Saturday, September 13, 2008

Is Bar Council ignoring the ethics of legal profession, just a question!

Is he neutral enough to represent YB Brother Anwar Bin Ibrahim?

Pardon me for asking these questions. Is the the Bar Council ignoring the ethics of the legal profession by allowing a team
of defence lawyers in Brother Anwar Bin Ibrahim 's court case who are also members of the opposition party? .
Sivarasa is an Opposition YB, Lathifah Khoya an AJK member of PKR. I thought lawyers are supposed to be neutral before they take a client's case.
Another question please, how come the judicial system allows a judge who doesn't seem to be bothered or to object to the fact that there being three active PKR members on Anwar's team of defense, this is also SUSPECT!
A layman like myself will have to draw a conclusion that the judge is also in cahoot with the defence lawyers who are members of the opposition and therefore the judge can also be perceived by the rakyat or the public as being sympathetic to Brother Anwar Bin Ibrahim in this case and therefore must excuse himself from discharging his duty?!!
If no one protests or writes to the media to comment on this, then our morals & conscience are gone to the dogs. If we cannot differentiate between what's ethical & what's not, then we are doomed.This is very sinister indeed!

No cheers today!

P.S. Please do not persecute me for asking question that is pertinent to my mental well being as a citizen of this country. I just need to know why!


Anonymous said...

Tell me about it la bro. As usual these opposition people (and those lawyers), they only follow the principles and guidelines of the current gov of US of A. What we can do others cannot do. We can literally and physically f~ck everyone's livelihood but don't f~ck with us.

And as usual Bush will argue that:
This BABI and his cohort of followers are indeed bitches but they are MY bitches

rockyb said...

go to hell racist

Anonymous said...

Please pose this question to Che Det. By now you should have read the VK Lingam Judicial scandal report and understood how the previous Che Det government had used (raped and sodomised is the more appropriate term) all the legal instruments and institutions to subvert justice. In fact, lately a group of eminent judges who went through the entire Judicial Commision findings with a fine tooth comb found that their is too much weight in the fact that our legal institutions have been severely compromised. I hope you are not blind, deaf and dumb of these findings which has made us a laughing stock. If I am a potential foreign investor, I will shudder at the thought of investing in Malaysia which is now a mockery of all things Good that our beloved Bapa Merdeka had built.

Anonymous said...

sayadahbosan said:

8:49 AM Why don't you post it to the man himself? why ask other people to do your bidding? A bitch of US of A too r u?

suhaila said...

the DUTY of the DEFENSE LAWYER is to DEFEND the client's INNOCENCE, to PROVE that his CLIENT is NOT GUILTY for what he is being charged of in the court. SO by its DEFINITION, the DEFENSE LAWYER has to be one who BELIEVE that HIS CLIENT IS NOT GUILTY!!

the PROSECUTOR is one who charge individuals of committing crime, so A PROSECUTOR has to first BELIEVE that the person being charged IS INDEED a CRIMINAL.

SO, it is only natural that the Lawyers of both sides are BIASED (either against or for)!!!

ONLY the JUDGE are supposed to take neutral position and dispense justice based on merits and demerit of the trial within the boundaries of LAW of THE LAND!!!

I thought lawyers are supposed to be neutral before they take a client's case.

What a JOKE!!! Or maybe its not. Before taking a clients case, the lawyers are supposed to be neutral. BUT ONLY AFTER HE BELIEVE THAT THE CLIENT IS INNOCENT THAT ANY LAWYER WOULD AGREE TO DEFEND the said client, no?


Pasquale said...

anonymous, let not ask Mahathir for what he had "done" to the judicial system as you put it let us start from now for I believe Sivarasa should not be a defence lawyers for Brother Anwar Bin Ibrahim h is an MP form the opposition party he will naturally be biased!

To another anonymous do you the meaning of the word racist for you and many others seem to be using it liberally?

Have a nice day!

Pasquale said...

Suhaila, with due respect I agree with you, but I am saying, Sivarasa and Latifah Khoya are both from the opposition party they will naturally be super-biased, and the Bar Council must take note!


Anonymous said...


I think the question here is more pertinent to the Bar Council.

What is the Bar Council? What is it's function?

No problem if lawyers want to be politicians or businessman or social worker. But can these same lawyers be members of the Bar Council?

A skewed analogy?

If a publican is a member of a "publican (bar?) council" can he also be a lawyer in a case to allow minors to drink? I think Not, unless he is a lawyer and not a member of the "publican (bar?) council"......

Am I out of order...:))

Basically, I think Bar Council members should be neutral (lawyers with no political affiliation), otherwise please de-register the Council of Legal Professional, and re-register it as a NGO of Politically Minded Lawyers.

aMIr kat bukit

suhaila said...

pasquale, of course they will be super biased! that's the whole point. If i am to be charged in a court, i will want a lawyer who is super duperly biased towards me. than only i can have a hope of being acquitted, yes?

using your logic, i guess you would say a lawyer should not be allowed to defend his/her siblings in court of LAW?

and Bar Council has a say in which lawyer a private individual should/should not hire to defend his case?

Are you ok? Is the Puasa taking its toll on you?

kinikinokunano said...

Nothing bit the Correct correct correct look like me sound like me but is not me, is in pole position.

U didn't blink an eye, did you pasquale?

Ramli Mohd Noor said...


Tunku Abdul Aziz berkata kerajaan kehancuran nilai moral kerana menggunakan ISA dengan cara begini.

Ramli Mohd Noor said...

Menteri Undang-Undang Zaid Ibrahim telah berkata dia akan meletak jawatan sekirannya kerajaan menggunakan lagi ISA.

Beliau menggesa kerajaan membebaskan Teresa Kok dan Raja Petra. Beliau mengulas bahawa beliau kenal baik dengan Teresa Kok dan berkata Teresa tidak sama sekali seorang yang merupakan ancaman kepada negara dalam mana-mana cara.

Sila baca:

Khadijah said...

Dear Pasquale:

I am a lawyer, and I believe you are putting forth an naive and inane supposition.

Any lawyer, whether one affiliated with the defendant in any way, or not, will argue for the defendant in the court of law ceteris paribus.

Whether one hires a lawyer who may be supportive of your political party OR someone outside of it, such a friendly lawyer in town, the conclusion is the same: both lawyers will have to play by the same set of legal laws and the outcomes of any legal case, which is decided by the judge, has no bias.

I am rather surprised by this childish blog post of yours.

I suggest you talk to people in the legal profession before writing about legal matters. I suggest this not because you save yourself from humiliation, but also that people are not swayed by your false information. The latter is of utmost importance.

ajimsan said...

To be neutral... though question dude... we even have an UMNO judge... how?

bc said...

You write well and you seem to have that level of intelligence to manouver your way through complex issues. Clearly, you are not stupid. We have established that. So, don't pretend to be an idiot.
Will you publish this since we are dealing with ethics and fairness?

Anonymous said...

Wow, you are really straining to come up with something coherent - your inanity is really approaching the Home Minister's level now.


Ray said...

Keep on writing.

Your views are refreshing.

Give us more of the uncommon angle, unlike some other blogs.

publish said...

Si BABI ni kalau buat apa2 pun boleh. Cuba kalau dia dapat nampak benda macam ni yang orang lain buat, mesti habis2an dia kerjakan. Macam2 benda yang dia cakap nanti. ORang tak nampak lagi kepala hotak Anwar ni macam mana.

Anonymous said...

barking magpie,

fyi, only dogs bark..but then again, why insult a dog?

Anonymous said...

Cannot deny the majority if not all M'sian bloggers are anti government. For you to come out with this is a truly amazing feat, but by all means, I cannot find any comprehension in your claims since there no comprehension to start off with. Even for a Bodoh Sombong like myself, I can fully understand the whole court case is a laughing joke to begin with. I cannot find the vulgarility (if such word exists) to describe the fakest accusation/kangaroo happenings ever. To answer your question why no one is commenting on this, I cannot even bother to let you know why. We were doomed since some time ago, when someone thought of something sinister, ie ISA'ing people, why don't you comment on this instead. Isn't it beyond your comprehension?

The Malaysian Expat

Anonymous said...

sayadahbosan said:

because every dog has his day la kawan so do magpies.

Rimau Rimbaaa said...

Khadijah kat atas cam betul gak..... cuba baca sket apo dia cakap......

Anonymous said...

Dude Is this pasquale or his 12 year old brother talking, who doesnt have a slightest idea how a court of law work, I dont blame him, he probably didnt have any experience with the law or any relative being charge in the court of law. Pls dont be that stupid columnist from Utusan... research before you post.


Anonymous said...

interesting article. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did you hear that some chinese hacker had hacked twitter yesterday again.