KUALA LUMPUR, July 16 ― The proposed appointment of two government representatives in the Bar Council will not only compromise its independence but may also drive away foreign investors, Malaysian Bar president Steven Thiru said.

He added that foreign investors want an independent Bar in case of disputes with the authorities.

"Once you do not have an independent Bar, it becomes a concern for the foreign investor -- ‘If I actually have a problem with the local authorities, how would I resolve it in a way that’s consistent with the rule of law if the Bar itself is controlled or influenced by the government?” Steven told Malay Mail Online at an exclusive interview on Thursday.

He said foreign investors want both an independent Bar and an independent judiciary, and that it would be very difficult for the latter to operate effectively without the former.

"The investor must know that the government doesn’t control the Bar so that he can be confident that the lawyer representing him can do his best before an independent judiciary,” the head of the peninsular legal body added.

According to Steven, Putrajaya is proposing to appoint two government representatives to the Bar Council to "report to the government”, despite Section 76(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 mandating confidentiality of Bar Council discussions.

However, these two members will not be eligible to contest any office bearer position, namely the president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer.

This proposal, he said, would inhibit open and free discussion within the executive body of the Malaysian Bar as these discussions would then be reported back to the government.

Significant amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976 are expected to be tabled in Parliament in October. 

Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali said in an article published in local daily Berita Harian earlier this month that the purpose of introducing government representatives was to ensure "good relations” between the government and Malaysian Bar members.

"When you have government appointees in the Bar Council, that will only engender unnecessary suspicion, angst and antagonism towards the government,” Steven said in response. "It’ll make the relationship worse and undermine our existing professional working relationship with the government.”

Steven also denied claims that there are gag orders in the Bar Council and stressed that confidentiality rules are meant to promote robust discussions.

"Even with confidentiality, Bar Council decisions are communicated to members and Bar Council members can disclose the arguments made for and against on an issue, without attributing statements to any individual Council member,” said Steven.

He also said introducing government representatives in the Bar Council, who are not bound by confidentiality rules as they’re required to report to Putrajaya, could expose Bar Council members to prosecution.

It might also cause a split in the Bar Council’s stand on issues if government representatives publicly take differing stands on issues like the Sedition Act 1948, which the Bar says should be abolished.

"That infringes the most basic rule of an independent Bar -- that you can have a third party appoint somebody to the Bar Council and require that person to report to them,” Steven said about the proposal for government representatives in the Bar Council.

Steven also expressed serious concerns over the proposed amendments to empower the minister in charge of legal affairs to make rules and regulations on elections to the Bar Council and of office bearers of the Malaysian Bar.

"This will allow the government to change our election rules if the desired election results are not obtained. This clearly allows the government to control or influence the Bar,” he said.

The Malaysian Bar president added that the proposal for a minister to decide the Malaysian Bar’s election regulations violated international law, pointing out that the Universal Declaration on the Independence of Justice and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers opposed external interference with the electoral process of professional lawyers’ associations.