky

you even have legal experts coming to their self defence

ventilation of a high degree

cleaner air to breathe all around

Anonymous said...

Remember this Malaysia where you scratch my back and vice versa and yes jed this is the guy.Malaysia semua bolih.

KIMHO8 said...

I heard many people say something goes wrong with Rocky. Big possibility too lah!

kyle said...

Lately, your articles taste a bit bitter, at least to me.
Still, I salute you for putting up the other side of the opinion in your blog.
It takes courage.
That's freedom of speech.

ChengHo said...

bro,

you've better to get a senior lawyer before they come to you...

amir said...

Four legs good, two legs BETTER!

amir said...

All animals are equal, but some are MORE EQUAL than others.

Anonymous said...

we are not in a court of laws so don't use the "not legally trained" arguments. do put up your facts and figures if your thinki bru is wrong and lets the readers decide. don't want to comment further on the legally trained.

Anonymous said...

Robert Lazar is brother in law of Brendan Pereira. Robert Lazar, was implicated by V K Lingam as currying for position of judge. Oh, why does Lazar's wife sit ib Bangsar SeaFood and say it belongs to my boss????... NST gave a lot of publisity to Lasar, and Brendan's relative, who is often spotted with him, Lionel Morais is chief news editor.... Did Lionel improve circulation?? or was his promotion, fast tracked, by Brendan.....to do his bidding. Finally mr`Lazar says ""If Rocky really wants to know, the Tun never really endeared himself as a friend of the Bar pre-1988'.I rest mycase.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng remarked:

"Rocky's final shot was rather perplexing. He seemed to imply that Tun Salleh Abas ought to be treated differently, but what the current Council has demonstrated is that there should be equality before the law, and the earlier decision on Vohrah's application should now be best regarded as res judicata."

It should be understood firstly that res judicata means:

"a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties."

Has this apparently contentious matter on Tun Salleh's application to be consultant been brought to the courts for a decision?

Or is the writer suggesting that the current Bar Council is a "competent court"?

The second issue that comes to mind is:

If the current Bar Council has demonstrated equality before the law, then should not Tun Salleh get the same treatment as given to KC Vohrah?

My final concern: was the previous Bar Council really wrong in accepting KC Vorhah as consultant despite not meeting with the requirement?

Seeking answers.

chi8 said...

Rocky, a dangerous path this site is threading. Most of the readers are not interested to know the truth. Most of them do not want to emphatise the complex situation that the world they are living in. Please consider the greys and not just blacks and whites. You know more than anyone else this fact. It must not be a situation of "you are either with us or you are against us". This is dangerous. You can criticise, but you must also listen to the explanation and think. Clouded emotions and stubborn beliefs spouts dangerous divisiveness if not pruned at the very root. I know this is your blog, and you are the king of your castle so they say. But as a respectable person you are and having such a good following, i think you do owe all a morally fair statement of the matter.

fishnet said...

In Jim Carrey's "liar-liar", lawyers are mistaken spouted as liars by a kid. Not too much different, if the pay is good.

Pasquale said...

Rocky, you are a fool for allowing your posting to devour you, perhaps you are too close to Tun Salleh Abbas, a case of "if you are emotionally involve you cannot get involve in the case" to use a police parlance, but otherwise you are a famous man, mo!

Anonymous said...

not all lawyers are burok
but those in the bar council committee are... we need a fresh face at the bar council committee....but the problem is when ever there's election..they keep on winning...bloody full...

jajanjohorbahru

wak segen said...

Hahahaha...
Say what you like about Rocky...he's barking up the wrong tree, he's not legally train etc etc..
But what we cannot deny is, he is a damn good journo.
His postings and comments are only to incite feedback and they all did in droves and with full vigour.
And now the public really know who these people really are.
Tun Salleh, Vohrah, Lazar, Bar council dll... semua sama aje...
loyar burok...
Hahahaha....jangan mareh..

Lim said...

Bar Council is always bomoh 'putar alam' to anyone. never think for other people but only to themselves. this is what we call -'a complete idiot' and 'spinning brain'. so many examples in the past and present of their manipulations. in the past they have been cut-off by Tun Dr Mahathir coz knew what kind of people have been sitting there. only since Zaid Ibrahim helming the Justice kabinet post that this people 'jadi besar kepala'. i don't think they have done justice to all except for themselves. to me, if they are really sincere, don;t say much, just go ahead and give what Tun Salleh's wanted. is it so difficult? Or another manipulation? Or just the spinning brain?.

Lim said...

inilah yang dikatakan kalau dah loyar buruk tu buruk jugalah. the bar council can never accept people cirticism towards them all this while. i agree with Tun Dr Mahathir when he shun this so called 'spinning brain' or 'talking murai' group. the true colours exposed when Zaid Ibrahim become their proxy and lagi besar kepala lah depa nii. there is no sincerity or what so ever form this bar council except for themselves. what a complete idiot. is it so difficult to give what Tun Salleh asked for? then where's the bar council 'fighting for justice'? temberang saja.

Anonymous said...

Bro,

Im with u 100% and strongly agree with ur point. Tats freedom of speech...
I noe u already hv some gud reason for brought out tis issue...

Just look at NurulHuda case, pity to her family..

(Anon from Kedah)

Anonymous said...

The only ones confused are the Bartenders. The public just want to know why the double standard. They know that the issue is not about practising. TSA application was to be a Consultant. Apa yang susah sangat nak faham. They have sidestepped the issues. We want to know why KC Vohrah is given special consideration while TSA was rejected whereas both cases are similar.

Very childish when a senior lawyer says that non legal people will never understand the real issue. Since when do we have to have legal qualification to know an issue.

Biar Betul

Bung Karno said...

That dinner where Tun Salleh got his ex-gratia was a toast to Bar Council, courtesy of Zaid Ibrahim, Tun Salleh, and Dollah Badwi.
And Tun Salleh could not even get pally-pally with Bar Council or be treated equal to Vohrah.

So much for reforms....

Sudah tau siapa yang kena

hahahaha

Bung Karno said...

This is interesting :

"So you Rocky Bru and gang, if you bother to ask any senior lawyers, they will tell you in the 1988 judicial crisis, the Bar fought for judicial independence and not Tun Salleh. As a judge, Tun Salleh wasn't of good temperament and some lawyers even preferred to appear before the old Lord President Tun Hamid!...

So Tun M was correct in taking action against Tun Salleh for being rude and of not good temperament when complaining about the Agong。 The Bar Council was not fighting for him then , and now。

Anonymous said...

The Institute of Engineers Malaysia did the same sort of trick in the 80s. Two graduates from the same university in Germany were treated differently in their application for membership and subsequent admission as professional engineers. The only difference between the two applicants was their race. Of course, the aggrieved party in this case is also someone who is of the same race as TSA.
Bar Council has truly shown their true colours. They do not practice what they pretend to preach.
They will only take up your case if it fits their agenda (and I will not say what I think of them.. it may be unprintable)

Capt Sedov

Mark said...

nobody seems to be telling the truth nowadays. everyone has some kind of personal agenda and at the end of the day the victims are the people. even bloggers tend to take sides instead of being neutral. i am getting a bit suspicious of bloggers or even the purpose of blogging - .. i think i should reduce my time reading blogs since it is no longer reliable and sort of lost its credibility ever since the March 8 GE which many attributed to the internet. so it seems bloggers now think they have the power to sway views and so forth but let us have some kind of responsibility too.

Malim said...

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng..
says comments are racist..
hmm where was he to comment the disparaging insults agianst Malays, Muslims and and even Malaysia itself in impudent bloggers, rascals like RPK, Haris Ibrahim, Zorro and other bull shit of PR propogandists..

What goes around comes around..
Get ready to get whacked with equal ferocity when you have already slung too much shit everywhere.

Boogers on you!!

sri mendahiling said...

you need to be a lawyer to know this issue?

to understand that the bar council did not offer tun salleh an explanation why Vohrah's application was approved and his was not?

to understand that Tun's application has been back and forth for more than 2 years?

to understand that the the bar council has resisted using its discretion to approve his application?

WOWW...didn't know i should be legally trained to understand Tun's predicament and the Bar council's treatment of Tun and his application.

'm no lawyer (THANK GOD!) but this does look like Tun Salleh's grouse and complaint, not Rocky's.

Anonymous said...

Come on lah Bar Council, law must be implemented with fairness and justice. You all talk so much about justice but when the ball is thrown to you all, you are blinded with letter of the laws and not with sense of justice?

Same with ISA, it must be implemented with a sense of justice and not blinded with letter of laws. To hell to those who said that jailing bloggers under ISA is within the perimeter of the laws.

Let support Tun Salleh, he has stood up against injustice and please don't make him has to stand up against you all.

Be Fair

Edmund Bon Tai Soon said...

Dear all

I note with interest the various comments on the issue.

For further consideration, I have posted my views on the matter below the article "Is Rocky's Bru barking up the wrong tree"? here: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/is_rocky_s_bru_barking_up_the_wrong_tree_.html#jc_writeComment

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

hello bro,

everybody knews lawyers are tounge twisters, they are all twisting and spinning masters.
now u can't trust lawyers. becareful when u be friend of lawyers. they will twist your hands somedays.

revamp Bar Council too - mandatory.


antiracist.

Simon Wee said...

Now the cat is out of the bag. They could not give exceptions to Tun Salleh as they gave to Vohrah because Tun Salleh had decided on laws unfavourable to the lawyers.

Anonymous said...

hmmm.."Freedom of speech or freedom of press and freedom of bloggers only applies when articles are against/anti government.."

once you started to published articles that goes the other way round eventhough it is genuine, the articles would be regarded as mere good for nothing articles (according to those that have their own hidden agendas)..

i m just pointing out here, what is wrong with the picture here??maybe the correct term to explain this phenomenon is 'double standard' practices..

Seemingly, the racist issue also only seems to be applied to the malays..whenever the non malays reacted in a rather racist manner towards the malays, it is just discarded as if nothing had had happened..

But the problem here is, these non malays would make it as public and national issue if the malays (in their own 'perspective')had acted rather racistly towards the non malays..they would refer to the issues as opposing the human rights act.

But when the issue was the other way round..the malays are treated in a rather racist way by these non malays..none of these 'patriotic' people would stand up the matter..where was that spirit of patriotism for human rights??geesh..here we go again with 'double standard' practices.

~not bias~

Anonymous said...

Lawyers rightfully belong to the bench. That bench is the local pub.

They sit at the Bar and the Council convenes till the night is over.

That's where The Bar Council probably originated from.

Just leave it to the lawyers. They could twist and turn a twine a hundred times over, if they wanted to.

Just because they are legally trained, it does not qualify them to judge others by that yardstick.

Winning is everything to them lawyers, that they sometimes do not realise that knives have two sides.

Oh well, their knives are sharpened on both sides, I guess.

Will I be sued for this?

A GOOD MAN DOES NOTHING

The said...

/// This led to one reader writing, "Rocky, I believe you are really barking on the wrong tree. ///

Rocky, what were you doing ON a tree?

;)

Anonymous said...

why do some people confuse principles with personalities? Journalists, at least, have a duty to act more responsibly. when rocky marched with the lawyers in putrajaya, was it because vk lingam was an indian?

peen khaan wala

amir said...

Rocky was 'sprong-ing' or 'sekodeng-ing' ON a tree. High up on a tree.

Looking at people who have their heads in the clouds.

Anonymous said...

Rocky,

I'm not a lawyer either, but there are 2 questions that linger:

a) If they are practising double-std, and with whatever excuses/jargons they come out with to defend what they do is right. Why would they want to do that in the first place?

In order not to anger the people from the ruling party and Tun Mahathir, but then again judging from the Bar Council Walk to the Putrajaya, the act of support given by Sultan of Perak on their annual Bar Meeting, from being called all sorts of names,to the throwing of Molotiv Cocktails at Ambiga's former house, and finally the review of the sacking of Tun Salleh by panel of law experts from all around the world, what is there to be afraid of?

They do not have political interest, because if they do, they wouldn't have started this chain of events in the first place...

And if Tun Salleh is justified in every way to apply for a consultant-ship, why are they so reluctant in the first place?

Can we have more intelligent answers to that rather than some fanatics hurling abuses as if they know what they are talking about... most importantly why do you think Bar council did what they are doing in the first place? Maybe there's a deeper conspiracy ongoing, pls. enlighten.


Max

Anonymous said...

sad moments for salleh.

and i do not think that rocky would ever bark on a wrong tree.

psion

Anonymous said...

Rocky,

I'm just wondering what's your thought on Malim (6.03pm)and the like. Would appreciate if you could tell me where you stand concerning with the comment. It seems to me that evrytime there's a piece of article, there bound to be people who instead of pointing the criticism to one individual, or the mistake, they will like to make a generalization saying that the comment is hurled against this race or that race, this religion or that religion.

If RPK being Malay wrote something that they do not like, they will label RPK as racist.

If Haris wrote something that they do not like , they will label Haris as racist.

If Malik Imtiaz wrote something that the do not like, they will oso label him as racist.

If Ambiga, being an Indian, did something, they label Ambiga as racist.

If Zaid Ibrahim said something or did something, they do not like, they label him as racist.

Like what I read in The Sun's newspaper, the artcile on the demise of JB Jeyaratnam by Terence, they are people who thought terence was attacking 'certain racial group'

If you wrote something about Teresa, the same people sort of 'supported' you, but they are others who label you as racist.

Just what the hell is wrong with everything? Either I'm a racist or they are, it cannot be both, what say you?

keith

peon loyar said...

Bro,

Dah memang kereja loyar pusing fakta.....janji depa betul. Cari makan mah

Fair and Square said...

The Bar Council made a mistake in 2003 by approving the consultancy applications of Dato’ Vohrah, even though hedid not fulfill the requirements of Rule 60.

Can Pakatan Rakyat's champions please demand a Royal Commission of Inquiry to find out this mistake by the Bar Council?


Bar Council must be seen to be professional and independent.

Anonymous said...

Judging from the number of comments here and that of Bar Council's, I have a strong impression that in this world, people purposely want to join in the fun and harp on the issue whether or not they feel strongly about or not because they could derive some sort of entertainment out of it, i do not know.

May I suggest some of the commentators here kindy re-post your comment/question to the bar council's site, and let people like Edmund Boon, Stephen Tan and the like to answer your back, instead of being so insistent and quick to judge that it's all excuse and his own stand is always correct.

Rocky, as to your question, why the double std, according to Edmund, the approval given to Vokrah was a mistake, should they pull it back or since the mistake was made, the same mistake should be done to Tun Salleh

Rocky, what say you?

mart

aiyomanaboleh said...

It's never nice to say or write something that later on was found to be untrue.

I guess you were probably misinformed.

aiyomanaboleh said...

Anon 9.15am

"But when the issue was the other way round..the malays are treated in a rather racist way by these non malays..none of these 'patriotic' people would stand up the matter..where was that spirit of patriotism for human rights??geesh..here we go again with 'double standard' practices."

What has the above got to do with the issue at hand?

amir said...

Since you are all not-lawyers, you are all stupid.

STUPID!

Anonymous said...

Dear Rocky,

Congratulations. Atleast your writings are read by thousand of lawyers in Malaysia and around the world. Lawyer also you can chong ma. That the power of journalism.

Regards
rosli dhoby

Anonymous said...

haha..amir you are stupid la..stupid fella posting craps on others blogs with stupid pic of stupid u (or someone else) in the stupid costume of superman...

amir..i know what u r trying to do la bro..haha..u r postings numerous stupid and irrelevant postings on rocky's blog to attract or to arouse attention of others so they will visit your lame and slow going blog..how lame and stupid of u..nway kinda getting really irritated seeing u in that stupid superman costume..hahah..lame fella trying to promote himself and his stupid lame blog..get a life..or go fly kite la..taa..thanks to rocky for approving my comment, u r really a true democratic and pro freedom of speech...

-anti superman

Anonymous said...

Bro,

I feel its like this. The non bumis really hate the situation in this country. I dont blame them. Whenever they can find a bumi who can play cahoots with them to help them chip away at the ketuanan thingy, then they will dance around the fire together.

But once their mission is accomplished, then its back to curry leaves again. Meaning the bumi is disposed of when he is no more of any use to them, just like the curry leaves which are used to flavour the curry and are never eaten but thrown away.

In Singapore this happens to the Indians.

KC Vohrah is an Indian. So I am not surprised that the Bar Council with its many Indian and Chinese members had no objections at granting him consultant status or whatever.

Salleh Abbas is of course a bumi. Now he is finding out who his friends really are.

I hope others like Harith and Malik Imtiaz will not suffer the same fate. They are good people. I dont know about Salleh Abbas.

Bro the same happens in other professional bodies. The Institute of Land Surveyors has minimal bumi surveyors. It is a carefully guarded club. All the work of land surveying is done by the bumis, who somehow just cannot qualify to become professional surveyors. The licensed professional surveyors are still the non bumis (these are the guys who can sign off on the land surveys).

Likewise there were few bumi heart surgeons because senior non bumi doctors did not allow them to perform heart surgeries. So the Govt had to set up the IJN where bumi heart surgeons had the chance to do the real thing. Now the IJN's bumi grads are all over the country, if not the world.

Ini semua itu 1950s Chin Peng punya attitude lah bang. When will they change?

Anonymous said...

i believe that salleh deems fit to sit on the consultant's chair.

if ever anyone thinks that old man is nyanyuk, wait and see some others who poses around with trinkets and santa claus trolley bags, dancing to ode to joys in court, deliberating their whims and fancies, articulating their tongue in pursuit on their winnings.

now this old man here, once a lord president, who lost his job on the bench during the 1988 crisis, is only seeking to sit in the chair as a consultant. if some others can be admitted as consultants albeit the mistakes made by the governing body, i think i should submit to wednesbury unreasonableness....

webbit

Anonymous said...

i seem to love theatrics more than substance.

worse of all, wayang kulit.

some could just tie the invisible knot there and then.. everything kautim...settled!

unity

Anonymous said...

should we shut up when certain governing bodies makes blunder that affects the life of someone?

Anonymous said...

amir, do you wear that suit to court and appear in the high court, court of appeal and federal court?

if i ever shove you with civil procedures, i think you will be peeing in your blinking pants. my cents worth, not 2, tells me that you are not even fit to comment in these blogs.

i think, verily, should i say, being an insipid yourself, you do not even have the integrity at all as a lawyer, let alone a superman as you may be.

october

amir said...

Anonymous said...

haha..amir you are stupid la..stupid fella posting craps on others blogs with stupid pic of stupid u (or someone else) in the stupid costume of superman...

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

I resent that. I also post crap on MY blog.

When they can't answer, they go on personal attacks. The opposition's favourite MO.

As in, MOOOOOOOO...