It is very clear the strong exchange of words between them over the last few months is from a lack of understanding of the council's role and a lack of information on certain decisions made by the Government.

But a two-hour dialogue between Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Ibrahim Ali, who was just lately placed in charge of the legal portfolio in the PM's Department, and council members on Monday appears to have ironed out some differences and made clear that the council is a watchdog for the public by statute.

And at the end of the day, Ibrahim, who has been very critical of the council's views on various issues, was big enough to say: "We found that the Bar Council was neither anti-government nor wished to contest our decisions. They have full respect for the law."

This should be a welcome turnaround for the Bar, for even as late as March 25, council chairman R.R. Chelvarajah was quoted as saying in response to one of Ibrahim's statements: "The Deputy Minister appears to have added 'Bar bashing' as part of his ministerial responsibility without understanding the role and function of the Malaysian Bar and the Bar Council."

Ibrahim took on the council:

* ON Feb 10, when he told off the council for questioning Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah's decision to suddenly enforce a 20-year-old amendment to the Legal Profession Act, which was passed specifically to deal with a boycott by members of the Malaysian Bar of any trial under the Emergency Regulations; and

* ON March 24, when he told off the council for a resolution passed at the Malaysian Bar calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into alleged improprieties and irregularities in the judiciary, for an inquiry into alleged intimidation of lawyers by the use of contempt powers, and into the criteria applied for judicial appointments, transfers and promotions.

Ibrahim, who had not been informed of the reasons for the sudden enforcement despite his legal portfolio, was left defending the A-G's action with: "He (Mohtar) must have his reasons."

He then hazarded a guess: "It could be because now we have major foreign investments in Malaysia and they want to have their own lawyers to protect their interests."

It was only on April 10 that Mohtar explained that he had enforced the amendment as of Feb 1 to allow him to issue special admission certificates to foreign lawyers who have not been admitted to the Malaysian Bar to appear in courts in the peninsula if they had expertise in specialised fields and if no local skill was available.

If Mohtar had only explained his reasons right from the start, there need not have been the exchange of words.

Especially when he went on to add: "I have given an undertaking that the Bar will be consulted before approval is given for the issuance of the Special Admission Certificates."

One wonders whether the council's stand--that an amendment enacted for a specific purpose could not be used for another--will go the same way as the argument for repealing the Internal Security Act which was enacted to deal with communist insurgency, but is now used to detain politicians and those alleged to have cloned mobilephones, forged passports and spread rumours.

At the press conference called by Ibrahim after the dialogue, he told reporters: "We want to see the Bar Council acting as a truly professional legal institution which upholds the legal profession and is able to keep its house in order."

High on the list of complaints was for the council to discipline its errant members, especially those who constantly postpone cases, tarnish the image of the country and judiciary; and those who breach the etiquette rules by speaking to the press about pending cases or releasing documents to the media.

But Chelvarajah was quick to point out that the council did not protect its members as the Disciplinary Board was autonomous of the council, with President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Lamin Yunus presiding as chairman.

He also added that of the 544 complaints filed last year, 144 came from the council itself.

"If we felt there was a valid complaint but the original complainant withdrew the complaint, we have continued to file one ourselves," stressed Chelvarajah.

The issue of releasing court documents to the press is a tricky one.

With the Official Secrets Act and other restrictive laws hanging over the heads of reporters, journalists grab any document given to them by the Government, especially from the A-G's Chambers.

And while there have been complaints about the release of documents from Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's defence team, the first time that the media carried affidavits in full were the prosecutions in the case of former Magnum Corp Bhd executive director Datuk S. Nallakaruppan last year.

Nalla's defence counsel had objected to the publication of the affidavits on the ground that they were not public documents under the Evidence Act, but the judge held otherwise and this view was endorsed by Chief Justice Tun Eusoff Chin when he was asked about it.

The meeting between Ibrahim and the council was fruitful in that it at least got them to agree to work together.

"We find this exchange of opinion very helpful and it will benefit the judiciary, the legal system and the country in general," said Ibrahim, adding that his department and the council had agreed to meet regularly.

Mutual consultation on matters would clear up any misunderstandings, he added.

Not one to bite the hand holding the olive branch, Chelvarajah said he welcomed the move for greater co-operation and appreciated the Government's decision to "keep an open mind."

"We will also update the department of any issues and work together to resolve any problem or otherwise, in a professional manner, agree to disagree on certain matters," he said, adding that the council was apolitical and was not affiliated to any political party.

The "dialogue" approach must be working because there was no statement from Ibrahim to the council's statements on April 17 in which they raised their concerns over certain issues in Anwar's trial, including the selection of a junior High Court judge to hear the trial, unlike the two previous cases involving politicians who held very high office where the senior judges were brought in to try the cases.

The council had also raised its concern over why the Royal Commission of Inquiry had made no recommendation that any other police officer besides former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor be prosecuted, saying "The question of (the officers) being in a difficult position (because Abdul Rahim was their chief) does not excuse the fact that other police officers concealed the commission of a criminal offence."

There are so many issues affecting the public that need addressing and co-operation is the key.

It is hoped the dialogue approach continues, and maybe with the added participation of the A-G's Chambers, effective solutions can be worked out.