A photo of Edmund Bon, which has been selected randomly and not for any comedy value. No, really.

Khabir says we should big up the Bon. Dudes.

You guys are silly for saying that Edmund Bon sold out his principles by taking up the Khalid Ibrahim defamation brief against The Malaysian Insider, et al.

An essential ingredient of defamation is that the statement complained of must be false. If the statement complained of is true, there is no defamation.

Edmund as a lawyer does not know whether the statement complained of is true or false. Only his client, Khalid Ibrahim, knows.

If there is something in Khalid’s instructions which should put Edmund on alert that he is receiving false instructions (for example, if Khalid says to Edmund — “this statement is actually true but I want the world to think it is not by suing those buggers”) and Edmund goes on to issue a demand against The Malaysian Insider, et al, only then is he guilty of a disciplinary wrong, or even possibly a crime.

If there is no reason for Edmund to refuse his client’s instructions, the law says that Edmund MUST take the brief, if —

  1. there is no conflict of interest;
  2. he practices in the area of defamation; and
  3. Khalid agrees to pay a reasonable price for the job.

We cannot expect Edmund to simply dismiss his client’s instructions as false and refuse to take the brief. That would actually be a disciplinary wrong and Edmund would be subject to censure.

A photo of Edmund Bon, which has been selected randomly and not for any comedy value. No, really.

Can you imagine what would happen if we expect and allow lawyers to take cases at their own whims and fancies? It would be like living in a country where the taxi drivers can choose whether to take their customers or not! That’s so third-world-nation, dudes.

This rule is called the “cab-rank” rule by the way.

Lawyers are your taxis dudes. To get you from where you meet them to where you intend to go. As long as where you want to go doesn’t mean doing anything illegitimate which means the lawyer gets into trouble as well!

If you don’t support Edmund Bon Tai Soon, you’re not gonna go anywhere dudes. We’re not gonna go anywhere dudes. This whole freaking nation is just gonna be at a standstill, or even… go backwards.

Come on homies. Big up the Bon.

He’s just following the Common Law as it truly is and acting with common sense.

Are you?

Khabir Dhillon is an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and a Nationalistic Malaysian. He likes to think that he has useful things to say but many say that it is only he who thinks...

26 replies on “In Defence of Edmund Bon”

  1. You have raised many points requiring rebuttal DAP Man.

    I shall ponder upon them and perchance place them into context after mass tomorrow.

    We are grateful for your engagement in reason.


  2. Agreed. Bon can take up any case he wants or all the cases that come to him. But Bon acceptance of this Khalid's case contradicts his public stance as a non-nonsense human rights lawyer. I have seen countless cases of lawyers refusing to take up cases on reasons that will baffle you.
    If Ibrahim Ali is charged with sedition for threatening to burn the bibles, would Bon defend him. Would Bon represent the Kelantan government to help implement Hudud in the state?
    Why would a human rights lawyer represent a person who mocks at justice, democracy and fair play?
    Why would Bon help Khalid's evil designs to deregister PKR using a law that violates human rights and justice? Why go a biased and unjust RoS for justice? Money. Is that all that matters?
    Why would Bon accept Khalid defamation case against TMI when he is already in the fz panel. On this ground alone he could have declined to take up Khalid's case. Instead he dropped an existing client to take up this case.
    If Bon is a pro-UMNO lawyer, I would't care a damn what he does.
    Bon has lost the right to stand up for human rights and fair play.

  3. Just another shyster bigging up another shyster. No one would have batted an eyelid if he didn't spend the last decade or so trying to portray an image of a human rights champion. So, seriously what's that brown stuff at the end of your nose?

    1. Lawyers are just shysters? Fighting for human rights is just an image? Having a name like Zzz is what makes a real difference in the world?

      Asshole. GFYS.

      1. Get real, if it isn't an image that he's fighting for human rights then why claim that he's just a lawyer now going against one's better conscience!

        And it's arsehole. Go learn some English… So having a name of a sea monster also makes a great difference? Lol, you're just another keyboard warrior like me. Pot, kettle, black…. At least one thing I'm not – a brown noser.

        1. You little piss. You admit you're just a keyboard warrior (probably fighting his own demons and nothing else) but give no credit to Edmund Bon and Khabir for being lawyers.

          Shysters you say. Khabir brown-nosing Edmund and getting shit on his nose, you say.

          Unlike yourself, you say. Keyboard warrior extraordinaire. With nothing to say about the substance of what Khabir wrote or what Edmund did. Just banging away at the keyboard and letting everyone know that there is no good in this world, only shysters and more shysters.

          Asshole. People like you make me sick.

          Go do something useful like go and fuck yourself. You might actually exorcise those demons that bug you.

          Instead of bothering all of us with these useless comments.


          1. Slow day at the courts, huh?

            So what are you? A sad, pathetic lawyer (assuming you are one based on the offence towards the word shyster) who has a sick perverted fantasy of autofellatio. You are also nothing more than another keyboard warrior? What intelligence have you ol' great brown noser have you contributed to this discussion (oh wait, it's not a discussion since you can only resort to throwing vulgarities)?

            Considering my comments are so useless, the fact that you took the time to reply to them suggests otherwise. Also, go look up the spelling of ARSEhole before you make a further ASS of yourself.

          2. LOL… I think you need to go read what "fuck" means.

            Guessing since you have trouble with English noted with your difficulty grasping the word "arsehole", here goes:

            Fuck is an English-language word, a profanity which refers to the act of sexual intercourse.

            And for sexual intercourse:
            Sexual intercourse, or coitus or copulation, is chiefly the insertion and thrusting of a male's penis, usually when erect, into a female's vagina for the purposes of sexual pleasure or reproduction; also known as vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex. Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include penetration of the anus by the penis (anal sex), penetration of the mouth by the penis or oral penetration of the vulva or vagina (oral sex), sexual penetration by the fingers (fingering), and penetration by use of a strap-on dildo.

            Anyway guess since you're a Leviathan you're able to tentacle rape yourself… I'm not able to do that I'm afraid, so good on you for that! You've got to do better than that when coming up with insults, pathetic shyster.

  4. Dear friend,
    you quote the law but you did not specify the law.
    May I know what authority are you using : –
    "i) there is no conflict of interest;
    ii) he practices in the area of defamation; and
    iii) Khalid agrees to pay a reasonable price for the job."

    1. I think the lawyer's ignorance to truth protects the truth, who's job, is to defend what he thinks is true as best he can, in this world of extremely vague truths.

      1. And what i mean by that is, as long as the the lawyer has not been informed that they are manipulating the truth, as how khabir had mentioned, then there leaves more room for the truth to prevail with less players playing lies against the prevailance of truth.

      1. But you just said he Must file the brief. And yet you said Do the right thing. What if the right thing is to not file the brief…And you said Must know: no reason to refuse means dont know any reason to refuse. Not necessarily to know..Dude

        1. You are being tiresome. There is a huge difference between taking on a brief and filing papers for that brief.

          1. When one contradicts oneself it is certainly tiresome,no? You implying one can take on a brief and refuse to file?

          2. One can take on a brief and not file any papers in Court. Come on lah. You are exhausting me with this rubbish attacks on my reasoning.

          3. I am just clarying. One must take a brief and can make a Choice not to file it even if the client who has paid one to take the brief instructs one to do it? And that is considered ok? And btw. Your responses reflect the type of person you are. You can choose to be civil and patient or otherwise and every action is a choice of not what to do but is a choice of who you want to be

          4. I am civil and patient to those who acknowledge that I am teaching them.

            To the arrogant denialists, I am a bit short.

          5. You didnt answer the question. You are civil to those who listen but not those who disagree. Thats seems to be a common Malaysian trait. And in what way were my questions arrogant. When caught in a corner you just choose to call others names. I am merely trying to establish if actions of a lawyer is becuse of one's choice or lack of it. Do lawyers have a choice to refuse a client. The reasons for his choice is a separate matter

    1. I worship not Edmund. I worship the moment I witnessed where Edmund did his work and gave a fuck about all the bullshit. Even about what others may think of him. He did something divine in a moment in this fallible life of his.

      I worship not Edmund. I worship his expression of the divine by him doing his work. As professionally as the bridge on the Starship Enterprise.

      I worship that.

Comments are closed.