The Malaysian Bar Part II
THE MALAYSIAN BAR – EXCEPTIONS TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1978
Rule 43 of the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978 (Rules) clearly states in unequivocal terms the following:
“No advocate and solicitor shall volunteer advice to bring an action or to stir up strife and litigation”.
There could be no better example of breaches of Rule 43 being selectively ignored by the Malaysian Bar where the breaches involves their high profile members and associates like Berish.
The below named and the host of NGO’s they support in a common political purpose form the nucleus of that special group that breach Rule 43 seemingly with impunity. That common purpose of theirs is the overthrow of the Malaysian government
Ambiga Srinivasan, Edmund Bon, to Lim Chee Wee, Tommy Thomas, Sivarasah, Amrick Singh Siddhu, Manjeet Singh Dhillon, Maria Chin Abdullah, Amrick Singh Sidhu, the Anwar Ibrahim defence team including the current president of the Malaysian Bar Steven Thiru, have all at various times over the past decade directly or through their support for groups like Bersih, PKR and the Malaysian Bar stirred up strife and litigation especially against government. (Maintenance and Champerty):
MAINTENANCE AND CHAMPERTY
“Champerty is the process whereby one person bargains with a party to a lawsuit or encourages a party to litigate a matter with a view to obtaining a share in the proceeds (proceeds in this context also means outcomes) of the suit.
Maintenance is the support or promotion of another person’s suit initiated by inter meddling for personal gain.
Both champerty and maintenance have been illegal for two basic public policy reasons since early common law:
(a) It is considered desirable to curb excess litigation for the operation of an efficient judicial system. The reasons for this are numerous and include problems of over-crowding on court calendars, economic considerations, and the desirability of promoting a society that is not excessively litigious.Champerty and maintenance work contrary to this societal goal by stirring up litigation.
(b) Champerty and maintenance result in outcomes to a party not personally harmed by the defendant. An attorney found guilty of either champerty or maintenance will be subject to the payment of any damages that may have been incurred by the parties to the lawsuit and to disciplinary proceedings, which can result in his or her disbarment.”
The Malaysian Bar’s (through Bersih and other NGO’s) unrelenting attacks on the judiciary scandalizing the courts, bringing the judiciary and the king into disrepute is without precedent anywhere else in the commonwealth save for Pakistan in recent times.
Ambiga Srinivasan,the Malaysian Bar and its disciplinary committees appear oblivious to the irony of Ambiga Srinivasan attacking Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah for alleged breaches of Rule 43 of the Legal Profession Act in a defamation suit. Considering Ambiga’s history of breaches of the same Act and that of those of other members of the Malaysian Bar, her attacks are very rich indeed.
THE MALAYSIAN BAR AND BERSIH’S BREACHES OF RULE 43
The attacks against the judiciary, the courts and government by this group is well documented. Those behind the breaches are identifiable and prominent lawyers.
The attacks, in breach of the Rule 43 of the Malaysian Bar refers to “stirring up strife and litigation”, instead of the more appropriate “maintenance and champerty” which takes the form of inappropriate partisan political agitation. And to add to it, much of their agitation has been unlawful.
Amongst other things the Malaysian Bar (through its members) has engaged in and sought to stir up through litigation is the dissemination of falsehoods, inappropriate, inaccurate, misleading and scandalous comments against government and the courts via the ‘alternative media’ and on unlawful public forums and gatherings organized by its members over a period of time.
The comments of members of the Malaysian Bar and Berish in particular include the many slurs and falsehoods directed against government, the prime minister, individual ministers, public servants, the courts and individual judges.
The agitation, especially political agitation engaged in and supported by the Malaysian Bar and their associates like Bersih have been carried out in highly organized teams to overthrow the duly elected government of Malaysia. Champerty and treason.
ADDING SEDITION AND TREASON TO RULE 43
Like Bersih, the Malaysian Bar and its high profile members, have in the past engaged in riotous conduct, published defamatory statements, seditious speeches and other forms of communication smearing individuals, judges, government, directed at the office of the king, disguised as academic discourse with the object of promoting strife and litigation.
The Malaysian Bar and its associates have been vilifying the courts with the sole objective of weakening it as part of the process of bringing down the government of Malaysia for well over a decade now.
Where these members of the Malaysian Bar have failed to achieve their unlawful objectives, they have sought to intimidate the courts and individual judges through smear campaigns, backed financially with the generous foreign funding and technical assistance of civil societies and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
They, the Malaysian Bar, Bersih and their various NGO cohorts have sought to discredit the king, the sultans, the legislature and the judiciary and have done so at various time with relative impunity. Being a self governing autonomous peak professional body the Malaysian Bar is a law unto itself and needs to be reined in and have its wings clipped now.
But for the revelations by retired and renegade CIA operatives of the likes of Robert Levinson, Ira Silverman and Robert Baer, the fact of large sums of money being paid to these agent provocateur ‘NGO’s’ like Bersih, its Associates, politicians and judges retired and sitting, and the churches to name a few, would have gone unnoticed.
The principal objective of the NED aided and abetted ably by the likes of the Malaysian Bar and especially its pin up girl Ambiga Srinivasan is to now split UMNO and in doing so split the Malay constituency and to allow a free run by the Chinese into government.
Ambiga and her colleagues in particular her associates at the Malaysian Bar, the coalition of Christian churches and some members of UMNO have been paid to do exactly what section 43 of the Rules of 1978 is designed to prohibit an advocate and a solicitor from doing. Yet no one has seen it fit to question the Bar’s silence in this regard.
Bersih and the Malaysian Bar, the PKR and churches have all in one form or the other received funding from organizations like civil societies and the NED to breach Rule 43 of the Legal Profession Rules 1978.
Bersih has gone one step further in receiving illegal funding from the Selangor State government as admitted to by Ambiga Srinivasan on the record. Yet none of the Malaysian Bar, Ambiga Srinivasan or their high profile anti -government lawyers see any offence in their breaching of their own rules for which they now seek to discredit a lawyer and member of the Malaysian Bar in Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah.
Now Ambiga and her colleagues may wish to dispute this statement and to respond to it. That’s a challenge that’s been put to them by this blog on several previous occasions but to no avail.
|Rule 44. Advocate and solicitor not to actively carry on any trade.|
|(a) An advocate and solicitor shall not actively carry on any trade which is declared by the Bar Council from time to time as unsuitable for an advocate and solicitor to engage in or be an active partner or a salaried officer in connection therewith.
(b) An advocate and solicitor shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, firm (other than advocate and solicitor or firm of advocates and solicitors) or corporation so long as he continues to practise and shall on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council and take steps to cease to practise as an advocate and solicitor so long as he continues in such employment.
The language in which the Rules are drafted is at best opaque, ambiguous in part, incomplete and smacks of a cut and paste by its drafters, people with scant knowledge of the law they are dealing with.
There are no definitions for terms as “full time salaried employee”. For instance the Rule fails to make the distinction between a “full time employees”, and a “full time salaried employee” or what it is that constitutes full time employment in this context and full time salaried employment. And what on earth is meant by the word “trade” in this context?
The Rules in its entirety creates more uncertainty and confusion than it does explain the standards and prohibitions the Rules are meant to prescribe. As such the problems the Rules seek to resolve are further exacerbated by the poor language (an esoteric set of codes understood only by anti government lawyers like Ambiga, Bon, Abdullah and Thomas amongst others) in its drafting.
The Rules fail to set out the exceptions to each Rule such as that of the position of in house lawyers, government lawyers, volunteer lawyers and academic lawyers for whom there are no provisions or exceptions provided.
ANALYSING, CRITIQUING RULE 44
Now taking a closer look of each of the above in a) and b) of the Malaysian Bar’s Rule 44 of the Rules of 1978 one notices the ambiguous language in which the section is drafted.
Whereas Rule 44 is intended to discourage the doubling up of employment by a solicitor and advocate whilst in the discharge of their full time duties as lawyers, the truth is that many of these advocates and solicitors are in fact paid board members of various organizations and commercial enterprises whose engagement in these roles can be classified as being full time salaried. Ambiga for one, Maria Chin Abdullah and a host of other serving lawyers fall into this category for their doubling up as unmandated politicians in Beresih.
Ambiga Srinivasan, like a number of lawyers who claim to be fighting for free and fair elections, refugee advocates, advocates for abused women and maids as well as those in the over 50 NGO’s in Malaysia are in fact full time employees by the Bar’s own ill-defined Rules under Rule 44. So too are a number of their colleagues in this regard. Yet each of them inspite of being “full time” “salaried employees” of these various organizations have never been queried or taken to task by the Malaysian Bar’s disciplinary board. All except Tan Sri Shafee Abdullah trapped in the witness box in proceedings currently before the courts.
FUNDING TERRORISM-SIMILARITIES BETWEEN NGO’S BERSIH AND ISIS
The trick it seems lies in how these so called NGO lawyers circumvent the “salaried” and “full time employee” definition rule is explained thus:
As a starting point to unraveling the mysteries of lawyers in two full time jobs escaping the ‘watchful eye’ of the Malaysian Bar’s disciplinary board is the UN funded Report on Funding Terrorism better known by its acronym FATFI GAFI.
There is much in common in the way in which NGO’s, civil society groups and covert political operatives like Bersih, the churches and international terrorism receive and channel their funding. (see FATFI GAFI report).
Their funding is always carried out through third party organizations and events not directly connected to their ultimate objective (legitimate covers like churches, friendly corporations, brokers and charities).
ISIS and Al Queida once funded by the NED and civil societies movements received their funding in much the same way as Bersih and the anti government Malaysian Bar Associates receive their according to former CIA operatives.
HOW MANY OF THE BAR’S HIGH COMMAND BREACH RULE 44?
The reason the Bar is muted and selective in its criticisms of certain of its members whilst being scathingly critical and damming of others is this. Most of the Bar’s high command, its profile members undertake their second roles as paid board members and directors of public and private corporations “volunteers” or as participants of NGO’s and civil society groups which Ambiga ,Sivarasa, Edmund Bon, Lim Chee Wah, Maria Chin Abdullah and others like them are engaged in on a daily basis.
Are they remunerated? Largely yes. Can their involvement in these other organizations be classified “full time and “salaried” the answer here is a resounding yes. Why then aren’t they disciplined? The answer lies in the self regulation that governs the Bar and its ethics committees and the esoteric nature of the Rules as interpreted by the political sections of the Malaysian Bar (read anti government)..
It is widely known that Bersih has received several millions of dollars in “donations” and secret funding but has not accounted for a cent of it publicly. By claiming to be an NGO the question is this, do they have charitable status under the Tax laws of Malaysia? More importantly just because they refuse to register as a political organization which they are they are not exempt from making disclosures about the sources of their funding.
The fact that someone claims to be a part of an NGO does not of itself relieve them from making disclosures about their sources of income or the extent to which they are “employed” “Salaried and employed” “full time” or “part time” whilst pursuing a full time legal career.
Ambiga and each member of the Malaysian Bar in full time employment elsewhere alongside their full time employment as lawyers aught to be made to disclose their other interests publicly. We are able to test the veracity of the disclosures they make and assist in any verification process to test the truth in this regard.