I refer to your report It's a 'no go' for Cherie Blair .

As someone who laments the lowering standards of advocacy at the Malaysian Bar, I personally feel that members of the Malaysian Bar could learn from distinguished QCs such as Cherie Booth-Blair.

When the Bar Council and nay-sayers argue that there are other local lawyers who can do the same job, I think they are guilty of fuzzy thinking. Sure, there are probably lawyers who can do the necessary research and be eloquent on the subject of the case in question.

I have no doubt that Dr Cyrus Das has the necessary experience, intellect and depth of research to carry on. But he himself supported Blair's application. Don't let me hear that smart and smug comment that Das is not up to it.

But I think what Das has the humility to acknowledge is what I feel must be the reason for his support for the application: that as a result of the state of the judiciary and the state of advocacy in this country, it is not often that lawyers can hone their skills and claim to be on par with the best of British advocacy.

Just as they say practice makes perfect what we are born with, I am certain I would be a better lawyer if I could spar with the best.

When David Marshall was doing cases in Malaysia, his brilliance was acknowledged by many in the present judiciary, the Attorney-General's Chambers and the legal profession. Even today, I find none of our "best" lawyers are anywhere near Marshall's quality. He was a QC in his own right and the Inns actually offered to make him one but he turned it down for his own reasons.

If Marshall were alive today and made an application for ad-hoc admission, I have no doubt there will be the same objections similar to those given against Blair. But anyone who knew him and had the fortune of learning from him in court will know in his heart that it would have been a travesty to object.

I lament that where I used to take pride in my literary skills including my court advocacy, nowadays I have to make do with mediocre literary skills in court. Why? Because if I were to revert to what led me to being a top debater in Birmingham University in England, I wouldn't be understood and I may have problems winning my cases.

Consequently, nowadays when I sit down to write a play or a novel or a short story, I find myself struggling to begin. My literary skills are in tatters.

So I would indeed would have loved to listen to Cherie Booth-Blair while she argues a case in our Malaysian courts. I can't afford the time to fly to London just to do this. I sincerely and honestly believe that I would have learnt from her advocacy. Shouldn't that have also been a criterion when hearing her application?