JULY 19 — I am a practising lawyer and a member of the Malaysian Bar. And I have to say, my President, Steven Thiru who is also the Chairman of the Bar Council has been making headlines of late. For all the wrong reasons, too.
First, on July 15, 2016 he was quoted by the Malay Mail Online as making the preposterous claim that the Bar Council will cease to function if the quorum for the Bar’s Annual General Meetings (AGMs) was hiked up from the current 500 to the more representative 25% of the total membership of the Bar due to supposed inability to encourage the participation 4,000 or so members toattend such AGMs, thus severely hampering the annual business of the Malaysian Bar. Rather than find ways and means to make this happen, per his duty along with other members in the Bar Council, he merely shrugged his shoulders and declared it can’t be done.
Second, on July 16, 2016, he attempted to mimic the scare tactics of George Osbourne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, in attempting to influence UK voters against voting for Brexit in a referendum held on the UK’s membership within the European Union held there recently. Steven Thiru did this by suggesting, as reported by the same online news portal, that the existence of government appointees on the Bar Council would undermine independence of the Bar, which in turn would scare off foreign investors, never mind that such investors don’t usually give two hoots whether a Bar is independent or otherwise, and the fact that lawyers, being advocates, take sides as part of the job. This ridiculous proposition, along with the first mentioned above, was ignored by the Malaysian public, much like George Osbourne’s Project Fear was also ignored by the British public.
But when the above two statements had no discernible effect with regards Malaysian public opinion, he made the most ludicrous claim of them all the day following the next day, on July 18, 2016. Imagining himself a well-meaning friend of us young lawyers who are starting out in practice, he claimed, again according to the Malay Mail Online, that the abolition of postal votes in elections to the Bar Council would be “unfair” to young lawyers such as myself, as it hinders our chances of getting elected to the Bar Council. It was a good thing I wasn’t drinking anything at the time I read this, as I immediately burst out with laughter.
Oh, the irony. The man who has previously affirmed his support for the demands of the Bersih clean elections movement regarding election balloting reform, including a demand to abolish all postal voting for general elections, now opposes the abolition of the same method of voting on account of elections to the Bar Council.
Further, having seen fit to oversee the implementation of the much hated Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Scheme, a mandatory training course many of us new in practice are loathe to attend, upon us young lawyers, by a AGM resolution of a one vote majority of some 200 (yes, 200!) or so members in attendance of the AGM present and voting earlier this year, he now pretends to be our best friend by feigning concern about our representation on the Bar.
The Member of Parliament for AlorSetar, Gooi Hsiao Leung, said it best when he told the Attorney-General Tan Sri Apandi Ali to “save it for the marines” recently on account of the proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976 affecting the Bar. Although I disagree with that MP’s position regarding the amendments, I must admit that theexpression of his is quite beguiling. So having acknowledged the source thereof I will repeat the same here: Steven Thiru can save it for the marines. The reality is that he doesn’t give a damn whether we young lawyers get represented on the Bar Council or even whether all is right with us within the Bar. As far as him and his allies within the Council are concerned, we young ones are inexperienced, so we should just stay put and do as we’re told, as they “guide” us by imposing ever more burdensome regulations designed to restrict the efficient and effective practice of law by Malaysian Bar members at every turn.
This includes, apart from the unwanted and burdensome CPD Scheme, the neglect of the needs and welfare of young pupils who undergo nine months of chambering before admission to the Bar including but not limited to their treatment by their pupil masters, the subjecting and conditioning the same pupils to unnecessary and bureaucratic requirements before consenting to their entry into the Bar, the charging of exorbitant fees for any talks or seminars organised by the Bar, the imposition of compulsory tests and courses (such as pointless mandatory ethics courses) before gaining entryinto the Bar as well as after(such as requiring mandatory attendance at talks and camps organised by the Bar), maintenance of a bureaucratic requirement to fill and hand in written forms that are similar year to year with respect to Practice Certificate and Sijil Annual renewal,and the long delay in issuing guidelines or policy on the Limited Liability Partnership although the Act governing the same has long since been introduced in 2012.
To this we may add the failure to speak up on ordinary issues affecting the well-being of the people such as high fuel prices, high food prices and defending employees as well as consumer rights, failure to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution particularly on matters concerning the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, failing to implement the national language as the dominant medium of communication within the Bar and an unhealthy preoccupation with the welfare of a certain Federal opposition leader last year, replicated this year by a similarly sickening preoccupation with the fate of a certain public official heading the state of Penang who is being charged for alleged corruption.
Further, and this very much needs pointing out for everyone out there to note, the Bar Council appears to routinely engage in the silencing of dissent on the part of members of the Malaysian Bar who takedifferent positions than that of the Council on public issues as well as regulation of the legal profession. Although Steven might claim, as was recently reported, that there are no gag orders within the Bar, my friend and fellow Bar colleague Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi received written notice from the Bar Council’s secretariat admonishing him for writing to the public about our Bar’s AGM proceedings held earlier this year, in scandalous disregard of the fact that there is no law prohibiting the same from being disclosed, and horrifyingly in spite of his right to freedom of speech pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of our Federal Constitution.
The issues raised in his article, Malaysian Bar decision making process in serious need of reform (Malay Mail Online, March 21, 2016) such as the potential human rights implications of introducing a mandatory scheme of forced learning, among others, were all but ignored in the written notice of the Bar sent to him. If this isn’t a gag order then what is? And please don’t insult our intelligence by the utterly ridiculous reasoning that secrecy of proceedings promotes robust discourse amongst members. Quite the opposite is true, and this is something so basic it is obvious to even a three year old.
These, among many other reasons, is why the Malaysian Bar and particularly its executive body, the Bar Council, must be reformed without further delay. Already due in no small part to his latest press release, I have to field questions from clients and friends of other professions who enquire and worse, assume that all of us lawyers are natural DAP sympathisers. There’s only so much individuals like myself and other fellow colleagues who recognise the need for a truly independent Malaysian Bar uninfluenced by fear nor favour, can do to maintain the image of our profession.
For the good of the legal profession and Malaysia as a whole, I pray for speedy passage and implementation of the package of reforms intended to be introduced by our Attorney-General to the Legal Profession Act 1976 when Parliament convenes again this October. I also hope that the Government will be resolute in its intention to carry forward the reforms, and not be deterred nor swayed by the many misleading claims from the Bar Council, as well as their local and foreign supporters regarding the same. A true independent Bar is what the silent majority of practising lawyers really desire, and these reforms being the opportunity for the realisation of one, must be supported and seized upon by all my fellow colleagues post haste without any moment to lose.
* Kee Mohd Thariq is a lawyer and a member of Young Professionals, a non-governmental organisation formed for the purpose of defending the supremacy of constitutional ideals in the determination of public affairs.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
