What are you saying, Mr Choo? That because you admittedly produced a skewed report on the rally in Melaka due to your political affiliation therefore all 80 Bar Council monitors are liable to do the same? That's a gem of an argument..!

I despair for the profession if all lawyers are associated with the level of intellect you have shown in that argument of yours.

Haiyah. I was planning on loading up on simple legal aid files like joint divorce petitions and child adoption cases to earn my CPD points. Lol.

I can't wait to talk to my son (he's only 5 now) about sex. In fact, when he's old enough, I'd like to take him to a brothel, just me and him, and show him how it's done. I gotta make sure that when he sleeps with his girlfriend (I have not factored in the possibility that he may turn out to be gay) for the first time, he'd be able to do it like a pro. No fumbling with bra clasps or condoms like his old man all those years ago. Lol.

Enigma's Sadeness. Must be because it was used in the Boxing Helena soundtrack.

I too had a classmate in school named John Skelchy.

The amendment to sec 9 of the Judges Remuneration Act that will ostensibly benefit only the outgoing CJ will result in his recent denials that he is an UMNO loyalist having a distinctly loud hollow ring.
I am more interested in the amendment to sec 5 though. How will the constitutionality of the amendment be challenged? Arguably, every sitting Judge will have a vested interest in the legality of the amendment, if the writer's arguments are correct.

Don't know if the new Istana Negara is Islamic or otherwise but in this (very painful to watch) video posted on YouTube, the honourable Minister of International Trade and Industry said that the current Istana Negara is "too small, smaller than the houses of many people" (at approximately one minute nineteen seconds into the video): http://bit.ly/dv13Vi

This piece has been carried in the mainstream press so I am wondering if the decision to reproduce it here is a display of tokenism to prove this Blawg’s non-partisanship.

I say this because there is nothing in the piece which departs radically from the official thinking of the Najib administration which the mainstream media has been feeding us ad nauseam.

The writer doesn’t pretend to debate the issues which has arisen prior to and after the Bersih 2.0 rally. For example, the writer says he doesn’t support ‘open rallies’. Why not?

The writer then takes a swipe at “some” of the demands of Bersih 2.0 by saying that that they are couched in general terms with no clear details. Which of these demands is the writer referring to? Is he suggesting that if details are provided (if one is to accept his argument) then there will be substance to them? Isn’t the writer guilty of generalizing as much as he is accusing Bersih 2.0 of doing the same?

The writer mentions the arrests prior to the rally but fails to condemn the detention of the PSM 6 and the mass arrests during the rally. Is he supporting the actions of the police? He refers to the authorities’ “perceived” high-handedness. So does the writer approve of the police action prior to and during the rally? There is a complete failure by the writer to take a definitive position by the questions thrown up by Bersih 2.0 and in the immediate aftermath of the rally.

The only position which the writer had taken appears in the penultimate paragraph of the article – that “Barisan is still a better option for the people”. So there we have it: in the guise of his observations on the Government’s response to the Bersih 2.0 rally, the article is nothing but a political pitch.

I don’t think this Blawg should ever be used as a platform for political pontifications from anybody, regardless of his or her political affiliations.