Just want to highlight the duplicity of the bar. In the recent case LGE sued one NGO on Kampung Pala issue. The bar had not made any statement. (Googled but couldn’t find any). http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/04/17/cm-accountable-for-state-administration/
When Najib tried to sue, bar issued this statement: http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/najibs-right-to-sue-malaysiakini-utusan-tells-bar-council-chief , let me quote the then bar chief said:
“Bar Council president Christopher Leong had said last week that public figures — especially those holding high public office — and political parties should not resort to lawsuits to respond to allegedly defamatory criticism or comments as good governance and accountability requires that they “endure the full brunt of free speech”.
You see how they apply things selectively. Then they argue they are pro rule of law and justice. How in the world does this selectivity be regarded as pro justice and rule of law? See how duplicitous they are.
This is the same method employed by the left again and again. They use high moral standing to justify their selectivity, For example DAP proclaims loudly they believe in Malaysian first but at the same time fought for the segregation of our children by race until adulthood. They deny our children the platform to mix and think this will make them think as Malaysian first?
Similarly Tmi claiming to adopt high and fair standard of journalism and integrity but they always distort and even fabricate news. Also Lawyers for Liberty claiming against detention without trial but have no qualm receiving funding from the worst perpetrator of detention without trial ie the US govt. See their Guantanamo bay exploits where people are detained for more than a decade. The list can go on.
We need to be aware of the selectivity. They don’t fight for principles honestly. They project the principles to manipulate their partisan stand and deceive the public.
Lukman Sheriff
Member of iPeguam
