Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Anything That Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong

Hantu Laut

Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.That's the adage known as Murphy's law.

There are probably thousands of candidates UMNO can choose from to be their man for Permatang Pasir and what did they do? Screw up big time? Not according to 'MARAHKU' blog here.

The oppositions is having a field day trying to use the disbarment of Rohaizat Othman as moral impediment for him standing as candidate.

Of course, the biggest noise came from none other than DAP hatchet man, the irascible old coot Mr Lim Kit Siang who claimed himself to be impeccably clean and of high moral standing.


Why choose someone with stain on his shirt? Can't they separate the wheat from the chaff? Maybe, the DPM should give an explanation.

UMNO defended Rohaizat's innocence here.

18 comments:

SM said...

HL,

Hahaha...I guess he is the best UMNO can come up with?!
By the way, did you read how the "new" Ketua Pemuda MIC (in his speech) asked the PM to make KJ a Minister? Talk about "ass kissers" (that's exactly what the MIC & MCA are). By the way, KJ politely declined saying that it's up to the PM & he only wants to serve the people!
By the way, if you delete these comments I will understand, as "certain" mentally challenged readers may get infuriated, causing their colons to bleed! Hahahahaha!

eddy said...

Bro, my take is if Haris Ibrahim and his Pakatan Rakus cohort wants to make an issue out of this then they should look no further but their own doorsteps:

Anwar Ibrahim is an ex-Convict sentenced for abuse of power when he was Deputy prime Minister. He got re-elected as Permatang Pauh MP.

Lim Guan Eng is an ex-Convict sentenced for sedition. He won a Penang seat and was duly appointed as Chief Minister.

So if Ex Convicts can represent Pakatan in Parliament and State Assemblies, what's the beef, typical Pakatan double standard different set of moral values.

UMNO rightly or wrongly choose the candidate and they sure as hell have to work harder now to defend him.

Y1 said...

Bro Eddy,
It seems Nelson Mandela will never be accepted by you, as he seems to have broken the unjust laws of South Africa.

I personally think that the convictions of LGE & AI were on drummed up charges based on unjust laws and a weakened judiciary.

My dear HL, lets hear it from the Bar Council's facts not a blogger's spin:

Clarification regarding UMNO Candidate for Permatang Pasir By-election, Rohaizat Othman
Tuesday, 18 August 2009 17:17

In response to inquiries from the media, we wish to clarify Rohaizat Othman’s status as an advocate and solicitor.

The Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board struck Rohaizat Othman off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors on 7 March 2008 after he was found guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Board’s decision arose from an investigation into the complaint lodged against Rohaizat Othman by the purchaser of a piece of real property. According to the complaint, Rohaizat Othman failed to refund almost RM 161,000 to the complainant after the transaction was aborted.

Rohaizat Othman appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed on 12 August 2009. He is therefore legally disqualified from practising as an advocate and solicitor.

The finding of misconduct is personal to Rohaizat Othman, as the Disciplinary Board would not hold a lawyer liable for the actions of his/her law partner(s).

George Varughese
Secretary
Malaysian Bar

Anonymous said...

HL,

this is all over the net and yet you choose to quote someone like MARAHKU ? By the way, you do not need to let this through, because it is for you !

One can be an intelectual and an dumbass at the same time

Press Release: Clarification regarding Rohaizat Othman PDF Print E-mail
Contributed by George Varughese
Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:34pm
ImageIn response to inquiries from the media, we wish to clarify Rohaizat Othman's status as an advocate and solicitor.

The Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board struck Rohaizat Othman off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors on 7 March 2008 after he was found guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Board's decision arose from an investigation into the complaint lodged against Rohaizat Othman by the purchaser of a piece of real property. According to the complaint, Rohaizat Othman failed to refund almost RM 161,000 to the complainant after the transaction was aborted.

Rohaizat Othman appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed on 12 August 2009. He is therefore legally disqualified from practising as an advocate and solicitor.

The finding of misconduct is personal to Rohaizat Othman, as the Disciplinary Board would not hold a lawyer liable for the actions of his/her law partner(s).


George Varughese
Secretary
Malaysian Bar

Hantu Laut said...

Y1,
Anwar Ibrahim,Zaid Ibrahim,Haris Ibrahim.All the Ibrahims are not cut from the same cloth as Nelson Mandela and Gandhi and are, therefore, not in the same mould.They are political ruffians not nationalist heroes.

Both Gandhi and Mandela fought for their race to get back what they lost to the colonialist powers.

Anwar was sent to prison because of criminal charges not because of his political beliefs, so, please , don't equate him with the epitome of selflessness, patriotism and sacrifices the likes of Ghandi,Mandela,Martin Luther King and in present time Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Bar Council, it's common knowledge they are always against the government.Do I have to say more.

No criminal charges was brought against Rohizat. That speaks volume of what the Bar Council tells us.

Y1 said...

Dear HL,
History has a funny way of telling stories. If Mandela and Gandhi never managed to change the unjust regimes in SA & India, they will still be branded political ruffians by the powers they opposed.
On the perspective of the Ibrahims (yeah, why all Ibrahims on the other side of the political divide? No more Ibrahims left in UMNO? haha) they are opposing the current political power for a just and free nation for ALL race, is it any wonder that the incumbent political power are branding them as political ruffians?
Why is the Bar Council anti government? That is a very interesting question. Lawyers and judges are suppose to uphold just laws.
It seems to me that as long as UMNO says some one is innocent/not guilty, that is sufficient no matter what the fact is. And the fact is Rohizat was disbarred because of unethical practice and taking people's money (some would call it robbery). It does not matter whether criminal charges were filed by the complainant or not but the fact is he was personally found to have practiced against the by laws of his own profession. That is the current revelation. Let's see what will be revealed on another day.

SM said...

HL,

Rohaizat Othman appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed on 12 August 2009.
Is that not enough for you (going by your premise that the Bar Council is always against the Government)?
Face it, UMNO chose a candidate that has "UMNO-like characteristics" or (& I think this is probably a more plausible answer) the DPM & his people were just to arrogant (noooo...UMNO arrogant?) to bother to check his background or they just did not care (after all they are so confident of winning anyway, why bother who the candidate is?).
It's not Murphy's Law at play here bro!

Anonymous said...

Hantu it is your who is spinning half truths. Please read below

Press Release: Clarification regarding Rohaizat Othman
Contributed by George Varughese
Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:34pm
In response to inquiries from the media, we wish to clarify Rohaizat Othman's status as an advocate and solicitor.

The Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board struck Rohaizat Othman off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors on 7 March 2008 after he was found guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Board's decision arose from an investigation into the complaint lodged against Rohaizat Othman by the purchaser of a piece of real property. According to the complaint, Rohaizat Othman failed to refund almost RM 161,000 to the complainant after the transaction was aborted.


Rohaizat Othman appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed on 12 August 2009. He is therefore legally disqualified from practising as an advocate and solicitor.

The finding of misconduct is personal to Rohaizat Othman, as the Disciplinary Board would not hold a lawyer liable for the actions of his/her law partner(s).


George Varughese
Secretary
Malaysian Bar

donplaypuks® said...

HL

For many years, many have been complaining about the slow pace at which the Bar Council, like their counterpart in MMA and MIA, deals with the publics'complaints about misdemeanours by lawyers and soliitors.

Thus, if the Bar Council strikes off 1 of their kind, it is always as a last resort.

What the BC has clearly said is the Rohaizat was found guilty of misusing client's money i.e. CBT. Even if he subsequently made full restitution, under the CBT laws which applies to all, he is still guilty.

THE BC has also made it very clear that their investigations and hearing determined that R was solely responsible. If it had been that other partner, as claimed by DPM and Zahid, the would NOT have struck R off.

In this particular instance, the High Court also concurred with the Bar Council on R's appeal.

As to the BC, standing firm against the excesses of Government is not the same as being anti-Govt, any more than Dr.M protesting about the flip-flop over English Language policy, criticising AAB, KJ, Ali Rustam, Najib or Muhyiddin and about corruption in UMNO

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

Hantu Laut said...

donplaypuks,

I agree with you, still, a man should not be condemned for life for one mistake he made. He is not a habitual criminal but a man like you and I. He, unfortunately,crossed the line which he later made good.

Sometimes, those who made mistakes came out a much better person than those who didn't.

donplaypuks® said...

HL

I am in total agreement with you that most people deserve a 2nd chance in life for the mistakes they make, including Rohaizat.

Unfortunately, R chose to enter politics and so has become fair game to the Opposition. Who's to be blamed?

My opinion - those who have been in politics for a very, very long time and should have known better than to throw a rookie into the lion's den!

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

eddy said...

Bro, I just got this from UMNO Legal Advisor Hafarizam's blog, excerpt from his posting :

"Tindakan tatatertib yang diambil terhadap beliau(Rohaizat) adalah atas kapasiti bersesama dan berasingan [“joint and several liability”] di dalam undang-undang lazim perkongsian selaras dengan Akta Perkongsian 1961. Malahan, rakan-rakan kongsi di dalam firma guaman akan terdedah kepada liabiliti yang tidak terhad termasuklah perilaku jenayah, kecuaian dan pengabaian rakan-rakan kongsi di dalam firma guaman. Ini bukanlah suatu pembahagian liabiliti yang adil tetapi itulah bagaimana firma guaman diwujudkan di Malaysia tatkala ini.

Justeru itu, adalah tidak tepat jika dikatakan bahawa Saudara Rohaizat bin Othman diadukan atas kapasiti perseorangan beliau sebagai seorang pengamal undang-undang walhal beliau adalah rakan kongsi di firma tersebut dan liabiliti beliau adalah terpaut kepada firma guaman beliau juga. Adalah diakui setakatmana bahawa tindakan yang diambil terhadap beliau adalah dibawah Seksyen 103D Akta Profesyen Undang-Undang 1976 tetapi itu samalah seperti tindakan diambil terhadap pengarah Syarikat yang diperbadankan."

I smell something very-very fishy with the Bar Council Press Statement with its perfect timing and not telling the public everything that we should know. I wonder if the Bar Committee is apolitical or otherwise. I hope Bar Council can be super efficient in clarifying Hafarizam's statement about their "inaccuracy" in yesterday's press statement.

The whole of Hafarizam's post is here: http://puu-umno.blogspot.com/

TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2009
KENYATAAN RASMI PEJABAT PENASIHAT UNDANG-UNDANG UMNO MALAYSIA................

...........................

SM said...

HL,

I fully AGREE with your answer to Donplaypuks!
Going by the same argument then all you anti-DSAI guys should give DSAI a second chance. Yup, he was an UMNO crook once before & he got burnt & kicked out (basically he lost everything since he was almost in line to take the No. 1 job in the country).
He has learnt his lesson & is now making amends by "fighting" for ALL races (instead of just the Malays & thus he is now branded a traitor to his race!).
Ok, so his aspirations are to become PM. So? You think Najib would have become PM if not for his aspirations too?!

Anonymous said...

All stop and take a step back and think clearly

1. UMNO has more to lose then PAS if their candidate loses with a huge margin.
2. UMNO was forced to put up a candidate, because Najib said if the incumbent dies then BN will field a candidate.
3. This is DSAI's home ground and no way BN is going to win.
4. UMNO comes up with a plan to have a excuse to why they lost big.
5. Enters Rohaizat the perfect fall guy.
6. UMNO lost not because of declining Malay support by the voters rejected the canidate because he was a fraud.
7. Some heads may roll in UMNO Penang to show that the decesion to field Rohaizat was a local decesion and Rohaizat was not truthfull.
8. Perfect excuse to explain the lost.
9. Promise next time to do back ground check on candidate.
10. Perfect parachute exit for BN / UMNO and still can go aroung and say we did not lose because of declining support but a crook who did not come clean and also the vetting team did not do their homework.
10. Never underestimate UMNO , They has tought about this and this is the game plan they comeup with.
11. How come nobody from PR picked this up. Like this BN is not going to lose GE 13.

Hantu Laut said...

SM,
Sure, Anwar should be free to indulge in politics as any normal person should.I also do agree UMNO made a bad choice of candidate but since there was no impediment to disqualify him as a candidate it is not legally wrong for UMNO to field him.

Unlike our Sabah Law Association here which is apolitical and stands on neutral ground, the Bar Council is very political.Their statements and actions the past few years speaks very loudly where their political preference is.

They are not a source of inspiration.

SM said...

Anonymous 4:15pm,

Yup, a very plausible explanation! Yup, never underestimate UMNO!

SM said...

HL,

Sorry to digress, but I remember a few months ago you wrote an article equating PAS to the Taliban.
I wonder what you think about the Pahang Syahriah Court sentencing Kartika (next week is it?) to a few strokes of the cane (plus she was fined also)?
If you have been to Cherating, you can see a whole lot of drinking (& other stuff) going on (by both Muslims & Non-Muslims). However, I wonder why she has been "chosen" for this punishment (doesn't matter I suppose). The point is, to date the supposedly "Taliban" PAS Government has not meted out such a punishment.
Who's "Taliban-like" now? UMNO or PAS?

Hantu Laut said...

SM,

Yes, I did and I stand by what I say.I still think PAS will impose their will on others irrespective of whether they Muslims or not.They are now hanging the carrots to intice non-Muslims to support them. Once they are in power the story would be different.Remember! They first tried to ban alcoholic drinks in Selangor but when there were opposition from DAP, they say only in Muslim areas.That have fizzled out too.

I still believe God, not men, should punish Muslims for breaking divine law and I disagree with the canning of the poor girl but than what can we do if that's the law.

Many Muslims in this country take alcoholic drinks but very few get caught.