From the MM Online (extracts):
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 26 — Professionals such as lawyers should not be punished or discriminated for merely serving clients which Putrajaya views as anti-government, the Malaysian Bar said today.
Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan’s recent threats to blacklist lawyers and law firms allegedly supporting Bersih 2.0 amounted to “overt discrimination against professionals for their purported contrary political views or affiliations”.
“Professionals, businesses and traders must not be penalised for providing goods or services to those whom the Government arbitrarily labels anti-Government or deems unpatriotic,” he said in a statement today.
Highlighting the independence of the legal profession as a critical pillar of the rule of law, Steven said threats of economic sanctions or other forms of reprisal should not be made against lawyers.
“The Minister’s reported comments are nothing short of political blackmail and intimidation that can never be accepted, let alone tolerated.
“Such strong-arm tactics have no place whatsoever in the civilised discourse of a robust democracy that respects the rule of law,” he said.
![]()
![]()
But firstly, I wonder (again, wakakaka) whether Minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan knows the difference between the government of Malaysia (commonly referred to as Putrajaya), and the ruling political party of UMNO?
![]()
* kongsamkok is a Penang colloquial term which literally translates into 'talking about the history of 3 Kingdoms'or figuratively means 'idle gossip' or as the Indons put it, omong kosong and in our own lingo, cakap syiok saja
But I have to admit I am less sure whether Sivarasa was in his professional capacity as a lawyer when he was at the unprecedented press conference with Balasubramaniam when the private investigator revealed his 1st SD about his story of Najib shagging the late Mongolian model who (Bala claimed) liked it in her behind, and then murdering her.
 |
Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru |
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 26 — Professionals such as lawyers should not be punished or discriminated for merely serving clients which Putrajaya views as anti-government, the Malaysian Bar said today.
Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan’s recent threats to blacklist lawyers and law firms allegedly supporting Bersih 2.0 amounted to “overt discrimination against professionals for their purported contrary political views or affiliations”.
“Professionals, businesses and traders must not be penalised for providing goods or services to those whom the Government arbitrarily labels anti-Government or deems unpatriotic,” he said in a statement today.
Highlighting the independence of the legal profession as a critical pillar of the rule of law, Steven said threats of economic sanctions or other forms of reprisal should not be made against lawyers.
“The Minister’s reported comments are nothing short of political blackmail and intimidation that can never be accepted, let alone tolerated.
“Such strong-arm tactics have no place whatsoever in the civilised discourse of a robust democracy that respects the rule of law,” he said.
Blacklisting people or companies by the government must always have a reason of national interest like against companies who repetitively cheated or failed in contractual agreements/terms with the government or those who/which traded with Malaysia's gazetted enemies or non-enemy (eg. selling an ash urn to a now-belated Ong Boon Hwa).
Internationally, a blacklist by Malaysia would normally be against states on enmity or hostility issues or on moral grounds, like the boycott against apartheid states and/or pariah-states, eg. the former white supremacist South Africa and the current chosen-people Israel, the latter via the BDS Movement.
 |
in France |
I believe it may be morally acceptable to blacklist companies which continue trading with Israel, though I wonder whether there is any such Malaysian legislation in place. And I also wonder whether the Malaysian government itself trades with Israel, wakakaka.
Thus the government or its ministers should NOT go around threatening punitive action such as blacklisting against anyone who holds a politically different view to those of UMNO's.
Malaysia is purportedly a democracy which means we can have any political views, provide these do not threaten the sovereignty and security of our nation, like the ideologies of ISIS, Jemaah Islamiyah, al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf or those of (wakakaka) the late Kiram III.
Alas for some ultras, communism no longer exists, not even in Cuba or North Korea (which in the latter is fascism or absolute dictatorship), or it should/would have been wonderful to include it so as to at least socially blacklist the Cinapeks, wakakaka.
The former, Putrajaya, is the (seat of the) government of our nation and thus of every Malaysian; the latter (while it may be ruling today) is his and UMNO members' political party and f**k all to do with every other citizen of Malaysia.
If Abdul Rahman Dahlan does not yet understand that, he needn't fret as he is in many good company, wakakaka.
Therefore Abdul Rahman Dahlan is quite welcomed to recommend UMNO blacklists everyone on Earth, but he cannot and should not have mention Putrajaya or the national government blacklisting anyone just for not agreeing to BN-UMNO policies or ideology. And that includes our Malaysian government not doing so as well.
By the by, PAS does not agree with UMNO's ideology though it is now working together with UMNO but only as an interim measure until it gets in claws sharpened, wakakaka. Will Abdul Rahman Dahlan also recommend blacklisting PAS?
However, while I agree with Steven Thiru about “Professionals, businesses and traders must not be penalised for providing goods or services to those whom the Government arbitrarily labels anti-Government or deems unpatriotic,” I cannot with his (Thiru's) simultaneous mention that "lawyers and law firms allegedly supporting Bersih 2.0 " are serving its client Bersih or Abdul Rahman Dahlan.
That is NOT so, of lawyers supporting Bersih being equivalent to lawyers serving the client Bersih.
Mind, my partial disagreement with Thiru is not an encouragement for the minister to threaten lawyers and/or law forms (or anyone) as he likes.
Lawyers or law firms who allegedly support the NGO Bersih 2.0 (regardless whether Berish is still an election watchdog or human rights organization or anti-Najib campaigner or Maria Chin Abdullah's whatever) are supporters of Bersih per se, and NOT lawyers serving their "client" Bersih in their professional legal capacity.
That's right, they are NOT serving any "client" as understood by lawyers and law firms, unless, to reiterate, they act in their professional capacity to serve Bersih.
I am not sure whether Thiru has been misquoted but hypothetically speaking if Thiru did say that, then he is wrong to believe his professional trade and those of his colleagues should automatically be seen as "serving clients" regardless of whether they are supporters or members of political organizations or NGOs, against or for the government.
 |
YB Sivarasa Rasiah Lawyer, PKR politician, MP Subang |
For example, years back (before the double SD's saga of private investigator Balasubramaniam's), when prominent lawyer Sivarasa Rasiah was in The Backyard pub in Sri Hartama having a few drinks and discussing the Shariibuu Altantuyaa case with our late Balasubramaniam, two other lawyers Puravalen and most civic-minded Americk Singh Sidhu, and ASP Suresh, I would dare say Sivarasa or the other two lawyers were there but not in their professional capacity.
They were there to relax, have a few "stengahs" and kongsamkok*.
By the by, Wikipedia tells us that: A stengah is a drink made from an equal measure of whisky and soda water, served over ice. It was a popular drink with British subjects in the early 20th century, in areas of the British Empire in Asia.
 |
I say, old chum. jolly good show, rippling and all that |
In W. Somerset Maugham's short story The Book-Bag, he writes, "I told the amah to fetch the whiskey and syphon and I mixed her a good strong stengah and made her drink a little."
The term derives from the Malay word for "half" A stengah is a drink made from an equal measure of whisky and soda water, served over ice.
Oh, coincidentally, Sivarasa was and still is a PKR MP.
But I have to admit I am less sure whether Sivarasa was in his professional capacity as a lawyer when he was at the unprecedented press conference with Balasubramaniam when the private investigator revealed his 1st SD about his story of Najib shagging the late Mongolian model who (Bala claimed) liked it in her behind, and then murdering her.
As for Shariibuu liking Najib shagging her in the behind, well ...
... Bala heard it from Baginda who (Bala claimed) heard it from Najib who (Bala claimed) heard it from Shaariibuu.
Alas, both front and end sources, namely Shariibuu and Balasubramaniam are sadly no longer with us today to confirm or deny the salacious story.
And I doubt Najib or Baginda, especially the latter, wants to have anything more to do with the case, wakakaka.
At least when Bala was still alive, he could re-tell the story even though he was not there to actually witness the shagging. But then, he was perceived by G.A.N as the very fount of truth.
... Bala heard it from Baginda who (Bala claimed) heard it from Najib who (Bala claimed) heard it from Shaariibuu.
Alas, both front and end sources, namely Shariibuu and Balasubramaniam are sadly no longer with us today to confirm or deny the salacious story.
And I doubt Najib or Baginda, especially the latter, wants to have anything more to do with the case, wakakaka.
At least when Bala was still alive, he could re-tell the story even though he was not there to actually witness the shagging. But then, he was perceived by G.A.N as the very fount of truth.
Anyway, at that unprecedented press conference in PKR Headquarters in PJ, both Bala and Sivarasa were sitting just beside Anwar Ibrahim when the Great Man was coincidentally there to grace the media gathering which heard Bala telling everyone about Najib shagging Shariibuu and then murdering her.
![]()
Maybe Sivarasa might then have been there in his other professional capacity as a PKR politician but not as a lawyer. Maybe otherwise?
Was that alleged RM50,000 refunded to Razak Baginda or did it just disappear?
Maybe Sivarasa might then have been there in his other professional capacity as a PKR politician but not as a lawyer. Maybe otherwise?
I wonder what Steven Thiru's thoughts on those two events might be?
Oh, BTW, Wikipedia says:
Before Altantuya Shariibugin's death, Abdul Razak Baginda made a withdrawal of RM50,000.00 cash and gave it to P. Balasubramaniam so that the latter can give it to the deceased Altantuya.
P. Balasubramaniam did not give the money to Altantuya.
The payment was said to be Altantuya's payment for her work with Abdul Razak Baginda.
Altantuya was supposed to take the money and leave Malaysia, and all these fiasco can be avoided.
Because she did not receive any payment, Altantuya stayed longer than she supposed to starting in a chain of events resulting in her death.
Oh, BTW, Wikipedia says:
Before Altantuya Shariibugin's death, Abdul Razak Baginda made a withdrawal of RM50,000.00 cash and gave it to P. Balasubramaniam so that the latter can give it to the deceased Altantuya.
P. Balasubramaniam did not give the money to Altantuya.
The payment was said to be Altantuya's payment for her work with Abdul Razak Baginda.
Altantuya was supposed to take the money and leave Malaysia, and all these fiasco can be avoided.
Because she did not receive any payment, Altantuya stayed longer than she supposed to starting in a chain of events resulting in her death.
Was that alleged RM50,000 refunded to Razak Baginda or did it just disappear?
 |
another Cinapek or technically more correct, Cina-umm |