Since this has been repeating countless of times I thought of putting a stand so that I can cut and paste this stand whenever I comment after this.
First principle. I always object to trial by SD. I don’t understand the penchant of Malaysians to believe everything in SD. Even hearsay SD is regarded as a truth. Truth has many perspectives and it’s our duty to hear all and decide what is right. And invariably those who sensationalize SD to me don’t have proper motive of telling the whole truth. The object of publicity is for some interest or another should make one to be circumspect.
Let me illustrate where Malaysians got it totally wrong. RPK issued a hearsay SD that someone told him X matter. Later on the person who told him denied the statement and so RPK had no choice but to withdraw it. But Malaysians being gullible believe in X matter. no body cared to veracity of X. Hearsay is apparently sufficient.
2) bala and Deepak are of disreputable characters. They do anything for money. And they admittedly one way or another have commited or are willing to commit a wrong for money. Man, I stay away from whatever they say. The next thing you know, they’ll be saying the opposite simply because they were paid by someone. Currently who knows they’re being paid by those who wants to bring down BN.
3) Let’s put the facts of what transpired so that we decipher how sick a person can be in playing this despicable charade. Now 1st SD set out by Bala an X matter. 2nd SD set out saying that the 1st SD was under duress and deny the X matter.
So is there perjury? Will not be. Why? coz the 1st was made under duress and thus not counted (in layman’s terms. It’s like obtaining a forced confession).
So what we should have done was to establish whether the first was under duress or not.
But can’t the 2nd SD be set aside later by Bala by saying its under duress also?. Possible but entirely improbable. Why? Because bala received the money. There is no way that you can say its involuntary when you accept some huge money.
So why am I telling this?
It’s to show how sick haris Ibrahim is. (see http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/dear-bar-council-the-name-of-the-tan-sri-lawyer-is/) He knows all this but purposely make an issue out of nothing due to hatred. He is trying to assassinate a character ie the tan Sri lawyer. He imputed there’s a gross misconduct. In the first place we don’t even know whether tan Sri is bala’s lawyer or otherwise. If not then there’s no duty to bala. If there is in a worse case scenario there cannot be perjury (since the first was under duress) and thus no misconduct for failing to advice as alleged by haris.
What haris should demand of bar council was an investigation as to whether the first SD was actually under duress. Then there’s a valid issue of misconduct. But the problem is it requires bala n Deepak to testify and we know how credible they are.
Haris is sick to assassinate tan Sri’s character knowing full well that a case against him is not probable. He just wants to bring disrepute because of ABU. Gila betul perangai some people.