Saturday, October 31, 2009

Bad Apples


I’m very sad and perturbed with what just happened.

I posted this a few days ago. Read it carefully. I didn’t make any wild allegations. I mentioned a couple of specific instances which I know for a fact happened. Some court instances. I stress again, it actually happened.

Then I explained how I thought I would feel if I was the client engaged to that sort of a lawyer. I didn’t say that each and every one advocate and solicitor in Malaysia was like that. That’s an absurd proposition and a blasphemy to my beloved profession. A profession which gels the private and public side of it towards justice.

I even gave a simple suggestion on how my learned friends from the private sector could benefit. I gave an insight on how one could learn the public private practice works.

However, a few friends of mine read it in a different tone. They read like I made a ridiculous accusation towards “their” private practice. In fact, there shouldn’t be any friction between the two practices. The law would develop better if both sides work together towards justice.

As much as I hate bad apples, they exist in every profession. It so happened that I decided to mention about it in my previous post. I know there are also bad apples in the public legal profession. Isn’t it my right not to discuss it together with the bad apples in the private sector? This is my virtual chambers. I dictate what I want to write here. It’s my prerogative to do so. (And for the record, I approve all of my comments. So don’t accuse me of something which you don’t know for sure I do or do not do.)

You are certainly free to agree or to disagree with my opinion. In fact, I appreciate it if you disagree and if you could state your arguments against mine. Hence the reason I did not object (although my consent was never sought for) when my university classmate decided to scoop my post and “open” it to be further discussed ‘by lawyers’ on Facebook. Infringement of intellectual property? I reserve my comment on this.

However, my appreciation to read other people’s disagreement was short lived when I saw how negative she headed her notes with my post as its substance. It created a feeling that the whole private legal sector was under attack by me. She requested for the lawyers to DEFEND themselves from what the Judiciary actually think the problem is.

"this was written by another person and I together with a few friends felt that some of the statements made towards lawyers as a whole, in general is tad too, ah well, u decide. do drop a line or two..."


Lawyers as a whole?? I think that is certainly misleading. Because of this statement, everyone read the post in a negative manner.

For one, I’m a lawyer too. Two, there is nothing to defend when there is no charge framed against the legal fraternity. Three, did she not read the heading of my blog when I said that “The opinions found in this blog are strictly from the blogger's humble mental capability. Should you find it against any Laws, (Malaysian Law especially!) the former opinion (i.e. the blogger's opinion) should not prevail. Anything mentioned here should not be taken as a form of legal advice. It’s mostly rubbish that cannot even be recycled.”? Where is her basis to say that my post was the Judiciary’s point of view?

I thought for a while and decided to let it be. I wanted to know how such a post would fare in the eyes of a few legal eagles in Malaysia.

Suffice for me to say, after reading the comments that there are a few who would stoop very very low to cast some personal attacks to the author of the post (as she didn’t mention my name as the author, but then people figured it out). Probably because if you read the post carefully, there was no allegations made to the whole legal fraternity and the examples cited were specific and actually did happened. So how can you refute an actual fact? By attacking the character of the person who alleges it. Simple cross examination methodology!

And so some of them did.

My, weren’t they ferocious. The best part is that, some of them don’t even know me! When I told this to the Bride, she logged on to Facebook and read the comments. She decided to drop a comment as well. Apparently, the person responsible with the whole thing was not happy when the Bride gave her two cents. She started to attack the Bride personally too.

To my mind, what the person responsible for the whole Facebook thingy said about the Bride was too rude to be true. I was so disappointed with what she said what she said that I have decided to abstain from further commenting on her Facebook notes.

How can my own classmate attack me and the Bride like that is beyond my imagination. I could never have fathom the idea that someone I know would go down so low just to hurt other’s feelings. I just don’t see the reason for her to do so.

If she wanted to just hurt my feelings by attacking the Bride like that, WELL DONE is all I have to say.

“this is for lawyers to defend themselves pon kan?” poodah.

I never knew that you, as a legally trained person, one who knows how the ethics to debate could not even be open to a layman’s point of view.

I hope the others who know me would not condone to such atrocity, especially to the Bride. If they do, I’d rather they bugger off and pretend not to know me at all after this.

I couldn’t care less for the other girl’s comment which came after her. Apparently she attacked the Bride and when on a shooting spree at me personally. I said ‘apparently’ because it was too full of anger I decided not to finish reading it. From the way she started her comment, I think she didn’t even read my post. Or maybe if she did, she couldn’t understand it.

You can say that rest of the commentators were being objective. They realise that there was at least an ounce of truth in what I posted (although I feel that the whole thing is right and accurate, but that’s my opinion) so they didn’t attack my examples but they concentrated their attack to the subject of the matter (and not the subject matter) i.e. draft order’s problems and missing court files. That’s fair considering there was nothing valid for them to pluck from the specific examples that I have cited.

So, again I stress that I made no allegations towards the legal fraternity. I just mentioned that there are some who can be considered as “bad apples”. In fact, there are “bad apples” on both side of the fence. Everyone knows that.

One thing that I realised is that people can really show their dark side if you shove some bad apples in their face.

Blog adjourned.

10 obiter dictum:

patunghujan a.k.a cik teruterubozu said...

to two_one.i'm a fan of ur blog.i read most of ur post here.i am 1 of law graduates of iium(ur jr).i did not join the bar as i prefer to be something reading most of non intellectual comments as response to ur said opinion make me wonders that when a person practice what they learn will cause them to stupidity.i mean does it cause them to mentally retarded?by reading ur post,for me nothing wrong there.i can be considered as layman,but i still manage to understand ur post clearly...
i think those persons need to refer to their notes on rule of interpretaion that they learnt at aikol previously...

Anonymous said...

ermm... diff ppl take it in diff view, kan... the specific instances that u mentiond happnd. perhaps aftr they hd link ur blog 2 othr lawyers, the LA or sr clerk will mk sure tht the draff ordr is in ordr, x la main copy-paste je mmjng...

juz my 5cent opinion.

ctinue writing tuan, dx stop!!

shueyshoelove said...

dude, i admit the comments made at facebook was harsh and personal attack on liyana was uncalled for. but i do see where they are coming from. its good that u are trying to convey to the practicing lawyers that change in the judiciary is on going.tapi kena juga take note that they are the ones facing the difficulties (if there is still such difficulties) on day to day basis. if what u've mentioned in the blog is true i.e. see the SAR in charge of a certain matter to locate the missing file, then the same is to be conveyed to the SAR. You wouldn't want a situation where they take note of ur advice and it is not seen to be true.just my two cents on the whole issue.and in the spirit of sisterhood and brotherhood, anggap lah comment comment mereka dibuat dalam keadaan marah. orang yang sedah marah mungkin tidak dapat mengawal bicara kata.

Anonymous said...

"Geram dan tidak boleh terima kenyataan" lalu mereka jadi pendek akal. Dan kerana akal mereka yang pendek itu mereka memerlukan sokongan daripada yang lain yang mungkin dapat membantu mereka. Walhal isunya bukan besar, sekadar teguran dan kritikan membina. Bukan untuk mencaci sebaliknya masing-masing harus membantu memperbaiki kualiti.

Seperkara lagi adalah "persepsi". Bagi mereka kakitangan awam adalah malas dan bodoh. Lalu menerima kritikan sedemikian adalah satu penghinaan ke atas golongan yang mereka anggap "profesional".

Perkara paling jelas adalah "tidak matang". Orang yang matang pemikiran serta mempunyai ilmu yang luas tidak mungkin akan "mengamuk" pada perkara yang kecil. Kata orang biar muka hijau tetapi hati tetap merah.

Ikhlas dari,


Anonymous said...


1- draft order tu, lawyers kena minimizekan 'stupid' mistake tu.. (i called it stupid sbb name judge pun blh silap melampau tuh...)

2- abt missing files tu, u hv 2 check back la with court sbb sometimes SAR/TP pn x membantu sgt (or shld i say, lgsg x mbantu)... huhu...

*jgn marah*

shueyshoelove said...

anon akal: saya pun kakitangan kerajaan. saya faham persepsi orang di luar sana tapi kita tidak boleh pandang mereka sebelah mata. ada ketika apa yang dikatakan oleh mereka adalah benar. saya pernah melalui apa yang mereka lalui. saya tak katakan apa yang dikatakan di blog ini salah tetapi mungkin cara penyampaian itu nampaknya berat sebelah.bukan semua orang boleh rationalize semua perkara dengan begitu mudah. saya berada di tengah tengah.saya paham apa yang cuba disampaikan dari kata maca judiciary dan apa yang cuba diperkatakan dari kata maca practicing lawyers.

two_one said...

I'm sure the difficulty in locating missing files still exists. it has certainly improved from yesteryears.

When i was a SAR, counsels came to me when their matter was not listed or files missing and i did my best to help them. I have heard of some SAR/DR feels "too big" to look into "small things like missing files as they have other more important stuff to attend to". Rubbish mentality. files are the most important thing in Court. without which, the court would stop functioning. please report to the Chief Registrar if you face these arrogant officers. The CJ himself would look into complaints of missing files (but most of the time tak missing pon).

ada juga self proclaim "orang gilak" (ini bukan tuduhan tetapi diambil base on her blog title) yang dedicate satu post untuk rebut my views. Sape berani lawan cerita orang gilak? dia ada immunity orang gila dlm penal code... saya tak ada... hehehe.

Oh, Shuey, i've said my piece about the personal comentators. Tak boleh layan mereka ini. Takkan ada kesudahan kalau berdebat atas premis emosi. One word for them... Poodah.

KbZb said...

Abaikan mereka. "Please all, and you will please none" mcm cerita donkey tu.

Rin said...

hahaha. i ni mcm tertinggal tren sket. anyway, sy da baca post tu dan baca komen2 kt facebook jugak. sy xde apa2 nk cakap pasal legal field. biasalaa..keja. tp my pantang larang tok nenek dlm aktiviti blogging is org hentam2 entri personal blog..haishh..

Anonymous said...

In My Chambers

The opinions found in this blog are strictly from the blogger's humble mental capability. Should you find it against any Laws, (Malaysian Law especially!) the former opinion (i.e. the blogger's opinion) should not prevail. Anything mentioned here should not be taken as a form of legal advice. It’s mostly rubbish that cannot even be.