OCTOBER 29 — Lawyer and Bar Council member Syahredzan Johan, in response to mounting criticism over the Malaysian Bar’s silence over ex-Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram’s representation of Anwar Ibrahim, took to social media defending this silence, saying, among others that a resolution passed against ex-judges appearing as counsels in courts did not impose a restriction on retired judges and was not meant to be a constraint. It is therefore, according to him, non-binding and unenforceable (Lawyer: Malaysian Bar not ‘hypocritical’, no legal restriction on ex-judges as counsel, The Malay Mail Online, 29 October 2014).

No doubt resolutions passed by the Malaysian Bar are not law and cannot be enforced. But such resolutions are supposed to be statements of intent, issued purportedly to represent the views of the legal profession as a whole, particularly when passed at Annual General Meetings or Extraordinary General Meetings, when all members of the Bar have the opportunity to attend, voice their views and vote thereon.

Only this month we have witnessed the Malaysian Bar’s so-called “Walk for Peace and Freedom” which itself is organised pursuant to a resolution passed by the Bar Council on at an Extraordinary General Meeting held on 29 September 2014. The resolution describes the Sedition Act 1948 as draconian, inhibiting freedom of speech and not right for this present day and age. The resolution also calls on members of the Bar to pressure the Malaysian Government to hold to its previous alleged undertaking to repeal the Act, and decries the Government’s inaction over this undertaking. But this resolution is non-binding and unenforceable too, isn’t it? Is it to be ignored as well?

The question that begs the most answer to now is, does the Malaysian Bar, and do members of the current Bar Council in particular, have any credibility left within them?

It does not take much to see that they don’t. On one hand, the Bar Council wants the Sedition Act 1948 repealed. It set up and supported the #MansuhkanAktaHasutan campaign, led by non-other than Syahredzan himself. It has, via its President, Mr Christopher Leong in particular, issued numerous statements against continued use of the Sedition Act. It has also convened a special EGM tabling a resolution calling for the Act’s repeal, and pursuant to the resolution, passed by 701 Malaysian Bar members who represent a mere four per cent of the total practising lawyers in Malaysia who number some 15,000, it has organized a walk against the Sedition Act, and has even enlisted the support of copious international bar associations, from the Law Society of Australia to the American Bar Association, as well as international legal organisations such as LAWASIA and the Commonwealth Law Association, to support its cause.

On the other hand, the Bar Council, consisting of the very same members who now sit therein, earlier, in this very year itself, 2014, passed a resolution at the Annual General Meeting on 5 March, against the practice of ex-members of the Bench appearing as counsel before the Judiciary of which they themselves were once members of and now says that such resolutions are non-binding, unenforceable and to be ignored. By the way, I note that Syahredzan made it clear he is not speaking on behalf of the Bar Council, but being a member thereof, his statement would, especially in the context it was given, have effect nonetheless as representing the views of the Bar Council, especially when its president continues to maintain his silence on this matter.

Double standards and hypocrisy much, anyone?

Perhaps the rest of us practising lawyers should take the cue and start ignoring Malaysian Bar resolutions. After all, if they won’t be respected by the office bearers themselves, then why should we? We have businesses to run and families to feed. We don’t have time for the games the Bar Council wants us to play and in any event, the resolutions are, in their words “not meant to be a constraint”. So, fellow members of the Bar, the next time a notice of AGM or EGM arrives on your firm’s doorstep, urging your attendance at the next meeting and your vote in favour of any resolution, do yourself a favour instead and toss it aside.

That is the treatment that the Bar Council gave its own resolution on ex-judges appearing as counsel, that is also the treatment we should give the resolution against the Sedition Act, and that, my learned friends, is what we should tell the Bar what we think of their resolutions.

*Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi is a practising lawyer in Hartamas Heights, Kuala Lumpur

**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.