Sunday, February 12, 2006
You oughta know - Alanis Morissette
I've been trying not to blog about "serious" matters - sometimes, we just take things too seriously. After all, this blog is meant to be a light hearted look on... anything an everything which crosses my mind.
But i blog now wif a heavy heart.
It frustrates me when i read blogs belonging to other people who have strong views about things - but the very essence of their posting reveals their ignorance on the issue at hand. What makes it worse is that MANY will praise these ignorant bloggers on their so-called brave views.
But enuf about them - they are ignorant. What really drives me up the wall are the views of lawyers back home. I am sometimes left open-mouthed in disbelief at the drivel that is submitted by my learned frens and my brothers and sisters "in-law"!!!!! I truly worry over the standard of the lawyers back home.
These are supposed to be the people who are the professionals - the experts in legal matters. They are supposed to be trained to analyse the matters in a legal perspective, to be able to apply the law accurately - not emotionally - in every situation. They are supposed to be those whom the members of the public can turn to to be their counsellors. They oughta know better.
Yet, time and time again they have shown otherwise.
I started noticing it during the AGM debacle last year. Since as far as i can remember, the Bar Coucil in Malaysia has always interpreted the law to be that a quorum is needed before an AGM can proceed. For some reason which are still unclear to me til this very day, the Bar Council that year decided that such intepretation was wrong. They decided to proceed even if the quorum is not met. This was met wif approval by many an amotional lawyer!
Yes, we dun have to waste time and money adjourning the AGMs.
We dun have to look stupid when the presses report that the Bar Council's AGM had to be postponed again due to lack of quorum.
After all, the law that required us to have the quorum was just a means used by the government to make life difficult for us.
We'll show 'em!
But, but, but.... hello? What does the law say? The law requires us to have a quorum!
Legal gymnastics were never so overused by the so-called experts to twist the law unnaturally to support their ridiculous stand!
Their incompetence was proven at the High Court, the Court of Appeal and finally, at the Supreme Court.
Many were angry at the legislature who came up wif such a law. Many were angry at the judiciary for not being "brave" (read: stupid?) enough to uphold their arguments.
But were any angry at the lawyers who do not know how to interpret the law? Despite the belief that they are the ones who are trained to do so?
Here are some examples of the nonsense that i read on an almost daily basis:-
1. One lady lawyer believes that rape is not about violence - this was cuz she was on the plane and was chatting wif this person who alleged that he's a doctor (of wat we were never told) and he said that it wasn't!
Whoa.... she comes to a conclusion based on an unsupported allegation from a person who's authority on the matter was never established! Good work, counsel!
2. Another lawyer said that the response of the muslims attacking the embasssies was as a result of grave and sudden provocation.
Err.... cartoons publish in November 2005. Embassies burnt in February 2006. "Sudden"?????? Riiigggghhhhh!
3. One lawyer was angry that a group of men were arrested on suspicion of illegal gambling when caught playing mahjong in a shoplot. He demanded why then are the gamblers at Genting Highlands (a hill resort in M'sia) are not arrested????
Well, maybe becasue the Genting casino has a valid and legal license to run the casino???? Duh!
4. Back to the Danish cartoons. One lawyer thought himself to be brilliant when he asked why were the muslims so worked up since no one actually said that the cartoons referred to Muhammed himself!
It is trite law that in cases of defamation, you do not need to expressly mention the name of the person you are defaming to be guilty as such. A person can be defamed by implication, by innuendo, by many ways without having to mention his/her name specifically.
Anyways, the people responsible for the cartoons NEVER denied it but instead went on to defend themselves. This is known as an admission.
5. Just today (the one which caused me to finally blog this), this fella states that the Westerners who believe in the absolute freedom of thee press are "...products of DYSFUNCTIONAL families or even SOLO PARENT families".
I wont even bother to dinify such a statement wif a response.
There you have it. If you are Malaysians, these are a sample of the lawyers that will defend your liberties and rights.
But hey, it can't be all that bad. I'm sure there are good ones. A few rotten apples does not mean that all the apples in the basket are bad. Perhaps those who are really good and professional lawyers just dun reply/post any of their views up.
I really hope that that is the case.
But i blog now wif a heavy heart.
It frustrates me when i read blogs belonging to other people who have strong views about things - but the very essence of their posting reveals their ignorance on the issue at hand. What makes it worse is that MANY will praise these ignorant bloggers on their so-called brave views.
But enuf about them - they are ignorant. What really drives me up the wall are the views of lawyers back home. I am sometimes left open-mouthed in disbelief at the drivel that is submitted by my learned frens and my brothers and sisters "in-law"!!!!! I truly worry over the standard of the lawyers back home.
These are supposed to be the people who are the professionals - the experts in legal matters. They are supposed to be trained to analyse the matters in a legal perspective, to be able to apply the law accurately - not emotionally - in every situation. They are supposed to be those whom the members of the public can turn to to be their counsellors. They oughta know better.
Yet, time and time again they have shown otherwise.
I started noticing it during the AGM debacle last year. Since as far as i can remember, the Bar Coucil in Malaysia has always interpreted the law to be that a quorum is needed before an AGM can proceed. For some reason which are still unclear to me til this very day, the Bar Council that year decided that such intepretation was wrong. They decided to proceed even if the quorum is not met. This was met wif approval by many an amotional lawyer!
Yes, we dun have to waste time and money adjourning the AGMs.
We dun have to look stupid when the presses report that the Bar Council's AGM had to be postponed again due to lack of quorum.
After all, the law that required us to have the quorum was just a means used by the government to make life difficult for us.
We'll show 'em!
But, but, but.... hello? What does the law say? The law requires us to have a quorum!
Legal gymnastics were never so overused by the so-called experts to twist the law unnaturally to support their ridiculous stand!
Their incompetence was proven at the High Court, the Court of Appeal and finally, at the Supreme Court.
Many were angry at the legislature who came up wif such a law. Many were angry at the judiciary for not being "brave" (read: stupid?) enough to uphold their arguments.
But were any angry at the lawyers who do not know how to interpret the law? Despite the belief that they are the ones who are trained to do so?
Here are some examples of the nonsense that i read on an almost daily basis:-
1. One lady lawyer believes that rape is not about violence - this was cuz she was on the plane and was chatting wif this person who alleged that he's a doctor (of wat we were never told) and he said that it wasn't!
Whoa.... she comes to a conclusion based on an unsupported allegation from a person who's authority on the matter was never established! Good work, counsel!
2. Another lawyer said that the response of the muslims attacking the embasssies was as a result of grave and sudden provocation.
Err.... cartoons publish in November 2005. Embassies burnt in February 2006. "Sudden"?????? Riiigggghhhhh!
3. One lawyer was angry that a group of men were arrested on suspicion of illegal gambling when caught playing mahjong in a shoplot. He demanded why then are the gamblers at Genting Highlands (a hill resort in M'sia) are not arrested????
Well, maybe becasue the Genting casino has a valid and legal license to run the casino???? Duh!
4. Back to the Danish cartoons. One lawyer thought himself to be brilliant when he asked why were the muslims so worked up since no one actually said that the cartoons referred to Muhammed himself!
It is trite law that in cases of defamation, you do not need to expressly mention the name of the person you are defaming to be guilty as such. A person can be defamed by implication, by innuendo, by many ways without having to mention his/her name specifically.
Anyways, the people responsible for the cartoons NEVER denied it but instead went on to defend themselves. This is known as an admission.
5. Just today (the one which caused me to finally blog this), this fella states that the Westerners who believe in the absolute freedom of thee press are "...products of DYSFUNCTIONAL families or even SOLO PARENT families".
I wont even bother to dinify such a statement wif a response.
There you have it. If you are Malaysians, these are a sample of the lawyers that will defend your liberties and rights.
But hey, it can't be all that bad. I'm sure there are good ones. A few rotten apples does not mean that all the apples in the basket are bad. Perhaps those who are really good and professional lawyers just dun reply/post any of their views up.
I really hope that that is the case.
# posted by imissw : 4:52:00 pm
