The mistaken case of Mr.z

People are not perfect. That is fact. Even a chap whom so happen is named ‘Kamal’ – which means ‘perfect’ in Arabic by the way, is very far from perfect. So much so that if you were to call out to him by his name, you’d be lying. In the same way you would be lying calling a girl who you know is damn ugly, ‘Ayu’.

So than, making a mistake or two every now and then is for the most part of it acceptable and even understandable. We are surrounded by mistakes - Taking your motorcycle instead of your car to work during rainy season is a mistake; making a career a change from a fairly paid Legal Assistant to a dead bored Manager in a GLC is a mistake; buying a Proton is a mistake; a lady wearing flashing red lingerie underneath a white linen shirt is a mistake, well no actually that will be picturesque. Anyway, you get the idea.     

You might even win people’s sympathy despite having made a mistake. People are forgiving and that is just human. So you’d make a mistake, people will likely sympathize and forgive you thereafter. This is basically the unwritten doctrine which is well embedded in the fabric of our society. So much so that even the police force is trying to invoke this doctrine by saying that a member of its force had shot a fifteen year old boy dead after practically showering the car with shots from a submachinegun leaving thirty two bullet holds after mistaking the boy for what? – Benjamin Netanyahu?   

This doctrine however does not apply just so easily to leaders. You see, the moment you’re a leader you’d be expected to be better, smarter, wiser than all the other blokes out there – at least that’s the general idea. You’d be expected to make sound decisions, exercise greater diligence and be firmer in your standings and believe. Putting it simply, a leader is expected to know better and that said, when a leader commits a mistake people will not be in too much of a hurry to sympathize and forgive. And people really shouldn’t.

Which brings me to Mr. Z, this is a guy who started of very well having established what is now the biggest law firm in Malaysia and thereafter decided that he wanted to give back and make changes to the society by venturing into UMNO only to find out that he had mistaken UMNO for PKR and believing that his place is in PKR, he later joined PKR and a year later whilst on the verge of losing PKR’s election after three quarter’s of the election found out that PKR’s leaders are corrupted and having admitted he had made a mistake in joining PKR he has now relinquish all post held in the party. Fuhh… that was long!

So Mr. Z has mistakenly joined UMNO and later made the same mistake of joining PKR. Two mistakes of a similar nature by a leader. Would I forgive him then? Yes, I would- And so quickly at that. Have I contradicted myself? Well- No.

                                                                                                                         

To understand why is not all too difficult; you just need to understand lawyers and the way they work. Now, when a potential client approaches a lawyer for legal representation in court, a lawyer would hear the person out and pretty much accept whatever is said at face value and as divine truth- even if the client could likely be lying through his teeth, having the moral standings of a fish and his forehead is painted with the words like “MY WIFE WEARS THE PANTS IN MY HOUSE”. It would not matter and it is not because the lawyer is stiff or plain dumb but rather he is duty bound to give the best possible legal representation to any person who walks through his office door. Than the lawyer would proceed to discuss the matters of legal fees, the importance of client’s attendance in court, providing him with the necessary document and most importantly to do as he is told. Than the lawyer tells the client that so long as the client agrees to all the above the lawyer would pour his soul into the client’s case; the lawyer than took up the case. All went well until a year later, the client suddenly grew a mind and decided that he doesn’t want his case to be conducted in the manner that it is and further decided to stop giving into the lawyer’s demands. The lawyer having warned the client countless times finally decided to discharge himself from representing the client and cited a multitude of excuses like- the client is no longer cooperative, he was mistaken for having thought that the client is committed to the case and all efforts to communicate with his client has been in vein. The lawyer will than be discharged, go back to his office and wait for another punter to walk through his office door and the same will likely repeat itself, again.        

If you are to rationally apply the above to Zaid Ibrahim’s scenario than what he did can easily be conceived as a man doing his job and staying true to what he has been trained to do. He is just a lawyer discharging himself from acting for a client whom he perceives as being ‘no longer cooperative, not committed to the case and all efforts to communicate has been in vein’. Period. In fact, I wouldn’t go so far so as to say that he made a mistake. I would in fact say that he is exercising his professional rights.

But if he was to start another political party, would I support him than? Depends… would you want to be represented by a lawyer whom you know would likely desert you half way through your case? Go figure.