We
are lawyers and we should all be treated as equal members of the Bar,
irrespective of years of standing, the positions one previously held or the
cars we use. The young lawyers, discriminated against by virtue of section
46A have always been fighting to be treated as equals in our legal
fraternity.
Equal Amongst Equals
Every year members of the Bar elect in their
representatives to the Bar Council for a term of one-year. The 36 members of
the Bar Council then chose amongst themselves the office bearers for the
year. The office bearers by virtue of their position is just as equal as any
other member of the Bar Council. That is how things should be, have been and
must continue to be.
No NEED for a NEW class of lawyers
Now that
T.
Kuhanandan's article entitled "Conflicting views vs Conflicting
Interest", whereby he had also included a letter allegedly written by 8
presidents of yesteryears, have been posted on the Malaysian Bar website for
public viewing, I am now compelled to raise several matters for the good of
the Bar.
There seem to be an elite group of people within the Malaysian Bar that use
the fact that they were former Presidents of the Malaysian Bar as a criteria
to distinguish themselves from the general membership of the Bar and these
was done when some of these past presidents wrote a letter dated 21-7-2005
to Yeo Yang Poh (the then President of the Malaysian Bar) about what the Bar
Council should do after the Court of Appeal decision.
If the letter had been just from a few lawyers without
making any reference to the fact that they were previous presidents, it
would have been alright for after all any lawyer or group of lawyers can
write to the Bar Council on any matter.
I wonder whether the reference to the fact that they were past presidents
was intentionally done to intimidate the then Bar Council? We do not need
any "eminent persons clubs" within the Malaysian Bar. All lawyers are equal
and should behave as such.
Mah and Hendon Did Wrong
What is most disturbing is the fact that there were 2
sitting members in the then Bar Council who also joined this elitist group
in sending this letter - namely Mr Mah Weng Kwai and Puan Hendon Mohamed.
In the case of Mr. R. R. Chelvarajah, who is also a member of the Bar
Council 2005/2006, it is different since he had taken the position right at
the onset that he did not consider the Bar Council as being valid and true
to his position, he had subsequently stayed away from all Bar Council
meetings.
But in the case of Mr Mah Weng Kwai and Puan Hendon Mohamed, they were part
of the Bar Council and participated in the decision-making process of the
Bar Council with regard to this AGM matter, and as such their participation
in this letter was not at all right or proper.
At present, in the Bar Council there also exists an Executive Committee
whose members are, besides the Office Bearers, by "convention" the former
office bearers in the then Bar Council. The role of this Executive Committee
is to make urgent decisions in between meetings of the Bar Council, if and
when the need arises.
I am of the strong opinion that this is a bad "convention" which must be
done away with forthwith. Henceforth members of the Executive Committee
should be elected by the members of the Bar Council from amongst its members
without giving any special consideration as to whether one was a former
office bearer or not.
For the record, both Mah and Hendon were also members of this Executive
Committee when the letter of the "former presidents" was written.
If a sitting member of the Bar Council is unhappy with a decision of the Bar
Council, I am of the opinion that he should then bring the matter to the
attention of the general membership and lobby his position there - not band
together with a group of past presidents and send a letter of this sort. The
message that letter meant to convey seems to be "listen to your seniors and
your past Presidents" - and this was not right or proper.
The letter, of course, asked that the President and the Bar Council consider
the views of these "eminent" past presidents, and so it was done. But when
this letter addressed to the then President of the Bar and the Bar Council
suddenly emerged in the public arena, apparently with the consent of these
past Presidents, one cannot but question the intentions of the authors of
this letter and the one who has caused this letter to be published now.
What Mah and Hendon did, in my opinion, was wrong - more so if they had also
agreed that this letter be published to the membership now. Mah and Hendon
cannot now attempt to distance themselves from decisions made by the then
Bar Council, of which they were a part of. For their actions, as a matter of
principle, they may even have to consider resignation - more so if they had
also agreed that Mr Kuhan use it in his article especially since this was
not an open letter to the members of the Bar but a private letter addressed
to Yang Poh and the Bar Council.
Council Decides Not Office Bearers
In Mr Kuhan's article, he seems to be giving the
impression that many of the decisions were made by the office bearers on
their own. Let it be stated that I, and I believe my fellow members of the
then Bar Council, would not have allowed the office bearers to make
arbitrary decisions on their own or to continue to act on such decisions if
the Council did not agree with them.
In fact in the then Bar Council 2005/2006, based on the information of those
who have been there in Council for some time, there was a lot more
consultation by the office bearers with the other members of the Bar Council
even between meetings. The new Bar Council E-Group helped a lot in making
this possible.
Cooling-Off Period for senior Bar Councillors
The presence of past presidents and office bearers can
sometimes be an impediment to the current office bearers, who were once
ordinary council members or not even in council during the reign of these
office bearers of yesteryears. The same kind of influence seems to be there
on members of the Bar who seem to give too high regard to opinions of past
presidents and office bearers. This should not be the case because all of us
should be able look on each and every lawyer, irrespective of seniority or
the positions they previously held, as equals - but alas, we are only human.
Maybe for the good of the Bar, office bearers of yesteryears and those who
have been in the Bar Council for more than 5 years should seriously consider
taking a break of at least 1 to 3 years for the good of the Bar. Or maybe
not if members still want them to represent the members in the Bar Council.
When one Chief Justice resigned and soon after joined a law firm, the Bar
took the position that it would be better if there was at least a 3-year
cooling-off period. Likewise maybe past presidents and office bearers should
also have a cooling-off period from the Bar Council. We have over 12,000
members and surely we have more than enough suitably qualified persons to be
part of the Bar Council. Last year, when I entered Bar Council through the
postal ballot, I was the only new face out of the 12 who were elected in.
Silence would have been an option for me BUT then my conscience would not
have allowed me to keep quiet. I may have been a bit hard on some of our
more influential brethren in the Bar but it had to be done as a matter of
principle for the good of the Bar as a whole.