Tan Peek Guat
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 78 |   |
|
Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/16 22:48
Since there is the "Muslim Lawyers' Association", then we need to have another one formed - which is to be known as the "Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association" in order to balance up the fair representations for and of the people - by the Lawyers.
Tan Peek Guat
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Lo Ming
User
Fresh Forumer
| Posts: 3 | |
|
Re:Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/17 10:10
What about a "Non-Vegetarian Lawyers Association"? Or "Non-Benz Owner Lawyers Association"? Or "Non-Beer Drinker Lawyers Association"?
Aren't we all equal as brothers and sisters of the Bars?
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Dipendra A/L Harshad Rai
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 76 | |
|
Re:Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/17 10:20
With respect, I have to disagree. Forming a "Non-Muslim Lawyers Association" is counter productive and will only lead to the break-up of the Bar.
The current make up of the Bar. whilst not as perfect as one can expect, is nevertheless the most ideal setting for the rule of law to flourish. I am aware that the current make up of the Bar consists of various views and various agendas but truth be told, it is these views and agendas that makes us so special. Indeed, such diversity empowers us to participate in the various issues affecting the country be it politics, economics, social justice and so on.
In short, the Bar is and must remain the common denominator that gels us all together. It is therefore of little surprise that we are resented by many simply because we only deal with issues without fear.
We must desist from this "Us and Them" mentality. Too many seasoned politicians have done this country a great disservice by dividing the nation. Every argument and every issue pursued a common theme of 'Us v Them". It only ails teh country further. It is high time that such a narrow minded myopic view desist and put out altogether.
Dipendra
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Tan Peek Guat
Visitor
|
Re:Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/17 11:27
When we seriously consider the beneficial factors that can arise out of 'integration after division' then we can see the benefits of first, having the Muslim lawyers (through their Association) being made aware of the reasonableness/ unreasonableness attached to the local Syariah Laws; or Non- Muslim Lawyers' Association being made aware of any other religious customs of the citizens of Malaysia.
In the same manner, through discussion, the parties would be able to meet to help resolve issues mutually - for and on behalf of the citizens of Malaysia, and with the Non-Muslim Lawyers being able to reveal and discuss the grievances caused by the unequal 'settings' of the Syriah laws.
Otherwise, the non-Muslim lawyers would be helpless -e.g. what happened during the Bar organised Forum? With just a single Muslim lawyer budging into the hall where the FORUM was held, he can almost immediately stop the FORUM, and prevent the participants from further acting/discussing/speaking about such 'laws'.
So, what happened in the end?
No Forum allowed, and instead, all the unnecessary "highlights" over the unwanted and unnecessary happenings of the day; and with the grievances of the affected parties being omitted, and until now, no more to be heard of them!
Tan Peek Guat
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Mohamad Azrulsani Bin Othman
User
Fresh Forumer
| Posts: 7 | |
|
Re:Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/17 21:22
I wonder ..... if then there is a non muslim lawyer association.
then ... a buddhist lawyer association...
later .... a catholic lawyer association...
perhaps ..... a pagan lawyer association..
hmmmm .... freedom of association maybe ... will these lead to a social harmony?
ps : love the world!!! Malaysia = truly asia!!
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Tan Peek Guat
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 78 | |
|
Re:Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/18 10:36
The fact remains that there is the MUSLIM LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION, and not the "Monkey's Lawyers' Association - as portrayed in the photo posted by Mohamad Azrulsani Bin Othman!
Therefore, we sincerely need an Association for the non-Muslim Lawyers as well - so as to fairly represent the UNITED VOICES OF THE NON-MUSLIMS OF MALAYSIA.
As for any other associations that can be thought about, those need to be initiated by the Lawyers interested in having those associations, and then, for those associations, if there are already existing in Malaysia, why not be their members? Afterall, there are also doctors, etc., etc., besides lawyers in those associations.
Tan Peek Guat
MBW: Dear Peek Guat - What "Monkey's Lawyers' Association as portrayed in the photo"? Please get your facts right. The picture on the left of the writer is his avatar, and has got nothing to do with the Muslim Lawyers' Association.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock
User
Fresh Forumer
| Posts: 8 | |
|
Re:Non-Muslim Lawyers' Association - 2008/11/18 20:00
For your information, a Catholic Lawyers Society already exists.
It is irrefutable that we belong to multiple groupings. At the same time as we are lawyers, we are also other things, e.g. men or women, married or single, professing a religion or none, vegetarian or carnivore. The question is not whether each of us should be allowed to associate with organisations or associations or societies such as these. Surely none of us is saying we cannot. But simply because this can be done doesn't mean that it ought to be done. Each of us needs to weigh in our own minds the usefulness of creating these organisations, and the nature and value of the contribution, if any, that may be made by these. If a "something plus lawyer" society helps me to become a better "something" as well as a better "lawyer", and allows me to make a positive contribution to my society, go ahead!
What I would object to is mandatory associations, or where such organisations pretend to speak on behalf of all who could potentially come within an organisation's membership. Does the Muslim Lawyers Association speak for all Muslim lawyers? Does the Catholic Lawyers Society speak on behalf of all Catholic lawyers. Does a women's lawyers caucus speak for all women lawyers? Does a gay and lesbian lawyers association speak for all gay and lesbian lawyers? Do such organisations take the view that membership of these groups ought to be compulsory, so that no self-respecting lawyer would not be a member? Would such a compulsion or such a view give their leaders a false sense of authority, a mistaken belief that they speak on behalf of all who belong to their constituency?
It is this misplaced leadership that causes problems. When those who are in leadership promote one view and refuse to acknowledge that even within their own constituency (which is wider and larger than their own organisations) there is a plurality of opinions.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Circular No: 7/2008 - Palestine Humanitarian Fund
