YOURSAY | ‘Please cease from making any further ridiculous statements…’

Umno lawyer: Bar's move against AG akin to challenging Agong

Res Ipsa: Lawyer Mohd Hafarizam Harun, first and foremost please do not forget that you are also a member of the Malaysian Bar. If you have any grouses over the action by the Bar, you should raise them through the appropriate channels.

It is certainly dumb on your part to assert that the action of the Bar in relation to the attorney-general (AG) would tantamount to challenging the prerogative powers of the Agong. If that's the case, where were you when previous AG Abdul Gani Patail was unceremoniously dumped?

There was pin-drop silence from the royalty back then even though there was an alleged attack on their powers based on your reasoning.

Please cease from making any further ridiculous statements just to suit the whims and fancies of your master... unless of course, you have resigned yourself to the fact that you have already lost every single ounce of credibility with the general public over your wishy-washy statements on suing the Wall Street Journal .

Ferdtan: Hafarizam, to say that the Malaysian Bar's intention to seek the resignation of Mohamed Apandi Ali as AG is tantamount to challenging the royal prerogative of the Agong is the silliest thing we hear from an Umno lawyer.

It is like saying that in criticising the clergy of whatever religion - Islam, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu - who are, so to speak, anointed by their god, is tantamount to challenging god.

Patriot1: The Agong approves the appointment of the AG on the recommendation of the PM. This does not mean that the AG can do no wrong.

The Bar Council represents the legal profession of the country and if the members are of the opinion that the AG failed in his duty to uphold justice, then the Bar Council should take remedial action as it is the duty of its members to ensure law is justly administered in the country.

The question of challenging the Agong does not arise at all. I am sure the PM can afford a better lawyer.

Ian2003: Hafarizam, what do you mean that the AG has not misbehaved? He has grossly misbehaved and had acted to clear the PM of any misconduct and thus he has denied the Bench from making a judgment on the matter.

He has grossly abused his power and position in deciding not to charge the PM despite voluminous evidence stating otherwise. He is definitely not fit to be the AG.

Anonymous 706151436780066: Hafarizam should also take issue when teachers scold his children. He would consider teachers who scold his flesh and blood as scolding him.

What a distorted mind this lawyer has, along with a corresponding penchant for galactic extrapolation.

Vote BN Out: Why make so much noise to Bernama ? Attend the Bar’s AGM this Saturday and argue your case there.

Most likely the other lawyers will pulverise you and make you look like an idiot in front of your own peers.

Negarawan: Whether it is about the WSJ articles on Najib and 1MDB, or the Malaysian Bar suit against the AG, Hafarizam is not able to provide sound legal arguments.

He seems to be covering up his weaknesses and incompetency in addressing the legal issues by attempting to divert attention to irrelevant matters.

In his letter of demand to WSJ, he asked WSJ to clarify matters which were self-explanatory in the articles, clearly indicating that he either did not read the articles completely or simply does not understand them. After more than a year, he does not have the courage to sue WSJ.

With regard to the Malaysian Bar suit, he does not seem to be able to substantiate his claims convincingly, but rather chooses to use the typical Umno line of "insulting the Agong, race and religion" when they are cornered. He is an embarrassment to the legal fraternity.

Prudent: Hafarizam is obviously trying to deceive the ignorant kampung Malays and instigate the red-shirt racists. By appointing the AG, the Agong is just following the 'advice' of the PM under the constitution.

If the AG is sued because of legal questions, it does not mean that those suing are opposing the Agong. It just means the AG is perceived to have abused the authority conferred on him by the constitution via the Agong's appointment.

Shamu99: Indeed, what a pathetic argument. Don't embarrass yourself. If the AG is wrong, of course, he can be told to quit.

The king appointed the AG in good faith but if there is doubt over how he is executing his task, he can be challenged. That includes asking for his resignation.

Baiyuensheng: Any bill submitted to Agong, which is not signed within 30 days, will automatically become law regardless whether the Agong approves it or not.

So does it mean that any judicial challenges to these laws means going against the Agong?

Worldly Wise: Article 40 of the constitution provides that the pleasure of the Agong shall be exercised with the approval of the cabinet. Such approval was not obtained before removing Gani Patail.

Thus, his removal was unconstitutional. Apandi is a pretender.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.