Bar Council Promoting Hearsay Culture

Hantu Laut

What's the big outcry about the lawyer who drafted S.Bala 2nd SD (Statutory Declaration)?

You don't need a lawyer to write your SD, you can draft your own SD as it is your own testimony. 

If you can write simple language, you certainly can prepare you own SD. 

When you lose your I/C, you need to swear an oath where,when and how you lose your I/C and to fulfill that requirement you need to have a statutory declaration. 

Most people do it themselves, but for more complex matters you may need a lawyer, but it is not mandatory that you must use a lawyer if you are confident of doing it yourself.

I am not sure whether Raja Petra used a lawyer for his SD, as he himself is a good writer, well exposed and are not ignorant of the many laws of this country. 

S.Bala may be dumber than a fifth grader, that's why he needs a lawyer to draft his SD and later changed his tune that he signed it under duress.

If you think you are not capable of writing it yourself, you may engage your friend who is better at writing to do it for you and all you have to do is to sign the SD in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths as assurance that you are the actual person behind the SD.

In the case of S.Bala the question is not who drafted the SD but whether S. Bala was forced or coerced to sign the SD.

Did he sign it under duress, or was he the one who demanded that he be paid if they want him to change the SD?

He claimed he was paid and his testimony was confirmed by Deepak, who claimed he was the bag man, who arranged S.Bala to retract his 1st SD.

Both SDs of S.Bala and Raja Petra were based on hearsay and may not be admissible in a court of law. Heresay evidence is not acceptable in any court of law. 

It makes one wonder why some lawyers including the MOTHER of them all the BAR COUNCIL gives so much credence to the SD, which should have been destined to the rubbish bin and the makers charged for false declaration.

Any SD can be a work of fiction. Raja Petra and S.Bala SDs are not based on first hand knowledge but on stories provided to them by third party, who for all intents and purposes, might have been sent by the enemies of Najib with the cooked up stories.

It's mind boggling to think Rosmah Mansor had been that stupid as to attend the execution of Altantuya personally. That sounds more like a script written for Hollywood crime movie and the sad think is many Malaysians believe in the story.

I am surprise the Bar Council has jumped on the bandwagon in joining the witch hunt against the lawyer who was only doing his job for his client.

If the Bar Council had shown impartiality as defender of the law it would have advised the public to ignore the SDs of both Raja Petra and S.Bala from the day they were made public.

Unashamedly, the BAR COUNCIL is acting like an opposition political party with its own political agenda.

A Small Fish With A Big Appetite

Hantu Laut

This small fish with big appetite has nothing nice to say about her country.

 '

If you have political ambition, don't try to defraud the Malaysian people with your "for human rights and cleaning up the electoral roll" bullshit, and don't hide behind the curtain of false pretense. Join a political party and fight your cause, if you do actually have a cause...... or, 

.........you are merely an agent provocateur for your good friends in the opposition Pakatan Rakyat to continuously stir shit in this beautiful and peaceful country and keeping the momentum alive as precursor to..............

...........when Pakatan lose the 13th GE there is reason to go on the streets and accused the government of electoral frauds.......and without any doubt the obvious manisfestation of Anwar's Malaysian Spring to bring down a duly elected government.

Phnom Penh

The Cat's Paw

Hantu Laut

The Bar Council chief Lim Chee Wee  again made a fool of himself by saying there is nothing sinister about foreign funding. How would he knows.

As a lawyer it would be better for him to confine himself to matters of law. 

Just like they don't teach you the pitfalls of the business world in business schools, they also don't teach you the academic of espionage, covert operations and regime change in law schools.

I do agree not all foreign funding have bad intention but accepting their formal benefaction leaves you open to be a cat's paw when the benefactor decide to call on your gratitude. 

For starter read the following:

The United States government has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change") without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coup d'états, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The U.S. has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

For your entree:

The U.S. has also covertly supported opposition groups in various countries without necessarily attempting to overthrow the government. For example, the CIA funded anti-communist political parties in countries such as Italy and Chile; it also armed Kurdish rebels fighting the Ba'athistgovernment of Iraq in the Second Kurdish-Iraqi War prior to the Algiers Agreement.

For your dessert:

Syria became an independent republic in 1946, but the March 1949 Syrian coup d'état, led by Army Chief of Staff Husni al-Za'im, ended the initial period of civilian rule. Za'im met at least six times with CIA operatives in the months prior to the coup to discuss his plan to seize power. Za'im requested American funding or personnel, but it is not known whether this assistance was provided. Once in power, Za'im made several key decisions that benefitted the United States. He approved the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE), an American project designed to transport Saudi Arabian oil to Mediterranean ports. Construction of TAPLINE had been delayed due to Syrian intransigence. Za'im also improved relations with two American allies in the region: Israel and Turkey. He signed an armistice with Israel, formally ending the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and he renounced Syrian claims to Hatay Province, a major source of dispute between Syria and Turkey. Za'im also cracked down on local communists. However, Za'im's regime was short-lived. He was overthrown in August,just four and a half months after seizing power.^{[11][12][13][14]}

Read more.

The Bar Council, Ambiga, Suaram and of the ilk have played into the opposition's hand and are doing the opposition's bidding. 

[edit]

Real donors or philanthropists only give to charitable causes to help alleviate human sufferings and expecting nothing in return. Anything outside this sphere is highly suspicious.

Some donor may look genuine and sincere and may not demand you to do their bidding immediately and as the Malay saying "air yang tenang jangan sangka tiada buaya" such request may come much later when you are vulnerable and feel indebted and more than ready to show your gratitude.

The U.S government have helped to overthrow many foreign governments they deemed not friendly to them by covertly funding and use of NGOs, individuals and opposition parties as vehicles to destabilise and create political upheaval.If all these clandestine methods failed , they will resort to openly funding armed rebellion, supplying the rebels with arms and money. More often than not they ended up installing worse and more evil regimes. 

Saddam Hussein of Iraq was a monster created by America using him to stage a long war against Iran, America's No.1 enemy. Saddam later turned his back on the Americans.

America's biggest political fiasco is  in  the Middle East where they have brought down reigning regimes, some, through CIA covert operations and destabilisation through people power. The Arab Spring has changed the political landscape of the Middle East that have brought rapid succession the ouster of dictators like Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

Egypt, may be the U.S biggest miscalculation. The springing people power and the helluva democracy America wanted to install have sprung a helluva surprise, the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist party that may not be so friendly to the U.S. 

Washington is now in a quandary on how to deal with the situation. They have supported the Mubarak's regime that have blatantly trampled and abused its citizens and human rights for over two decades with the help of the American government who saw it fits to fund the evil regime as long as they stay friendly to Israel.

The U.S media now claimed it is the American people who freed the Arabs from tyranny and are in bafflement and anger when the recent Muslim rage against a film that insulted Muslims and Prophet Muhammad that killed the U.S Libyan Ambassador and a couple of other American, calling the Muslims ingrates when they should have been more grateful to the U.S. for giving them freedom and democracy.

"Many Americans are asking...indeed, I asked myself...how could this happen, how could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction" Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.

I can only give her one answer, the U.S double standard foreign policy sucks. The growth of democracy in the Middle East is going to bring plenty more anti-American sentiment that have been suppressed for a long time by dictators supported by the U.S.

Why should the Muslims be grateful to the U.S who had killed hundred of thousands innocent Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan on their so-called war on terror.

Are Malaysians, gullible, too smart for their own good or just plain stupid like the Arabs who wanted democracy and freedom American style and eventually turned their back on the Americans.

People like Ambiga, Bersih, Suaram and the Bar Council have played into the hand of the big bullshit U.S brand of democracy and freedom..... freedom to cause turmoil and upheaval in what used to be one of the most peaceful countries on the globe.

Who is the super rich obscured Melayu businessman who admits he paid for Anwar's ride on the private jet. He is not even on Forbes Malaysia's rich list.

Below is the cost of charter of a Falcon 7X similar to the one he used.

Cost per flying hour = US$8800. 

Assuming total hours covered to ferry him from KL to Sabah, Sarawak and back was 15 hours, the total cost would be US$132,000 x 3.00 = RM396,000.00

That's not a lot of money if you are filthy rich.

The Falcon 7X is a long range jet that have a range of 5950 nautical mile and cost US$50 million new.

Nice to have very generous rich friends and a huge war chest.

Bar Council's Rat-A-Tat-Tat

 Hantu Laut

There is no legalese (legal jargon) about the Bar Council pummeling the government. Plain and simple, dirty politics, it's taking side in the politics of this country.

Siding with the opposition Pakatan Rakyat to inflict maximum collateral damage on the government, Prime Minister Najib Razak and the ruling party.


Has the Bar Council ever disparaged or condemn PAS dared intention to implement hudud in the country or Anwar Ibrahim antipathetic participation in Bersih 3 and his suspected role in causing chaos and mayhem on the streets of Kuala Lumpur ?


Its former president is now actively involved in mob culture, organising street's protests, rally, march, sit-in and collusion with the oppositions to bring down a legally elected government.

Read on:

Bar Council Tiptoeing Into Politics

The council may deny this and hee-haw its way to explain itself. Yet, if its members were to take a step back, see what they did from an arm’s length, maybe they would not be too surprised that some people could get uncomfortable with its partisanship, especially in the current heightened political environment.

Zainul Ariffin, New Straits Times

IT has been a month since the Bersih 3.0  rally and it must be said that not many came out of the situation unscathed. The government, Kuala Lumpur City Hall, police, ministers, the media, Bersih organisers, politicians of all persuasions and ideologies and  participants share blame for one thing or another.

Joining the list, days later, would be the Bar Council, following its haste in calling an extraordinary general meeting that by and large, to a layman unfamiliar with the ifs and buts of legalese, was a condemnation of, among others, the government and the police for the chaos and violence that followed.

In these days of cyber activism, there are videos of all kinds, promoting this or that side, each exposing transgressions by “the other guy”. It was not a day all of us can be proud of.

Hence, I do not believe the government and the police deserved to be singled out by the Bar Council.

Clearly, no side is blameless,  yet the council seemed to abhor the idea of criticising the guys in yellow, portraying them as innocent weekend democracy advocates bullied by cops ordered to terrorise.

The Bersih 3.0 rally was an event waiting to be hijacked. I am sure the organisers, who are not naive, knew it. While many were out for their constitutional walk, a few of the many thousands who gathered came with the idea of promoting their politics and causes, if not mischief and mayhem.

Thus, I think, the council’s leaders should not be too surprised if some would describe the Bar as partisan in this issue. Its  EGM and resolution blaming the post-rally messiness on the government clearly indicated the position it had carved for itself in the national political landscape.

Having said so, there are several philosophical questions that need answering. Should the Bar Council be neutral, anyway? What is its role in civil society? Or should it not try to keep its house in order first, for instance, by ridding the profession of crooked lawyers and such?

Now, this being a democratic country, the council is free to support anyone, or adopt any position. I suppose it just needs to be clear about it.

Nevertheless, it is the expectation of many that when the council discussed the Bersih incident, it would look at it in totality.  I understand the greater agenda of democracy, but for a layman like me, it should at least be seen to be an honest broker in this issue.  Maybe we are being a little naive.

It admonished the government and the police, and demanded apologies for indiscriminate and excessive use of force. Yet, it only dealt in passing with the violence by some protesters. Read more.

Najib Disband The Panel And Treat The Bar Council As A Political Party

Hantu Laut


The Bar council is on head-on collision with the government when they show arrogance and disrespect to the government appointed panel on police brutality at the Bersih 3 rioting.


Without the opposition Pakatan Rakyat active involvement Ambiga would not be able to rally 100 people let alone 150,000. The huge number was claimed by Anwar Ibrahim and him taking much of the credit for the huge turnout and the subsequent mayhem. The Wall Street Journal, who used to love him dearly have asked him to plead guilty, pay the fine and be done with it.


When you overdo things even your closest ally would get fed up, just like many of his close friends and aides that left him because they could not tolerate his unjust behaviour.


My advice to Prime Minister Najib is to disband the panel immediately and start treating the Bar Council not as  amalgamation of lawyers but as that of politicians and a political party. 


Lawyer always think they are smarter than everyone else and this bunch of adolescent degraded the legal fraternity to a band of cranks, churlish and foolhardy.


What kind of oxymoron statement from the Council's vice-president, one Christopher Leong when he said "He said the council holds strong to its position that Tun Hanif Omar should be disqualified from the post of the panel’s chairman as the latter had already previously indicated his anti-Bersih views"












Then he said "however, that the council was not questioning Hanif’s integrity as it respects the former Inspector-General of Police’s contribution to the country"


Moron! You either respect his integrity or you don't! There's no two ways about it.


This is what happened when you have callow and wet behind the ears lawyers heading the council. 


If they want to party, let's party!

Story at http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/bar-council-to-shun-hanif-panel-backs-suhakams-bersih-probe/
 


Latest: Bersih has joined the Bar Council snubbing the panel led by Haniff.  Here.

It makes sense to disband the panel as its finding would never be accepted by the Bar Council, Bersih, Pakatan Rakyat and pro-opposition supporters.

Legally Right,Morally Wrong: Bar Council's No Moral Ground

Hantu Laut


It is not legally wrong to screw your best friend's wife? Ain't it, if she is a willing partner and both of you are consenting adults.


How would your best friend reacts when he found out,  you, of all people, a friend he trusted, screwed his wife?


We all know between legally right and morally wrong. If you don't,  you are only half a human being.


When I wrote about former Solicitor-General Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden's decision to join Anwar's defence team I never mentioned that it was legally wrong for him to do so. I am looking at it from moral point of view not legal point of view. The Bar Council was quick in defending him.


Extract from Free Malaysia Today:


Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee said Yusof followed the “cab rank rule”, a basic principle in legal practice, and praised the latter for doing so in the “fine tradition of the Bar”.

The “cab rank rule” refers to the obligation of a lawyer to represent any client who seeks his or her services, provided that it is in the lawyer’s area of practice and the client is willing to pay the lawyer’s usual rates. The concept is derived from the idea of a queue of taxis, each taking the first customer who comes along.

“The cab rank rule in essence obliges an advocate to accept a brief which he has the skill or experience for regardless of personal feelings or views, or even the harm to his person or reputation,” said Lim.

The rationale for this rule, he explained, is to ensure that everyone and anyone has access to a counsel of choice.

“In the present case, where the former prosecutor in the Sodomy II trial is now acting on behalf of the leader of the opposition in a separate criminal proceeding, he is doing so in the fine tradition of the Bar of following the cab rank rule,” Lim told FMT when contacted.

Read the Bar Council full legal parody here. 

Obviously, the Bar Council is not concerned with moral obligations as long as it serves a political purpose and one that disparages the establishment, which was the whole idea played behind the curtain.

Anwar Ibrahim is surrounded by a bunch of more than eager lawyers to defend him as their future investment. Should Anwar be successful in taking over Putrajaya that investment would yield pretty good dividends. Why would he needs an ex solicitor-general who is not even known as a hot-shot legal prosecutor or a well-grounded lawyer to be on his defence team? 

Now, you tell me, is there a dearth of lawyers for Anwar, or it is just another of Anwar's beguile the people, trolling for more sympathy votes.


Anwar claimed a symbolic victory saying that someone (referring to the ex SG) who was in government did not want to be part of what he called the "dirtiness"and that Yusof Zainal Abiden's entry into his legal team was "meaningful" to him and a "positive development"


The former SC had 2 years to find his conscience if he knew evil has a hand in the sodomy trail, the government the predator and Anwar the victim, why did he not disqualify himself from leading the prosecution if he knew of the conspiracy to fix Anwar? You mean after 2 years he is still blur about the case and only realised it after he left the service and got his pension?


Why did Karpal Singh says Yusof's entry into Anwar defence team "is a blow to the government". Does he know something that we, the people, do not know ?


The Bar Council, who cares little for moral standard, has thrown its support for this man, whom together with the presiding judge and the AG, they cursed all the way to hell when he was acting for the government in the Anwar's sodomy case.


Now, Yusof is legally free to follow some ludicrous legal jargon called "cab rank rule"which makes Anwar Ibrahim looked like having too many half-past-six lawyers representing him, that he desperately needs the legal expertise of Yusof to defend him against the evil regime. 


What could be better than an "inside man"


I have nothing against Yusof but I think public servants, politicians and any holder of public office must show some degree of moral standard.


Unfortunately, both sides of the political sphere, including those in public services have shown little comfort to the populace of their integrity and moral standards.


Since Yusof is unlikely to boost the people's morale of Anwar, the government should just let it rest.  

Bar Council's Crock Of Shit !

Hantu Laut


I need not fill the glass to the brim or indulge in prolixity on the Bar Council claims of impartiality, even handedness and their premature condemnation of police brutality in the BERSIH 3  rioting. 


It was rioting in every sense of the word which requires forceful means to stop it flaring into uncontrollable civil unrest. The Bar Council seems to encourage this kind of political expedition in the name of the right to peaceful assembly. 


No assembly of tens of thousands of people congregating in a small place have been known to be peaceful, more tensional and tinder, if anything to go by, a potential source of trouble.


Need not write a lengthy masterpiece on this. A scattering would suffice.


Read their pathetic response at http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/special-reports/49488-loyarburok-responds-to-roger-tan

They say they arrived at the conclusion based on observations made by 80 lawyers deployed by the Bar Council. 


As Roger Tan rightly say who are these 80 lawyers, people of such impeccable character that their testimonies are gospel truth. 


Are they godsends ?


Are they saying all lawyers are saints and angels, unquestionably righteous, therefore, we must believe in what they say. 


How can they be independent and impartial if all of them represent the Bar Council ? 


No matter how hard they try, they can't fool right thinking Malaysians with their pile of poo. Only the blinkered opposition supporters would be in feeding frenzy and swallow the poo.......... hook, line and sinker.

The Bar Council: Give Them The Lee Kuan Yew's Remedy

Hantu Laut


Yes! Start a new bar, academy of law or whatever, where lawyers are lawyers,  not loudmouth politically bias legal pariahs cooking the government's goose for the opposition.

It's as clear as day they are taking sides. 

Start a new bar council or influence members of the bar to kick out the punkish committee, the progeny of that opposition mole Ambiga Sreenevasan.


Defender of freedom and the downtrodden, my foot!


This government wasn't born yesterday.Stop fooling the people that you are lawyers, you are not, your are uncouth lawyers and politicians. 

Step into the ring if you want a fair fight.Don't shit on me under the protective cover of the Legal Profession Act


Yes! Give them the Lee Kuan Yew's remedy for their long suffering illness.


In 1988, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew when debating the bill on the new Academy Of Law said it was his duty to put an end to politicking in professional bodies.


He said “If you want to politicise, you form your own party… you think you can be smarter than the government and outsmart it, well, if you win, you form the government. If I win, we have a new Law Society. It is as simple as that,”

Members of The Bar Council have lost  their impunity. They have shown complete indiscretion and abused of the Legal Profession Act.


Enough is enough! It's time to kick their arses!

The Bar Council Not Only Sucks, It's Unprofessional, Partial And Bias !

Hantu Laut


The Bar Council not only sucks, it's unprofessional, partial, bias and working for the oppositions.


This is what happen when you put half-past-six lawyers as leaders who lack professional ethic.


The Bar Council should have been an independent body and distant itself from politics. In almost everything it does, it seems to be giving undivided support to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.


Bar Council Chairman Lim Chee Wee is a disgrace calling for an EGM in seeking a public apology from the Home Minister and IGP for alleged use of excessive force against Bersih protesters even before receiving full report of the investigation by Suhakam, Bar observers and an independent panel appointed by the Home Ministry.

To Members of the Malaysian Bar and pupils in chambers

We refer to Circular No 092/2012 dated 4 May 2012, giving notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar to be held as follows:

Date : 11 May 2012 (Friday)

Time : 3:00 pm

Venue :  Grand Ballroom, Sunway Putra Hotel (formerly known as the Legend Hotel), Sunway Putra Place, 100 Jalan Putra, 50350 Kuala Lumpur

The “Motion in relation to the events of and surrounding the BERSIH 3.0 public assembly on 28 April 2012, and matters in connection therewith, proposed by Lim Chee Wee (Chairman, Bar Council), on behalf of the Bar Council, dated 4 May 2012” (item (1) of the agenda) is reproduced below.

In accordance with sections 65(4A) and 65(4B) of the LPA, the quorum shall be 500 Members of the Malaysian Bar, and the EGM shall be dissolved if a quorum is not present by 4:00 pm. 

Members are urged to make every effort to attend the EGM so that the issues on the agenda may be effectively discussed by as many Members as possible.

We look forward to your participation and presence at the EGM on 11 May 2012.

Thank you.

Tony Woon Yeow Thong

Secretary

Malaysian Bar 

It is obvious, the Bar Council has, unashamedly, become an extension and mouthpiece of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.They are fully aware that Anwar Ibrahim and the whole Pakatan outfit is using street politics for political expediency, yet as a professional body that should stand impartial they gave support to the abominable act of the opposition and ignore any of its wrongdoings.


Their proclivity in demonising the government in every respect clearly shows they have taken side in politics.This is not a cynical observation but a well documented factuality.


How else could he explain calling for an EGM blaming the police of brutality when many videos evidenced provocation was first started by protesters by breaking down barriers where court order has been obtained making Dataran Merdeka a "no man's land" that day.





Videos taken on that day showed the crowd attacking a police car, pelleting it with stones, shoes and whatever objects available to them which eventually sent the car out of control and the mob overturning the police car.





The Bar Council chose to ignore all these awful acts of the law breakers, instead, chose to support them,  threatening the police with legal actions.





Not all its members share the Bar Council Chairman's sentiment as evidenced by the video below.





Has the Bar Council also been hijacked by politicians and being used as their campaign machinery? 


Maybe, it's high time the Register of Societies (not sure under which jurisdiction they are registered) write a show cause letter to the Bar Council why they should not be de-registered?

Prostitution In Itself Is Not Criminal,Wonder Who Is the Loyar Buruk?

Hantu Laut

I have been dealing with lawyers since the day I first entered the business world and till to day I still engage their services whenever I need legal opinion.

Malaysia has its fair share of half-past-six lawyers.Those that go to law school and study the law books by heart to pass their examinations and than when they go into practice all of what they studied evanescent into thin air.That's why you have lawyers doing shady deals and some absconded with client's money.The pariahs of the flock.So, not all lawyers are smart.Some, are just too smart for their own good.

Anyone with average intelligence can be a lawyer, unlike other academics like nuclear physics, rocket science or even engineering and medicine which require above average students to surpass the level of difficulty of the subject.

The number of lawyers coming to the market every year is staggering.Malaysia is short of many other professions but will never be short of lawyers.They are a dime a dozen.

What I find most amusing is the splitting of hairs by the Bar Council President Lim Chee Wee who says “Prostitution in itself is not a criminal offence,” but acknowledged there were certain provisions in the law to prosecute those who offer sex in exchange for money.He was against the idea of Nazri calling for RCI (royal commission of inquiry) on the Anwar's purported sex tape.

Before the Bar Council President goes any further I would suggest he polish his English first before he try to bluff the people that he is a better lawyer than most lawyers in this country.

What is the definition of a prostitute according to the English language.......... a person, typically a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.

Our learned person may be confused between a prostitute and a whore.They are world apart.A whore is not a prostitute.

Whoring oneself is not criminal.A whore is a promiscuous woman and being promiscuous is not a criminal act but prostitution in Malaysia according to the law is criminal as it involved exchange of money for sexual favours. Would you be called a prostitute if you don't practise the profession?

If a prostitute decides to give you a free fuck than it may not be criminal but if you are caught in the act and she is a known prostitute you may have a hard time to prove that you got it for free.Both of you can be charged.So, prostitution in itself is criminal, at least in this country.

In UK, prostitution is legal but there certain rules to be observed.... no soliciting in public place, no kerb crawling, no brothel and no pimping.So, how do man find a prostitute? If you have been to London and ever used any of the public telephone booths you would have noticed all those name cards stuck on the walls and of course some do advertise in newspaper and magazines. Most European countries have legalised prostitution.

Surprisingly, prostitution is illegal in the world's biggest fleshpot.In Thailand prostitution is illegal but tolerated and partly regulated.It is practised openly.Thailand has an estimated 2 million sex workers and is the most popular sex tourism destination.

That's the trouble when a lawyer started mixing the law with politics and smells strongly of a political agenda.Read what he says here.

Anyway, who gives the fuck about the letter of the law.We want to know whether it is Anwar in the tape, plain and simple, RCI can clear his name.Why is he so worried even asking for an RCI on the Altantuya case and scores of other irrelevant to be done first.

I agree, Nazri calling for RCI is premature.Putting the cart before the horse. We should allow the police to complete its investigation first before calling for RCI which much depend on the general perception of the public. If the public is happy with the result of the police investigation than RCI is unnecessary.

Wonder who is the loyar buruk here.

A little entertainment from Lynyrd Skynyrd.