MARCH 22 —This morning, I read a piece penned by my fellow brother at the Bar, Faidur Rahman Abdul Hadi. “Malaysian Bar decision making process in serious need of reform”, the headline blares forth. He puts forward several lamentations.
The crux of this would be vitriol levelled at a Resolution passed at the Bar Council’s 70th Annual General Meeting (AGM), wherein Continuing Professional Development (the CPD Scheme) has now been made mandatory for lawyers admitted from 1 July 2011 onwards.
At the outset and in the interests of full disclosure, I attended the AGM, spoke for the Motion and voted for it. I was called to the Bar in 2012 and am “caught” by the strictures of the Resolution. I would like to deal with a few issues raised in his piece.
a) Ignorance of the preamble
At the outset, it must be noted that my learned brother has failed to acknowledge the purpose and intent of the CPD Scheme.
In paragraph 4 of his article, he states that the CPD Scheme has “long been devised by the Bar Council as a means of oppressing ordinary lawyers out to make ends meet by requiring them to attend talks and other events to collect CPD points, ostensibly in the name of continuous professional development and lifelong learning”.
He appears to have misread the motion. For the benefit of readers and to present a clearer picture, I will put this forward in full:
(2) This motion is pursuant to these objects and powers, and the need for exemplary standards of professional practice, etiquette and conduct to be achieved by Members of the Malaysian Bar (“Members”), and to inculcate a culture of continuing professional development in Members.
I, for one, fail to see how the Bar, in attempting to achieve “exemplary standards of professional practice, etiquette and conduct”, seeks to oppress its Members.
b) Human rights and constitutional issues
My learned brother then raised a second bone of contention. He argues that “one must never force another to do something against his or her will, a human rights principle as old as the conceptualisation of human rights itself, was all but ignored at this AGM”
The Preamble clearly sets out that the purpose of the CPD Scheme is to establish a scheme for the betterment of the Bar. Section 42(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 statutorily fortifies this by stating that “the purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be to maintain and improve the standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Malaysia.”
In passing a Resolution to carry out its statutory duty, the Bar was acting well within its legal ambit and function. How this is against a “human rights principle” is beyond me.
My learned brother appears to have also turned the argument on its head. The Bar isn’t forcing its junior members to do something; it’s merely implementing standards that are to be met by persons wishing to hold themselves out as lawyers. In-time, these standards will apply across the board.
To give you an analogy, imagine that you are a member of the Padang Football Club (Padang FC). It was initially composed of several children from school. Over time, Padang FC’s membership has grown and it now seeks to play in the big leagues, against better trained teams.
Should Padang FC decide to impose minimum fitness standards for its strikers and to relegate those not suited for the role, would one cry human rights? Would one demand that Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution come to one’s aid?
Or rather, would one acknowledge the fact that he’s simply not up to the mark and for that reason alone, will have to give way to another?
The CPD Scheme has nothing to do with constitutional rights or perceived injustices. Much like the striker that cannot claim his human rights have been infringed for failing a fitness test, lawyers cannot cry constitutional foul over minimum standards.
One final point- Supporting the CPD Scheme
My learned brother then pointed out that the countering of the “dastardly attempt” to pass the Motion was made by several lawyers at the AGM.
He quoted RSN Rayer, a senior practitioner and was, I believe, in support of his statement that “any alleged “falling standards” on the part of members of the Bar is not to be remedied by pointing fingers at junior members of the Bar but rather, the onus is on his fellow seniors to provide the juniors with adequate training instead of going for a round of golf”.
I believe that my learned brother has again overlooked one critical point; every adult is responsible for their own behaviour. You get what you give and life truly is what you make of it.
Many believe that they are “entitled” to be tutored by their Masters or be guided and mollycoddled along the way. If a senior lawyer is more interested in golfing than providing his juniors with adequate training, so be it.
A junior is not any less responsible for refusing to take the bull by the horns and to learn on his own.
To the juniors out there caught in such a scenario, I implore you to please take a few CPD courses, better yourself and make a sustained effort to improve your lot in life. Do not for once think that your Master or any senior out there “owes” you anything; they most certainly don’t.
Concluding remarks
My learned brother passed a few final remarks regarding change within the Bar and “extraordinary practices” regarding voting. His remarks are unfounded. In any event and in the interests of brevity, I will merely repeat the paragraphs above; don’t put forth lamentations without any action.
No one owes you anything. If one is serious about reforms and change, then one will take the necessary steps to bring it about.
At present, a mandatory CPD Scheme is in place for legal practitioners from the Bars of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Philippines and the Unites States.
What makes Malaysian lawyers special?
For if you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.
* Gavin Jay Anand Jayapal is a civil litigator in practice in Kuala Lumpur. Called to the Degree of the Utter Bar of Middle Temple and thereafter to the Malaysian Bar in 2012, he is passionate about advocacy and continuing professional development. He may be reached at [email protected]
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
