11 Penipuan Pembangkang mengenai Bersih
Sent by Maxis from my BlackBerry® smartphone
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Teh <lawrteh@gmail.com>
Sender:lawyerstalk@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 22:18:56
To: <savic09@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: lawrteh@gmail.com Cc: <lawyerstalk@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Lawyers Talk:7476] an alternative BAR
Dear Stephen Tan,
I have to be with Mansoor Saat.
So often we come across members of the bar in the canteen saying that the judgment was biased. In recent recollections there were outcries over biased decisions favouring the banking sector. Personally I had one.
On the instant subject of an alternative bar, it also appears that the voice of the dissatisfied whether they be public or by members of the bar are that the 12 points were biased and especially punishing the police.
Where are the other obvious incidents of the Bersih 3.0 rally? Why was the EGM silent on (a) protesters who were blatantly kicking and even overturning the police car (b) the guy who plucked flowers from the Dataran and planting onto the uniforms of the riot police on duty! Do you not think that was mocking the king when his majesty’s Royal Malaysian Police were being made fun at? (Mr Bean did it on the Queen’s guard and that script should be criticized) (c) the losses suffered by the police (circa RM 1.8 m) (d) the losses suffered by DBKL (up to RM 500,000) (e) the losses suffered by businessmen whose premises had to close during the rally – because Madam Ambiga decided whether personally or collectively with other organizers that Stadium Merdeka was not good enough – and taunt the demonstrators towards Dataran Merdeka provoking a breach of the court order and foreseeable tort happening – and which did happen – the breach of the barrier; (f) the incidents involving Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin prior to the breach of the barrier (g) parents bringing children to the rally.
While the 12 points could be rightly carried as a resolution on 11 May 2012 (majority 939 over 16), the EGM has not been fair in reporting so many other incidents *inter alia *those suggested above.
The Bar Council exists because of statute. We members listen because the LPA 1976 controls our practising certificate under Section 32. Every year about 14,000 members each have to pay at least RM 2,000 and from this amount certain sum goes into the BC fund. From this fund EGM and AGM and all other expenses are expended – for the benefit of members.
So there must be unbiased feelings by both the public and unhappy members of the bar that when some parties accuse the EGM of being biased, some clarification ought to surface and be seen to be addressed by the President of the BC.
Now he is mulling another walk to show flag the resolutions of the EGM.
Maybe I wish to suggest that those who propound and support that the police have been brutal in their handling of the 3.0 rally, to request and volunteer to be trained as either DBKL volunteers or police volunteers in their respective uniforms to control the crowd at Bersih 4.0. Maybe also learn how to handle tear gas and don attire and practice standing with shields and batons over 10 days during the daytime (notice period under Peaceful Assembly Act); and show to the world how not to lose temper and physical control should the demonstrators go berserk again.
If the Bar Council does not change then the alternative is the Legal Academy.
What has been given can be taken back. Statute can be repealed. ISA can be repealed. Nothing is forever, especially if parliament wields its power in the name of democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment