Sabah, politicians and lawyers

 

In a LinkedIn post, a lawyer commented:

Chris K.  Seasoned Lawyer & Coder & US Patentee | LLM AI Governance Compliance | Data Breach Coach

Commented as follows:

Ronny Cham, when elections come around in Sabah, people don’t really have good choices. It’s always the same politicians, switching parties and keeping the same old ways that help themselves, not the people. Each new generation of "leaders" just repeats this cycle, focusing on their own interests instead of Sabah’s welfare. Because of this, elections feel pointless—nothing really changes.

To fix this, Sabah needs new leaders who will truly stand up for the state. First, federal parliamentary seats should be adjusted to reflect changes since Singapore left Malaysia. Next, Sabah should work closely with Sarawak, using fair policies—like using English (school/government departments), making university free for locals, and hiring based on merit. These changes won’t happen overnight, but they are possible within my lifetime.

I then responded:

Chris K. I refer to your 'focusing on their own interests instead of Sabah’s welfare.'

Lawyers face a tough balancing act. On one hand, their job is to represent clients zealously, regardless of personal beliefs or the case’s broader impact. The legal system relies on this to ensure everyone gets a fair shot at justice. On the other hand, taking cases that harm the state—like defending corruption or actions undermining public safety—can erode trust and stability. Lawyers should have some discretion. Lawyers should weigh the case’s merits and their ethical obligations. If a case is clearly detrimental—like enabling systemic harm—they might refuse, but the bar should be high to avoid undermining the right to counsel.

Then Chris replied:

My reference to 'focusing on their own interests instead of Sabah’s welfare.' is for politicians NOT lawyers. Lawyers have a duty to the Court, i.e., they know their clients are not innocent then they have to draw a line by quitting. On the other hand, they must pursue justice for them as long as they are still "innocent" in their eyes. Lawyers have a duty to client and to court combined with the Court on top, so while the lawyer cannot tell the Court what he or she knows, however they must resign and the Court will approve of their termination of service. As to your point about corruption or actions that undermine public safety? I defended corruption cases before at the appellant level. The problem here in Malaysia is corruption cases are usually made by entrapment which is LEGAL in Malaysia but is illegal in UK or other common law jurisdictions. So, we usually get small fries being caught just to bolster up our numbers of corruption so Govt is seen doing something when the big fish run away. So, the fact that Malaysia's Corruption Index did not move any needle for the last 5 years say something...

I replied:

Chris K., thanks for clarifying that your comment about self-interest was aimed at politicians. However, I’d argue lawyers aren’t entirely exempt from similar scrutiny. While lawyers have a duty to the court and clients, as you noted, some prioritize personal gain, taking actions that harm Sabah’s welfare. For instance, a lawyer in Sabah blocked a simple meeting between house buyers and a developer by demanding the buyers rent a hotel meeting hall, bring their own lawyer, engineer, architect, and even the press, instead of facilitating a straightforward discussion, perhaps at a buyer’s home. Three years later, the buyers still haven’t met the developer, raising questions about the lawyer’s ethics in prioritizing obstacles over resolution. Given your point about entrapment in corruption cases often targeting smaller players while big fish escape, do you think lawyers could advocate for systemic changes—like challenging practices that obstruct public access to justice to better serve Sabah’s interests alongside their professional duties? If buyers are forced to resort to courts for such basic issues, is that a failure of legal ethics or the system itself?

To be continued…