In Is Rocky's Bru barking up the wrong tree?, Stephen Tan Ban Cheng came to the conclusion that "... perhaps blogger Rocky, being not legally trained, should be forgiven for his inability in appreciating legal principles and the real issues involved."
I would like you to read a posting by someone "legally-trained" on the issue. Blogging lawyer Nizam Bashir's posting Missing the Forest for the Trees? was put up on Saturday seems to be a response to Stephen's Tan's "tree" as well as to my original posting on Tun Salleh Abas' grouse here.
It has not been published on the Bar's website but I'm sure it will. Excerpts:
Having weighed the totality of the comments, the following must be emphasized. We can attempt to characterize the previous decision to waive Rule 60 as a bad precedent and say that it has no value for future applicants. But doing so, only diminishes us for it avoids the simple truth of this matter. Something unfair has occured.
In fact, this didn’t elude the scrutiny of one senior and respected member of the Bar. He was quick to make the searingly honest suggestion that:
“If the Bar Council erred in the first case then they must act consistently and revoke that decision. The Council should subject itself to the same standards that it expects of others.“
Nevertheless, I humbly beg to differ with the learned senior member’s views. I don’t believe Tun Salleh is looking for the Bar to strip Dato’ KC Vohrah of his consultant status. All he is looking for is some equality or failing that, the moral victory of an apology. Is either too much to ask?
Click h e r e to read Nizam's entire posting. [And the guy's not even on my blogroll!]p.s. Edmund Bon has asked invited members of the Bar to give legal and constructive suggestions on the issue. What would you do if you are in the Bar Council now? Read his comment piece Difficult Issue, but do not confuse the arguments h e r e.