Someone needs to explain to Ramasamy that a legal letter is generally issued by an advocate for the purpose of making a demand or soliciting an agreement on behalf of his (or her) client.
To accuse an advocate of harbouring a different kind of intent or acting in a way that runs contrary to law or legal ethics is unprofessional, prejudiced, slanderous and tarnishes the reputation of the said advocate.
It could also be construed as a wilful attempt on Ramasamy’s part to shift conversations away from the actions Zakir has initiated against him by using the firm as scapegoat.
That itself is an abuse of the democratic process as Ramasamy is using his status as a public figure to confuse the people who brought him into power through the process.
It is therefore wise for the legal firm representing Zakir to send Ramasamy yet another letter, this time, by the firm itself, demanding that the latter apologise for publicly defaming the firm.
SUBANG JAYA: Penang Deputy Chief Minister II Ramasamy seems to be under immense pressure after having been served two letters of demand by Dr Zakir Naik via a Shah Alam based legal firm.
Yesterday, the Indian preacher, branded a “fugitive televangelist” by DAP leaning media, served a notice demanding that Ramasamy apologise within 48 hours for defaming him during an interview with India Today.
Zakir claimed Ramasamy had uttered words that painted him out to be an unprincipled and unethical individual who employed Islamic teachings for personal gains or purposes.
According to NST Online, the five-page notice read; “We (lawyers) are instructed to reiterate the said defamatory statements were clearly actuated by malice, hatred, envy, spite and or motivated to shore up your (Ramasamy) sagging popularity in his political party (DAP), after being sidelined in the party election.
“Clearly, we are instructed to state that the said defamatory statements bear a strong connotation that you had deliberately abused your position as the Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang.”
Meanwhile, the Malay Mail Online reported that Ramasamy lodged a police report against Zakir yesterday after receiving the second notice of demand. According to the portal, Ramasamy also claimed he would lodging a report against the law firm representing Zakir.
Clearly, Ramasamy has lost it.
The last I checked, everyone in Malaysia reserved the right to legal representation no matter what the cause or circumstances were.
The purpose of such representation is to ensure that one is assisted in court by an advocate who is well versed with court proceedings, legal terminology and processes that can be extremely confusing.
Even if you’re accused of committing murder or rape, you have the right to legal representation. It is also the right of any legal firm to offer representation to any willing party no matter what the nature of the charge, conflict or accusation involving that party is.
Having proper representation prevents you from losing a case due to technicalities and helps ensure that all factors are duly considered by the court of law.
For Ramasamy to lodge a police report against a law firm representing Zakir just because the firm sent him a legal letter makes no sense whatsoever, both legally and logically.
Someone needs to explain to Ramasamy that a legal letter is generally issued by an advocate for the purpose of making a demand or soliciting an agreement on behalf of his (or her) client.
To accuse an advocate of harbouring a different kind of intent or acting in a way that runs contrary to law or legal ethics is unprofessional, prejudiced, slanderous and tarnishes the reputation of the said advocate.
It could also be construed as a wilful attempt on Ramasamy’s part to shift conversations away from the actions Zakir has initiated against him by using the firm as scapegoat.
That itself is an abuse of the democratic process as Ramasamy is using his status as a public figure to confuse the people who brought him into power through the process.
It is therefore wise for the legal firm representing Zakir to send Ramasamy yet another letter, this time, by the firm itself, demanding that the latter apologise for publicly defaming the firm.
RJ Rithaudeen
