Media should allow right of reply . . .
The media, an unthinking animal, can be manipulated!
The Clients should march against the lawyers for allegedly cheating them.
I was sued by a lawyer for RM75m. I gave space in Malaysiakini to a Client who was allegedly cheated for 15 years on reimbursement of land premiums.
Judge David Wong struck out the case for contempt of court after the other side agreed with senior lawyer Rakhbir Singh to withdraw the case.
Rakhbir naively agreed that the other side was at liberty to file afresh after protesting against my instructions to cite the other side for contempt. He said that Malaysian lawyers hate jurisprudence and constitutional law.
I prepared the entire case myself.
Malaysiakini accused me of citing the other side for contempt without consulting them. They had already agreed to settle the matter out of court by publishing a suitable apology and cringing, crawling and grovelling.
Apparently, to get the out-of -court settlement with the other side, malaysiakini allegedly agreed to kick me out. The Board of Directors gave the High Court a letter to confirm that although the errant Article was published under my name, in law I was not the Author of the content.
Malaysiakini Editor in Chief Steven Gan said in an email that he won’t upload my Articles until I paid half of Rakhbir’s fees and obtained a good discount on their half of the fees.
Rakhbir’s response remains unprintable.
Malaysiakini hasn’t paid Rakhbir to this day.
He said that he will only sue malaysiakini if I prepare the case and turn up as the material witness.
The Client failed to collect the money through Christina Liew. She did not want to go after another lawyer.
Liew called me and set up an appointment for me with her Client.
The errant lawyer blamed Jeffrey G Kitingan for the case. The Client saw him and Anwar Ibrahim. I was there when he handed over a copy of his case file.
In a separate case, ironically, Malaysiakini was fined RM500K by the Federal Court for allegedly facilitating contempt of court by five subscribers.
Malaysiakini, based on its own explanation on commenting terms and community standards, was found guilty. It was a flawed system and intrinsically a violation of human rights.
The Federal Court said it had no jurisdiction on the Review since it was in fact an Appeal for another bite at the cherry.
Malaysiakini allegedly denies the right of reply to even its own content, exercises censorship and imposes self-censorship.
It has been accused of blocking mobile phones and whatsApp and blocking email addresses.
It permanently bans subscription accounts.
After my comment below an Article by Terence Netto on Malay citizenship, malaysiakini banned my subscription account permanently.
Malay MyKad holders were not British subjects on the eve of Merdeka on 31 Aug 1957. Hence, it’s not known how they became citizens. They were subjects of the sultan. The sultan, Indian, Chinese and Others in Malaya were British subjects.
Malay under Malay MyKad isn’t race but a form of identity. Refer to Definition of Malay in Article 160(2). Many Malay MyKad holders have bogus documents i.e. based on only the 1st Prong of Article 160(2).
Genuine Malay MyKad are based on reading the 1st Prong and 2nd Prong together.
There’s case law on the Definition of Malay.
Read . . . Petmal Oil (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Che Mariah Mohd Tahir (Trading As Delta Mec Enterprise)  3 CLJ 638.
There’s no Malay race, no Malay genes, no Malay DNA, only form of identity as seen in Malay MyKad.
In any case, let’s move on.
The court of law isn’t about truth. It’s only about law.
The court of law isn’t about ethics, moral values, theology, sin, God, justice or righteousness.
In law, I never say this is the law, and that isn’t the law.
I only offer Opinion that can stand up in court.
Opinion isn’t law. Only the court can declare law.
If the nature of human relationships should be regulated, it’s done by law, seldom by other means.
In the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, albeit read with the letter of the law.
The letter of the law, by itself, isn’t law.
SPECIAL NOTE TO READER . . .
Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.
Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.
Banking details are as follows:
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter
Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks