Bar Council tiptoeing into politics

ARCHIVES 2012

By MT Webmaster On May 30, 2012

CIVIL ROLE: It is free to support anyone but should look at issues in totality

The council may deny this and hee-haw its way to explain itself. Yet, if its members were to take a step back, see what they did from an arm’s length, maybe they would not be too surprised that some people could get uncomfortable with its partisanship, especially in the current heightened political environment.

Zainul Ariffin, New Straits Times

IT has been a month since the Bersih 3.0 rally and it must be said that not many came out of the situation unscathed. The government, Kuala Lumpur City Hall, police, ministers, the media, Bersih organisers, politicians of all persuasions and ideologies and participants share blame for one thing or another.

Joining the list, days later, would be the Bar Council, following its haste in calling an extraordinary general meeting that by and large, to a layman unfamiliar with the ifs and buts of legalese, was a condemnation of, among others, the government and the police for the chaos and violence that followed.

In these days of cyber activism, there are videos of all kinds, promoting this or that side, each exposing transgressions by “the other guy”. It was not a day all of us can be proud of.

Hence, I do not believe the government and the police deserved to be singled out by the Bar Council.

Clearly, no side is blameless, yet the council seemed to abhor the idea of criticising the guys in yellow, portraying them as innocent weekend democracy advocates bullied by cops ordered to terrorise.

The Bersih 3.0 rally was an event waiting to be hijacked. I am sure the organisers, who are not naive, knew it. While many were out for their constitutional walk, a few of the many thousands who gathered came with the idea of promoting their politics and causes, if not mischief and mayhem.

Thus, I think, the council’s leaders should not be too surprised if some would describe the Bar as partisan in this issue. Its EGM and resolution blaming the post-rally messiness on the government clearly indicated the position it had carved for itself in the national political landscape.

Having said so, there are several philosophical questions that need answering. Should the Bar Council be neutral, anyway? What is its role in civil society? Or should it not try to keep its house in order first, for instance, by ridding the profession of crooked lawyers and such?

Now, this being a democratic country, the council is free to support anyone, or adopt any position. I suppose it just needs to be clear about it.

Nevertheless, it is the expectation of many that when the council discussed the Bersih incident, it would look at it in totality. I understand the greater agenda of democracy, but for a layman like me, it should at least be seen to be an honest broker in this issue. Maybe we are being a little naive.

It admonished the government and the police, and demanded apologies for indiscriminate and excessive use of force. Yet, it only dealt in passing with the violence by some protesters.

I am sure some members of the Bar, who are used to dealing with crooks and criminals, would have been able to identify criminal acts when they see them, whether they were perpetrated by law enforcers or by protesters.

I would also like to think that the Bar would have noted that the rally was held despite the advice of many, or that the organisers lost control of their flock, or that the event had turned into a political rally for some.

Maybe it is the reluctance to admonish fellow lawyer and past president Datuk S. Ambiga? We hope not.

While we accept and appreciate the council’s stand on issues like human rights and democracy because as a professional body it has the bully pulpit to perhaps encourage change, it nevertheless did a disservice to itself in its eagerness to play the blame game and wear its partisanship on its sleeves.

Some of us have higher expectations of the Bar Council, even when we are cautious of some of its shady practitioners.