Why Rohaizat should honourably withdraw as a candidate in the Permatang Pasir by-election


The first question that must be asked right from the beginning of the Permatang Pasir by-election is whether the voters can trust a candidate who could even mislead his own political party about his disbarment by the Bar Council from practicing as a lawyer?

Various explanations have been given by Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders about the Umno/BN candidate Rohaizat Othman being struck off the rolls by the Bar Council and the revocation of his practicing licence as a lawyer.

Umno vice president and Penang Umno liaison chief Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, said Rohaizat’s licence was revoked in 2003 following problems incurred by the former partner in the legal firm.

Zahid said:
“The Bar Council’s decision must be respected by the lawyers registered under it. Legally, Rohaizat is probably innocent, but morally, it can be questioned by his opponents.” (The Sun 17.8.09)

The New Straits Times of the same day also reported Zahid’s defence of Rohaizat as follows:

Zahid, who is also Penang Umno liaison committee chairman, confirmed that Rohaizat was stripped of the law practising certificate by the Bar Council.

He said Rohaizat’s name was struck off after his partner took off with a client’s money. He said the client lodged a report and as a partner, Rohaizat was implicated.

He explained that Rohaizat later used the money in his firm, which possibly belonged to other clients, to pay the victim.

“Rohaizat had no choice but to abide by the council’s decision and we have to respect that.

“Legally, Rohaizat did no wrong but morally, this will be used against him by the other party in the by-election,” he said, adding that that was why when Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced Rohaizat’s name last Friday as the BN candidate for the by-election he did not refer to him as a lawyer.

Yesterday at the nomination centre, Deputy Prime Minister and Umno Deputy President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin alleged that Rohaizat was the target of “character assassination” and “chided the Opposition for stirring up controversy” over Rohaizat’s credibility.

But the facts are completely different from what Rohaizat and the Umno leaders have owned up to as the true reasons why the Umno candidate was struck off the rolls by the Bar Council.

The Sun today reported:

When contacted, Bar Council chairman Ragunath Kesavan said all offences under the Legal Profession Act, under which Rohaizat was guilty, hold personal liability.

Stressing that the charge as tantamount to criminal misconduct, he said Rohaizat, not his partner, was named by the complainant over a sum of about RM140,000.

“If you are an innocent party, you would not be found guilty by the (Bar Council’s) disciplinary board. Rohaizat’s appeal against the Bar Council decision was dismissed by the High Court on Aug 12,” said Ragunath.

If the Bar Council chairman is right, and there is no reason to think otherwise, then Rohaizat has compounded his offence which had led to his disbarment by the Bar Council by misleading Umno leaders about the circumstances of his disbarment.

I believe that Umno leaders like Muhyiddin and Zahid had been misled by Rohaizat and did not know the actual circumstances resulting in Rohaizat’s disbarment, although they should have done a thorough check.

The Umno leadership, which is not short of lawyers, should have known that lawyers do not get struck off the rolls for minor misdemeanours when Section 94 (2) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976 clearly provides that lawyers are struck off the rolls for “misconduct”, which is defined as “conduct or omission to act in Malaysia or elsewhere by an advocate and solicitor in a professional capacity or otherwise which amounts to grave impropriety” and includes:

  • dishonest or fraudulent conduct in the discharge of his duties;
  • gross disregard of his client’s interests; and
  • being guilty of any conduct calculated to bring the legal profession into disrepute.

If Rohaizat can even mislead Umno and BN about the circumstances of his disbarment as a practising lawyer by the Bar Council, causing Muhyiddin and Zahid to publicly embarrass themselves and Umno in coming to his defence on completely ridiculous grounds, can he be trusted by the Permatang Pasir voters as to deserve their vote to become their State Assemblyman?

Muhyiddin and Zahid need to resolve the Rohaizat problem swiftly and boldly, so that the integrity problem of Rohaizat is not expanded to become the integrity problems of Muhyiddin, Zahid, Umno and Barisan Nasional leaderships.

The most honourable solution under the circumstances is for the UMNO and Barisan Nasional leadership to withdraw Rohaizat as candidate, which can still be done by Thursday, and concede the PAS/Pakatan Rakyat candidate, Mohd Salleh Man Mat Aji a walkover.

Otherwise, the central issue of the Permatang Pasir by-election is not only going to be about the integrity of Rohaizat but that of Zahid, Muhyiddin, Umno and Barisan Nasional leaderships as well.

  1. #1 by dawsheng on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 12:24 pm

    Otherwise, the central issue of the Permatang Pasir by-election is not only going to be about the integrity of Rohaizat but that of Zahid, Muhyiddin, Umno and Barisan Nasional leaderships as well. – LKS

    You mean all the ongoing issues like PKFZ are not enough to cast doubt on UMNO and BN leaderships, I am surprise! Rohaizat nomination as candidate for Permatang Pasir reflects what UMNO is, a party full of crooks!

  2. #2 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 12:36 pm

    Eeerrrr … DSAI was charged and sentenced to a jail term for corruption. He is morally corrupt still? Come on … LKS … how can you say Rohaizat needs to pull out when in law he is not disqualified. Same as DSAI after he paid his dues he is now MP?

    Of course Rohaizat is dirty la and he got struck off but should DSAI also pull out as an MP?

    Why do we stir up nonsense (by calling Rohaizat to pull out) when you can just show the people that this is the sort of ADUN they will have if they vote for him. Let the people speak la …

  3. #3 by KeenWatcher_01 on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 12:36 pm

    “If you are an innocent party, you would not be found guilty by the (Bar Council’s) disciplinary board. Rohaizat’s appeal against the Bar Council decision was dismissed by the High Court on Aug 12,” said Ragunath.

    Another UMNO’s product of which integrity is being questioned.
    Next byelection field in a thug.

  4. #4 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 12:42 pm

    Zahid said:

    “The Bar Council’s decision must be respected by the lawyers registered under it. Legally, Rohaizat is probably innocent …”

    I love this … that means the Bar Council is a private club you see and the disciplinary action taken against Rohaizat is a private matter. Does not concern the public. Hahahaahahahahaahaa …

  5. #5 by k1980 on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 1:05 pm

    Stupid Rohai fella. Should had asked Bintulu Tiong for a RM10 million donation, then use it to pay the complainant’s RM140,000. Still left with RM 9,860,100 to take a new wife.

  6. #6 by k1980 on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 1:12 pm

    Ooops, Rohai, just make sure your ex-wife doesn’t set fire to your new wife’s wedding tent.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6798785.ece

  7. #7 by ekompute on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 1:20 pm

    SpeakUp :
    I love this … that means the Bar Council is a private club you see and the disciplinary action taken against Rohaizat is a private matter. Does not concern the public. Hahahaahahahahaahaa …

    No issue laaaaa. It all depends on the circumstances. It is only an issue if Rohaizat is an opposition candidate. Don’t forget that Rohaizat is an UMNO candidate, not opposition. Malaysia, professing to be a Muslim country, does make my toes laugh, hahahahahaa. Islamic justice, islamic jurisprudence… and they say people insult Islam. Take a look at the mirror and see who really insult Islam. Makes me wonder whether they ever read the Qur’an.

  8. #8 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 1:29 pm

    ekompute … the Quaran is interpreted in the manner they need for it to be la. I like it that Rohaizat had to be involved in the coop ‘scam’. Those coop members are probably poor Malay rubber plantation owners only. See how it works? Its like that in Butterworth. Always like that … Malay makan Malay.

    Give yor a good example. Malay padi farmer dies. Widow is poor. So when the lawyer applies for the sijil he notices its a lovely piece of land. He offers her maybe say RM150K … she is so happy to get RM150K. He arranges for it to be sold to some Chinese developer for like RM1.5M. :0)

    That happens in Butterworth area. So many stories like that …

  9. #9 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 1:36 pm

    You seriously have to wonder, UMNO with so much to offer, why does it attract such mediocre calibre candidate.

    The fishmonger in Manek Urai looks like a talent compared to these UMNO bunch..

  10. #10 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 2:14 pm

    “Why do we stir up nonsense (by calling Rohaizat to pull out) when you can just show the people that this is the sort of ADUN they will have if they vote for him…” – SpeakUp

    That’s right, its drawing attention to BN its error of choice so that it could rectify unless the by elections rules are such to say that it is already too late for BN to field another if Rohaizat withdraws.

    Withdraw, he ought to and probably would.

    “If the Bar Council chairman is right, and there is no reason to think otherwise” (to borrow Kit’s phrase), then it is not just “the integrity problem of Rohaizat” being expanded to become the integrity problems of Muhyiddin, Zahid, Umno and Barisan Nasional leaderships”.

    Bar Council Chairman Ragunath Kesavan said that “Rohaizat, not his partner, was named by the complainant over a sum of about RM140,000”, “that the charge as tantamount to criminal misconduct…”.

    For Rohaizat’s own sake he should withdraw. If these issue were blown up even bigger, questions will be asked, pressure will be exerted as to why authorities have not yet investigated him for criminal breach of trust.

  11. #11 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 3:29 pm

    Jeff … no police report made over the incident?

  12. #12 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 3:50 pm

    I assume that once an alleged criminal misconduct is publicized and known in public realm, the police could investigate on their own even without specific police report. Thats what the police themselves say.

  13. #13 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 4:05 pm

    Jeff … more excuses from the police? Hehehehehee … same old story. No action will be taken. When will Malaysia change? I really wonder … in our life time? I hope can live to see a real change. Such a waste of our nation.

    I wonder if can get more info on the action taken against Rohaizat, some info as to what was the complain and what was the finding of the Bar Counsel’s DC. That would be great!

  14. #14 by yhsiew on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 5:37 pm

    I believe that Umno leaders like Muhyiddin and Zahid had been misled by Rohaizat …….
    =================================

    It is not that Muhyiddin and Zahid had been misled by Rohaizat, rather, Rohaizat had already told Muhyiddin and Zahid the truth. The trio however decided to take their chances hoping that the rakyat would not find out. The integrity problem of Rohaizat is already expanded to become the integrity problems of Muhyiddin, Zahid, Umno and Barisan Nasional leaderships.

  15. #15 by ktteokt on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 6:35 pm

    If this IDIOT cannot be trusted as a lawyer, how can he represent the people and gain the confidence of the people? It takes nuts to vote for him!

  16. #16 by johnnypok on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 7:43 pm

    Let the voters show him the middle finger.

  17. #17 by monsterballssgoh on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 9:22 pm

    UMNO have no more qualified member to stand for elections.
    Only crooks and half past sixes left to choose from.

  18. #18 by SpeakUp on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 - 9:43 pm

    Here is a clear statement from the Bar Council:

    In response to inquiries from the media, we wish to clarify Rohaizat Othman’s status as an advocate and solicitor.

    The Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board struck Rohaizat Othman off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors on 7 March 2008 after he was found guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Board’s decision arose from an investigation into the complaint lodged against Rohaizat Othman by the purchaser of a piece of real property. According to the complaint, Rohaizat Othman failed to refund almost RM 161,000 to the complainant after the transaction was aborted.

    Rohaizat Othman appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Board to the High Court, and the appeal was dismissed on 12 August 2009. He is therefore legally disqualified from practising as an advocate and solicitor.

    The finding of misconduct is personal to Rohaizat Othman, as the Disciplinary Board would not hold a lawyer liable for the actions of his/her law partner(s).

    George Varughese
    Secretary
    Malaysian Bar

  19. #19 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 12:44 am

    More Lies From BN:

    “At the time when the complaint was lodged to the Bar’s disciplinary committee, Yusri had already left the firm and Rohaizat was named instead as the person responsible.

    The Umno information chief, who was doing all the explanation despite Rohaizat being present at the press conference, said the latter was not allowed to explain himself before the disciplinary committee.

    Rohaizat had attended the disciplinary hearing the first time but they only had time to question a representative from the co-operative, said Ahmad. Rohaizat supposedly fell sick on the day he was supposed to cross examine the representative from the co-operative and give an explanation to the committee. He was subsequently disbarred.”

    BN should not insult the rakyat’s intelligence. The statement from the Bar Council is crystal clear:

    “The finding of misconduct is personal to Rohaizat Othman, as the Disciplinary Board would not hold a lawyer liable for the actions of his/her law partner(s).”

  20. #20 by Taxidriver on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 1:39 am

    Sometimes people get into trouble for being kind and nice; like this Loh Hai Chat loyar. His good friend and partner absconded with clients’ money so Loh Hai Chat got no choice but to pay back the clients, yet the Bar Council punished him! Where got justice?

  21. #21 by Taxidriver on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 2:00 am

    BN should go to any Taxi Stands in Manek Urai and pick any taxi driver to be its candidate. Chances of his winning will be better than that of Loh Hai Chat.

  22. #22 by siamo on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 2:12 am

    It manifestly shows what honour and ethics meant to UMNO. First, they have the courage and face to put up a candidate who has been disciplined by the Bar Council. Second, Ahmad Zaid Hamidi can continue to lie about it. There are so thick skin!

    What do think of the rakyat. Easy meat, easy to con. Use a lawyer who is an ex-con!

  23. #23 by monsterballssgoh on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 3:31 am

    UMNO have no more qualified people to stand for elections.
    Crooks and idiots are the left overs..for Najib to choose.

  24. #24 by Jaswant on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 6:51 am

    What about limkamput? He worked for the UMNO government for more than 20 years until he retires. Even got bintang for long service. He should get himself nominated. What do you think??

  25. #25 by siamo on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 6:37 pm

    Has UMNO stoop so low that they can field an ex-con as a candidate, who will be a leader and respesentative of the people.

    Up till today, UMNO info chief, Ahmad Maslan is still putting up lies despite the statement by the Bar Council. Does this infer that UMNO can accept ex-cons into their ranks?

    How much lower can UMNO stoop?

  26. #26 by siamo on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 6:59 pm

    George Varghese is going to get into deep ‘shit’. UMNO will have the MACC, PDRM all coming to investigate him for bringing down their candidate. Take caution, George.

  27. #27 by SpeakUp on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 7:34 pm

    siamo … not ex-con la … disbarred only. There is a difference.

    If only someone can get the minutes of the Bar Council proceeding and also some info on the appeal. That would really solve it all.

    Also, the withdrawal of a complain against a lawyer does not mean that the Bar Council will just easily discontinue the whole proceedings.

    Bar Council always ensures that its members do not mess around. Simple as that since they are suppose to uphold justice etc etc etc.

    Basically, my take is, stakeholders sum was used by the firm or lawyer and it was not able to be returned when requested for. The money is suppose to be put into a separate account, CLIENTS’ ACCOUNT and its held in trust. So our friend could not pay it back and that is literally CBT la.

    Guess, after the complain was lodged he paid it back. But then the wrong has already been done.

    If UMNO got guts they should state clearly, facts of the case and show clearly why Rohaizat was only the fall guy la. Don’t just say it, show the facts clearly.

    Useless disbarred lawyer …

  28. #28 by Taxidriver on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 8:39 pm

    Muslims are not suppose to tell lies. I wonder how Moo Hee Din and Char Egg can convince the voters of P/Pasir of Loh Hai Chat’s tainted record of being dishonest and thus disbarred from Bar Council. Doing so is tantamount to giving Islam a bad image. For the good name of the Islamic religion, all muslims should reject Loh Hai Chat…….TOTALLY! This is the best way to tell Moo Hee Din /UMNO Baru not to disgrace the religion by telling lies.

  29. #29 by SpeakUp on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 - 11:48 pm

    Taxi … you think DPM really believes that lying is against the teachings of Islam? Hahahahahaahahahaaa …

  30. #30 by siamo on Thursday, 20 August 2009 - 12:13 pm

    Our DPM is following the footsteps of going on with the trademark idiotic remarks of Nazri.

    So, his logic that Rohaizat has returned the RM161,000 and therefore he is clean. So, can I go and steal a car and return it and become clean? A crime is a crime, whether he returned it. The may be mitigation in the punishment. We are now talking about a candidate who could be an MP, a leader who needs to the trust of the people.

    So, going by DPM’s logic, it is alright to be corrupt and then later on return the money. Way to go, sir! UMNO can stoop another rung lower!

  31. #31 by SpeakUp on Thursday, 20 August 2009 - 11:16 pm

    I wanna see Rohaizat affirm a SD! He better be good at drafting it … hahahahaahahaa

You must be logged in to post a comment.