The interesting case of a lawyer who was criticized for allegedly shaming the Kadazan Dusun Murut and Rungus (KDMR) community in his remarks, contained in his bail application for his client who is accused of molesting an Unduk Ngadau contestant. In his written application, he started to elaborate at great length women's achievements in Sabah. However, he went on to say, inter alia:
"The UNK contest is not about women, it is just a contest, it doesn't incorporate all women, whatever their talents and skills and education and abilities but is nothing more than an exotic cattle show and almost feel like an auction show. There is nothing outstanding about these women and there (are) more women outstanding outside but they don't get to be the contestants. The UNK is a throw back to a former period where women are only objects of desire to be paraded around in an extravagant pet show."
"The case against Phillip Among is not about Phillip Among but is about a beauty contest. Everyday, many women are sexually abused and body shamed but those cases didn't come to court and no police report were made. The huh ha about this case is only because it is regarding UNK otherwise nobody cares."
What followed next were numerous calls to reprimand the lawyer for what many considered as amounting to shaming the KDMR community. Although he has since made an open apology to the KDMR including Huguan Siou Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, there is now a call to bring the former to the Native Court.
I see this whole thing as a classic case of "barking up the wrong tree". Contrary to popular belief, the legal profession is not always a noble one. People tend to forget that the lawyer, just like any other professionals, is acting in the best interest of this client. There have been many occasions in the past when lawyers have accused people of committing, say, murders, even though they knew that they were innocent, but they would make the accusations anyway to create reasonable doubts in favour of their clients. The point is that a good lawyer would try his best to exhaust all legal means to fight for his client, sometimes truth or false regardless. My view is that the lawyer should be allowed to argue his case the way he deems fit, even though sometimes what he says may well hurt the feelings of others. If I am accused of a crime, I would expect my lawyer to fight to the best of his ability, and say whatever is necessary to be said to convince the court. If the lawyer is unwilling to do that for me as a client, then he is of not much use to me! It would be interesting to know what are the views of other lawyers.
Having said that, however, the KDMR is not the only party who's barking up the wrong tree. The lawyer is barking up the wrong tree too. His submission is a bail application for his client, and if it were me, the points of argument would be along the line of convincing the court that his client is not a flight risk; that he is willing to cooperate with the police; that he will not interfere with the investigation; that he will not threaten the person accusing him of the crime. These are among the factors that will be taken into account for the judge to decide whether to grant bail or otherwise.
I can't see the relevance of whether the UNK contest incorporates all women or not; of whether it is a cattle show that feels like an auction show; of whether the contest makes women the objects of desire to be paraded in an extravagant show. What have all those got anything to do with whether his client deserves a bail? His argument, to me, is merely several paragraphs of irrelevant points which can't help to convince the court for the bail application. It is in that sense that I feel like the lawyer has failed in his duty to act in the best interest of his client.
