When I gave my opinion about Dato Ambiga's impeccable ethics I drew that conclusion from my own personal experience with her on a number of matters and legal or otherwise over a number of years. Nothing caused me to question her actions. In fact I admire her bravery on many occasions taking an unpopular but on a principled stance .A person's reputation is important and only clear evidence supporting facts should be advanced should you wish to attack a person's integrity. Your bias is based on " I thought the old trans get " development " money. What personal knowledge do you have of this". Perhaps like the rest of us we are bombarded everyday by propaganda and accept without question.
I know Dato Ambiga who heads Sreenevasan law firm who I believe has impeccable ethics. I am surprised her name is mentioned. I would be interested to see the substantiation of your allegations if any and also to be fair to good law firms
My all-time law story is the one about the Teoh Beng Hock trial where a Thai woman coroner with nice memorable hairstyle, who did the autopsy, ate the dumbass fcuk prosecutor alive.
The prosecutor was everything wrong with law in Malaysia on two wobbly legs who made a dumbfcuk clown of himself and gave Ketuanan a very bad name.
Since then I've always wondered how tf such a grand a-hole could be found to be a prosecutor who didn't seem to know his head from his arse.
To be fair lawyers are just another bunch of crooks - like any bunch of crooks in any job, you can't expect lawyers to be saints when their profession require them to be shifty, duplicitous, devious and corrupt.You won't want lawyers any other way, Malaysians being Malaysians, they would go for any and all crooked means for their lawyers to win, Malaysians ain't errr saints either.
Malaysians are every bit like their lawyers, and lawyers are every bit like Malaysians, that is, a bunch of sneaky, shifty, treacherous bunch of lowlifes - just like the politicians. Politicians can't do anything without being utterly dishonest, patently corrupt. And, that is, on top of being fcuking useless, incompetent, worthless, and amazingly dumb.
There's are lawyers and lawyers. Most Malaysian lawyers are of the lowest quality you don't wish to find in any sewer. Many are so freaking stupid that they don't even know their role is to be dishonest, devilish, two-faced forked-tongue mercenary rattlesnakes.
Malaysians expecting lawyers to be morally-upright virtuous upholders of the law and defenders of truth need to have their heads examined.
Lawyers are not entirely to blame, our crap gomen is equally to blame for bringing our law and legal institutions into disrepute.
Unlike you moaning minnies and professional retards, I have little against lawyers. They bring great mirth, cheap entertainment, and great destruction to our moral integrity with their funny, weird, unbelievably moronic antics, make our boring lives at least a tiny bit more bearable.
All you need for a few sens for our deadbeat lawyers to make your day is to hear them talk. If you can't find lawyers excruciatingly hilarious and entertaining you need to change your psychiatrists. Most of the monkeys in the legal profession are incapable of stringing a few words together to make meaning of anything. I often wonder how our crap judges can understand or even decipher anything that comes out of the excessively verbal big mouths of our lawyers.
So if you suffer from the delusion that lawyers should be morally-upright pillars of society of our sh*thole country, you should balik our sh*thole country, you don't fit in.
Lawyers in Malaysia have no ethics or professional standards unlike their foreign, especially Singaporean, counterparts. They tend to slavishly follow US and British trends in the law but know little about its ramifications and uses because most of them are not educated in the law. They pass law exams and obtain law degrees but know little about the law or its purposes. Much of the blame has to go to governments that employ lawyers who know little about the law. Malaysia's are largely rote learners.
I have myself run foul of one of these law firms in Malaysia in 2015 who threatened to sue me and forced the editors and owners of a publication for which I was a contributing journalist to hand over my personal details and contact particculars in order that they could serve process on me. First mistake and fatal.
The firm represented a political party with a very high profile at the time and alleged I had defamed the party and its leader. They sent a letter to a lawyer who was supposedly a prominent lawyer who was at the time a friend and legal adviser to the wife of a former political leader in Malaysia who funded the publication.
This lawyers reaction to the letter of demand issued to the publication exemplified the very poor quality of lawyers in the profession in Malaysia today. The lawyer acting for the funders of the publication and the publicattion itself, panicked and began insulting me, my editor and others saying, they would not be defending the charges against us or accept responsibility for our article. Fear born out of ignorance and inexperience. She had not even read the article to inform herself if the article contained anything that was even remotely defamatory of the politician or his party.
I took the initiative to write this woman a letter letting her know that whether or not there was a case to answer or actual defamation as alleged, the publication was potentially liable and that they would be the first cab off the rank in any suit.
Lawyers tend to not attack or sue people who cannt afford to pay. They go for the deepest pockets in the line up and it wasn't me. The real problem for the publication and its lawyer was tthat there was an allegation put up and that running away from it is like running away from a chasing dog. It encourages the chase.
I instructed a firm of lawyers and decided to tackle the law firm acting for the politician and instructed my lawyers to pen a letter outlining firstly the deficiencies in the letter written by lawyers acting for the "defamed" politician. In addition to this, I spelled out the law of defamation and defences available to anyone, especially a journalist when accused of defamation.
Their letter I said was nothing more than a series of bald allegation consisting of unverifiable facts and allegations incapable of leading to proof of their assertions.
Secondly I alleged with reference to the law and to a lawyers ethical obligations, that his letter of demand consisted of threats (which is unethical) and places his client in a position where he will have to (if the matter went to trial) disclose pertinent facts about his own personal life, his dealings with goverments, public funds and a number of other previously undisclosed personal matters which had till then had not seen the light of day.
I suggested that in these circumstances, unless the lawyers acting for this politician were prepared to unconditionally withdraw their demand and issue a private apology to the publication and through them to myself and the editor, we would sue.
Nothing more was heard from these lawyers. A journalist based in KL some months later, asked me why I had threatened this politician. Thiss was at a social gathering some months later. I did not respond. The lawyer acting for the publication and the prominent politicians wife went to ground for a while spewing her bile all over me and the editor of the publication. She had in fact identified me in breach of privilege, privacy laws and confidentiality she wass bound to observe as a lawyer.
Such is the state of the people of Malaysia. Intimidated by people with feet of clay. Their lawyers who deck their walls with pictures of their posing with politicians and visiting dignitaries. Amongst the rogues gallery posted here, Sreenivasan and company by their principal stands out as being the most incompetent,publicity seeking firm ,with little between its ears.
I would recommend a stiff rebuke against anyone threatening to sue for defamation if they are ever brought to answer for something they do not believe they have done.
Anyone suing for defamation must firstly establish they indeed have a good reputation to protect. Secondly read up on the number of defences available to a defendant against a charge of defamation. Malaysia's very poor drafting of laws provide very little in the area of defences to charges. Resort to the commmon law always or post you case for help in fighting bullies. Ignorant bullies.
If you continue with the list, you would end up publishing the Malaysian Bar's entire list of law firms, and would have no time to write on other things.
Reputation is a big thing in Malaysia. A defamation suit is, usually, the last way to get to the enemy, bacause a court proceedings would allow the bringing out of so called proofs without legal consequences.
So the online gambling king pin called Ah Lai used an ingenious way to refute allegations. He was a OKT in a massage parlour, introducing female masseurs offering special services. He has been accused of being the online gambling king pin. He got for himself a 'datukship'. That refutes all unfounded accusations against him.
Many in the religious industry use the 'test of God' to refute accusations of infidelity. 'I forgive all my accusers' and 'let time to show the truth, God is on my side' and that leaves no room for further damage. Online, many would be employed to show sympathy in comment section. People are forgetful. Important thing is to maintain smiling face, continue to visit prominent places of worship, and wearing religious attires.
The most commonly used method nowadays by religiously political fanatics is to accuse the accuser as 'koyak'. Haha dah koyak! Meaning emotionally out of control. And lauds the accused as beacon of bravery, 'walau karihal kafirun' meaning dare to do/say anything unafraid of the infidels, and claims that he fears none except the Creator.
When I gave my opinion about Dato Ambiga's impeccable ethics I drew that conclusion from my own personal experience with her on a number of matters and legal or otherwise over a number of years. Nothing caused me to question her actions. In fact I admire her bravery on many occasions taking an unpopular but on a principled stance .A person's reputation is important and only clear evidence supporting facts should be advanced should you wish to attack a person's integrity. Your bias is based on " I thought the old trans get " development " money. What personal knowledge do you have of this". Perhaps like the rest of us we are bombarded everyday by propaganda and accept without question.
Your own personal experience is just that, your own personal experience.
No one else should or need to take that as fact or gospel.
I know Dato Ambiga who heads Sreenevasan law firm who I believe has impeccable ethics. I am surprised her name is mentioned. I would be interested to see the substantiation of your allegations if any and also to be fair to good law firms
"who I believe has impeccable ethics"
I thought the old trans gets "development" money from the likes of Soros..?
You thought, Many like me KNOW.
Great, but I don't know how "Many like me Know".
So that doesn't add up to anything.
Best be you state what you know. What you know. And how you know.
My all-time law story is the one about the Teoh Beng Hock trial where a Thai woman coroner with nice memorable hairstyle, who did the autopsy, ate the dumbass fcuk prosecutor alive.
The prosecutor was everything wrong with law in Malaysia on two wobbly legs who made a dumbfcuk clown of himself and gave Ketuanan a very bad name.
Since then I've always wondered how tf such a grand a-hole could be found to be a prosecutor who didn't seem to know his head from his arse.
To be fair lawyers are just another bunch of crooks - like any bunch of crooks in any job, you can't expect lawyers to be saints when their profession require them to be shifty, duplicitous, devious and corrupt.You won't want lawyers any other way, Malaysians being Malaysians, they would go for any and all crooked means for their lawyers to win, Malaysians ain't errr saints either.
Malaysians are every bit like their lawyers, and lawyers are every bit like Malaysians, that is, a bunch of sneaky, shifty, treacherous bunch of lowlifes - just like the politicians. Politicians can't do anything without being utterly dishonest, patently corrupt. And, that is, on top of being fcuking useless, incompetent, worthless, and amazingly dumb.
There's are lawyers and lawyers. Most Malaysian lawyers are of the lowest quality you don't wish to find in any sewer. Many are so freaking stupid that they don't even know their role is to be dishonest, devilish, two-faced forked-tongue mercenary rattlesnakes.
Malaysians expecting lawyers to be morally-upright virtuous upholders of the law and defenders of truth need to have their heads examined.
Lawyers are not entirely to blame, our crap gomen is equally to blame for bringing our law and legal institutions into disrepute.
Unlike you moaning minnies and professional retards, I have little against lawyers. They bring great mirth, cheap entertainment, and great destruction to our moral integrity with their funny, weird, unbelievably moronic antics, make our boring lives at least a tiny bit more bearable.
All you need for a few sens for our deadbeat lawyers to make your day is to hear them talk. If you can't find lawyers excruciatingly hilarious and entertaining you need to change your psychiatrists. Most of the monkeys in the legal profession are incapable of stringing a few words together to make meaning of anything. I often wonder how our crap judges can understand or even decipher anything that comes out of the excessively verbal big mouths of our lawyers.
So if you suffer from the delusion that lawyers should be morally-upright pillars of society of our sh*thole country, you should balik our sh*thole country, you don't fit in.
Lawyers in Malaysia have no ethics or professional standards unlike their foreign, especially Singaporean, counterparts. They tend to slavishly follow US and British trends in the law but know little about its ramifications and uses because most of them are not educated in the law. They pass law exams and obtain law degrees but know little about the law or its purposes. Much of the blame has to go to governments that employ lawyers who know little about the law. Malaysia's are largely rote learners.
I have myself run foul of one of these law firms in Malaysia in 2015 who threatened to sue me and forced the editors and owners of a publication for which I was a contributing journalist to hand over my personal details and contact particculars in order that they could serve process on me. First mistake and fatal.
The firm represented a political party with a very high profile at the time and alleged I had defamed the party and its leader. They sent a letter to a lawyer who was supposedly a prominent lawyer who was at the time a friend and legal adviser to the wife of a former political leader in Malaysia who funded the publication.
This lawyers reaction to the letter of demand issued to the publication exemplified the very poor quality of lawyers in the profession in Malaysia today. The lawyer acting for the funders of the publication and the publicattion itself, panicked and began insulting me, my editor and others saying, they would not be defending the charges against us or accept responsibility for our article. Fear born out of ignorance and inexperience. She had not even read the article to inform herself if the article contained anything that was even remotely defamatory of the politician or his party.
I took the initiative to write this woman a letter letting her know that whether or not there was a case to answer or actual defamation as alleged, the publication was potentially liable and that they would be the first cab off the rank in any suit.
Lawyers tend to not attack or sue people who cannt afford to pay. They go for the deepest pockets in the line up and it wasn't me. The real problem for the publication and its lawyer was tthat there was an allegation put up and that running away from it is like running away from a chasing dog. It encourages the chase.
I instructed a firm of lawyers and decided to tackle the law firm acting for the politician and instructed my lawyers to pen a letter outlining firstly the deficiencies in the letter written by lawyers acting for the "defamed" politician. In addition to this, I spelled out the law of defamation and defences available to anyone, especially a journalist when accused of defamation.
Their letter I said was nothing more than a series of bald allegation consisting of unverifiable facts and allegations incapable of leading to proof of their assertions.
Secondly I alleged with reference to the law and to a lawyers ethical obligations, that his letter of demand consisted of threats (which is unethical) and places his client in a position where he will have to (if the matter went to trial) disclose pertinent facts about his own personal life, his dealings with goverments, public funds and a number of other previously undisclosed personal matters which had till then had not seen the light of day.
I suggested that in these circumstances, unless the lawyers acting for this politician were prepared to unconditionally withdraw their demand and issue a private apology to the publication and through them to myself and the editor, we would sue.
Nothing more was heard from these lawyers. A journalist based in KL some months later, asked me why I had threatened this politician. Thiss was at a social gathering some months later. I did not respond. The lawyer acting for the publication and the prominent politicians wife went to ground for a while spewing her bile all over me and the editor of the publication. She had in fact identified me in breach of privilege, privacy laws and confidentiality she wass bound to observe as a lawyer.
Such is the state of the people of Malaysia. Intimidated by people with feet of clay. Their lawyers who deck their walls with pictures of their posing with politicians and visiting dignitaries. Amongst the rogues gallery posted here, Sreenivasan and company by their principal stands out as being the most incompetent,publicity seeking firm ,with little between its ears.
I would recommend a stiff rebuke against anyone threatening to sue for defamation if they are ever brought to answer for something they do not believe they have done.
Anyone suing for defamation must firstly establish they indeed have a good reputation to protect. Secondly read up on the number of defences available to a defendant against a charge of defamation. Malaysia's very poor drafting of laws provide very little in the area of defences to charges. Resort to the commmon law always or post you case for help in fighting bullies. Ignorant bullies.
If you continue with the list, you would end up publishing the Malaysian Bar's entire list of law firms, and would have no time to write on other things.
Reputation is a big thing in Malaysia. A defamation suit is, usually, the last way to get to the enemy, bacause a court proceedings would allow the bringing out of so called proofs without legal consequences.
So the online gambling king pin called Ah Lai used an ingenious way to refute allegations. He was a OKT in a massage parlour, introducing female masseurs offering special services. He has been accused of being the online gambling king pin. He got for himself a 'datukship'. That refutes all unfounded accusations against him.
Many in the religious industry use the 'test of God' to refute accusations of infidelity. 'I forgive all my accusers' and 'let time to show the truth, God is on my side' and that leaves no room for further damage. Online, many would be employed to show sympathy in comment section. People are forgetful. Important thing is to maintain smiling face, continue to visit prominent places of worship, and wearing religious attires.
The most commonly used method nowadays by religiously political fanatics is to accuse the accuser as 'koyak'. Haha dah koyak! Meaning emotionally out of control. And lauds the accused as beacon of bravery, 'walau karihal kafirun' meaning dare to do/say anything unafraid of the infidels, and claims that he fears none except the Creator.
"end up publishing the Malaysian Bar's entire list of law firms"
Not a bad place to end up, if it's the entire list, spare none, publish and be damned. A whore list of mercenaries would make anyone's day.
So would a big buncha letters threatening "legal consequences", bring 'em on!