'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. This was the attitude of Voltaire, who advocated freedom of expression throughout his life.

I recalled the above quote when I heard that The New Straits Times has brought a defamation suit against bloggers, namely Jeff Ooi and Ahirudin Attan. To me, whether this defamation suit threatens freedom of expression or not, I am not that much concerned since I have advocated for responsible blogging all this while.

I believe no one should have unrestricted freedom and one shall be punished if he has abused his freedom and harmed others. But what caught me surprise was NST suspending its column by lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar indefinitely. Simply because Malik is the defence counsel for Jeff Ooi in the suit.

This I could not agree to nor tolerate.

I do not see how any possibility of conflict of interest would arise if Malik continue to contribute his articles to NST. By the way, Malik also the chairman of National Human Rights Society.

This suspension order of the NST has implicitly challenged Rule 2 of Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 in that it is an obligation of an advocate and solicitor to give advice on or accept any brief so that all citizens have access to legal advice.

Therefore, no advocate and solicitor should be punished because he representing a client. That would be discrimination and a violation of the principle of fair trial. In my personal opinion, the act of the NST is disgraceful. The world is advocating the freedom of expression, but this act of NST itself shall be condemned.

I do recognise that the NST has the right to decide who shall be its columnists. However, this right should not be abused. The NST owes a moral obligation to the society at large.

We shall say a big 'No' to The New Straits Times . At least we have all the own freedom and right to choose which newspaper to subscribe to.