TOWARDS A TRANSFORMED BAR..

IS THE BAR COUNCIL TRULY REPRESENTATIVE...

The Bar Council is supposed to be the leadership of the Malaysian Bar, but the question that we must ask now is whether the Bar Council is truly representative of its membership.

The Bar Council comprises of 12 members of the Bar of more than 7 years standing elected in by way of postal ballot cast by the members of the Bar. The Bar Council also comprises of the Chairpersons of State Bar Committees and one representative elected at the Annual General Meetings of each of the State Bar Committee. The Immediate Past President and the immediate Past Vice President is also automatically a member of the Bar Council. The total membership of the Bar Council is 36.

The Bar Council should be representative of the general membership of the Malaysian Bar, but from my observations this seems to be not the case. As an example, I refer to two Annual General Meetings of the Malaysian Bar whereby the membership present at the said meetings did indicate the person that they would prefer to be the President of the Bar, but alas when the Bar Council met after the said AGMs some other person was chosen.

CLIQUES AND FACTIONS IN THE BAR COUNCIL?

Why did this happen? Some observations and queries  revealed a most disturbing fact that in fact within the Bar Council, there are two or more factions who actively campaign and lobby for members of their respective faction to be the President and the office bearers of the Malaysian Bar. What is disturbing also is that this trend is not new but have been going on for some years.

I  am of the opinion that once a person becomes a member of the Bar Council, he/she must never forget that they are representing the general membership of the Bar, especially the 12 who were elected through the postal ballot. Those voted in through the State Bar Committees should also realize that they represent the members of their State Bar. Hence when it comes to making decisions or voting on any matter, this fact must never be forgotten. As a representative, the views and concerns of those that they are representing must be taken into consideration. To vote as “factions” or “cliques” is most unhealthy and disturbing. When making decisions, the members of the Bar Council must take all factors into consideration, including the views of the general membership, and vote with clear conscience for the good of the Malaysian Bar.

To solicit votes, there must not be any promises made to individual persons in whatever form. There is a belief that one of these promises may have been the chairmanship of certain Committees. At present, when it comes to the appointment and/or removal of Chairpersons of Committees, it is decided by the new President and his office bearers. This state of affairs should be reviewed . At present, the state of affairs allows the victorious President and/or  his office bearers to make good their promises to others for their support during the election process. I hope that this is not true, but it is important that this be raised now. I sincerely hope that the Bar Council and/or its members will make a response to clarify matters.

The manner of choosing the Chairpersons of the various committees should be done by the Bar Council as a whole and not merely by the President and the principal office bearers. Better still, it should maybe be done by the membership of the individual committees itself.

SECRETS KNOWN ONLY TO BAR COUNCILLORS

Another possible reason why the expressed  choice of the membership at the Annual General Meeting was apparently ignored by the Bar Council when they chose  the President of the Malaysian Bar was because there were  facts that was only known to the members of the Council, and  that this was what  influenced their choice Preseident.

Mr Mah’s statement, as reported in the media seem to imply that Tuan Haji Sulaiman, the immediate past President had failed to act “timeously” and “without constraint”. The words used was, and still is a mystery to the general  membership -  maybe Mr Mah was talking about matters that he and the rest of the Council were aware of but not the general membership.  This kind of  “secrets” should never exist - there is thus a need for greater transparency and accountability.

Dr Cyrus Victor  Das, when he was the President of the Bar, did at one of the General Meetings reprimand a Bar Council member for raising matters that was previously raised, discussed and decided upon at the Bar Council meeting. I do not agree that there should be any sort of “gag orders” placed on any members of the Bar Council to prevent them from raising any  matters, previously discussed and decided upon at Bar Council meetings, with the general membership.  The minority view will of course get shot down at Bar Council meetings - but this should never  prevent these members of the Bar (who also are Bar Council members)  from raising such matters again with the general membership. We are after all are lawyers and when we are unhappy with any decision, we will appeal. Likewise, if a  members of the Bar is not happy with a decision of the Bar Council, then the most appropriate next step would be to bring the issue to the general membership.

In fact in the last Annual General Meeting, this was exactly what was done with regard  the “freedom of religion” issue by way of an open letter. I have no objections to the raising of this issue, but only the manner in which it was done, i.e. through a last minute open letter that never really  reached all members of the Bar before the Annual General Meeting. A motion would have been more appropriate.

FAILURE TO ACT “TIMEOUSLY” AND “WITHOUT CONSTRAINT”

Likewise, the failings and the shortcomings of the past President should also have been brought to the attention of the general membership. At the AGM, there was nothing really that was raised that showed that the past President had failed to act “timeously” and “without constraint”. Was it with regard the issuing of the freedom of religion statement? It cannot be the case since the Bar Council as a  whole  had voted against the issuance of that statement. However, if the Bar Council had voted for the issuance of that statement, and the past President had declined to do so - then he must, I feel,  immediately resign OR alternatively be  forced to tender his resignation.

With regard to the “freedom of religion” statement proposed by the Human Rights Committee, it was  came across to many as though  that the person who opposed the issuance of the statement was Haji Sulaiman, the then President of the Bar. I have discovered that the issuing of the statement was in fact opposed by a majority in the Bar Council, including Mr Mah (the present President)  himself. When it comes to voting on any issue, members of the Bar Council must act independently and vote in accordance with their own conscience, always taking into account the views and feelings of the membership of the Bar. I will not want to venture further into this issue, as this matter is still being discussed by the Bar Council and the Human Rights Committee.

AFTER THE VOTES ARE CAST..UNITY MUST BE THE PRIORITY

After the Bar Council decides on its office bearers democratically, it is most important that the all members of the Council acknowledge and accept the decision of the majority and carry on functioning as one united body for the good of the Malaysian Bar. The duty and responsibility of uniting the Bar Council rest heavily on the shoulders of the new President and office bearers. The victorious should not penalise those who supported their challengers, and neither should they reward their loyal supporters.

From my own observation in the past, supporters of the different candidates come out of the Bar Council meeting as separate groups - One group elated and the other group depressed with the outcome.

Some of these supporters of the different candidates (and sometimes even the candidates themselves) can sometimes for the whole year go on without talking to one another as friends. This kind of behaviour  one would not have expected from senior lawyers. In fact I hope that members of the Bar should unite, and forget their petty differences, for the good of the Malaysian Bar. Let us not forget that the Malaysian Bar is a fellowship of lawyers -  there are no political parties here - let us thus behave professionally.

The new leadership’s  first task after they are voted into office is to mend bridges, and unite the Council. As an act of good faith, perhaps, they could  offer important positions to the losing candidates. If, however, they fail to unite the Council then for the whole of their term, they will be burdened by the existence of two or more cliques or factions. Maybe after every meeting that chooses the new office bearers, the Council should retreat to some island hide-away for a few days to have some fun and games, of course with the primary intention of uniting the Bar Council.

After the last election of the office bearers, the President’s  remarks, as reported in the mass media, seem to suggest that the the past president lost because of his failure to act timeously and “without constraint” was uncalled for, and most definitely would have created even greater obstacles in the efforts of uniting the Bar Council. The number of votes that each candidate  obtained should also have not been revealed to the public. Of course, it may have been possible that Mr Mah never said those things but the reports was not very accurate. The membership of the Bar have the right and should know the outcome of the Bar Elections, but not the public generally.

The Bar Council is only 36 persons, and if it is disunited it is a shame. In unity there is strength, and Mr Mah now is faced with the task of uniting the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar as we strive to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour.

TOWARDS GREATER EFFECTIVENESS

I just recently received the Infoline, in which the composition of the various committees were published. I note that the principal office bearers are the Chairpersons of at least 12 of the about 30 committees of the Bar Council. This is most unhealthy. I am of the opinion that since the office bearers are automatically (or can be) ex-officio in all committees, they should not be chairpersons in any of the committees. Mr Mah and the office bearers of the Bar Council should put their full effort and time concentrating on the roles as office bearers. Let others head the different committees.

Similarly, I feel that Chairpersons of State Bar Committee should also not be Chairpersons of the these committees. They should focus their time and efforts in the State Bars. For example, Mr S. Ravichandran, my Selangor Bar Chairman sits as Chairperson for two very active committees of the Bar, that is the Sports Committee and the National Young Lawyers Committee. The Selangor Bar has for the past years failed to even achieve a quorum at the State Bar Annual General Meetings. There is a lot to be done in Selangor.

There are 365 days in a year. All of us are lawyers. If there are 12 meetings a year of the Bar Council, the State Bar Committees and the various Bar Committees a year, taking Mr  Ravi, as an example, he will now have to attend at least 48 days of meetings. Being the Chairperson of a State Bar, he will also be required to attend meetings of sub-committees of the State Bar. This means he will be spending too much time in meetings, and all/some of the committees that he is involved in will suffer. There no lack of persons who can chair the Bar Council Committees, and one should focus their attention to be effective.

I am of the opinion that State Bar Chairpersons should concentrate fully on the State Bar. They cannot and should not take on other responsibilities during their term of office as State Bar Chairpersons. They have to make a choice. One should not strive for  “chairmanship” as though they are trophies or achievements, when one takes over as a chairperson in any committee, one must be willing to concentrate time and effort for the said committee.

Thus I hope that the office bearers of the Bar, and also the State Bar Chairmans who are now Chairmans of Bar Committees do tender their resignation of Chairmanship of Bar Committees in the interest of promoting greater effectiveness within the Bar.

Similarly, I also believe that there should be an open invitation to all members to join the various Bar Council Committees. We have about 10,000 members of the Bar, and I believe that many will step forward in respond to a call for assistance.

I love the Bar, and I hope that my opinions are taken positively and acted upon for the betterment of the Malaysian Bar.

Charles Hector

15 June 2001