A reply to ‘Likewise on the Sedition Act, Bar Council’

A practising lawyer, Malay Mail Online

This is a reply to an article written by Faidhur Rahman Abdul Hadi (FRAH) titled “Likewise on the Sedition Act, Bar Council” that was published on the 31st of October in the Malay Mail.

Firstly I have to state that as a practising lawyer, I am writing this article despite having a million other things to do simply because, as a member of the Malaysian Bar, I felt that FRAH was trying to speak for on my behalf. No thank you FRAH, as we practising lawyers generally can speak for ourselves.

Secondly, any practising lawyer worth his salt knows that in Court, as in life, one should never go about cherry picking facts, but instead present the full information in a concise and factual manner. This is what I hope to do below:

Myth: The Malaysian Bar and the Bar Council are the same.

Fact: All lawyers are members of the Malaysian Bar. Not all lawyers however are members of the Bar Council. The Bar Council consists of a team of lawyers that were elected by the members of the Malaysian Bar. Assisted by non-lawyers, the Bar Council is an executive body charged with the administration and regulation of the Malaysian Bar. I refer you to Section 47 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 in this regard.

Myth: A resolution by the Bar Council has the force of law.

Fact:  It appears that FRAH is confused. When an AGM or EGM of the Malaysian Bar is called, any resolution passed therein is considered to be the view of the Malaysian Bar. Such resolutions are debated, usually fiercely, before it is put to a vote. So on the 15th of March 2014, a resolution stating that ex-judges should not return to practice was put to a vote and members of the Malaysian Bar, of which you are part of FRAH, voted in favour of the resolution. I was one of the members present and I voted in favour of the resolution. However the resolution that was passed has no legal effect other than to state the stand of the Malaysian Bar.  The effect, if any, is to merely inform Parliament and the AG’s chambers of the stand of the Malaysian Bar. If you have a problem with that FRAH, then you should raise this issue with Parliament and the AG’s chambers, since those are the bodies in charge of enacting, enforcing and repealing laws in this country.

Myth: The Bar Council is being hypocritical as it is treating 2 similar issues i.e. the return of ex-judges to practice and the Sedition Act, differently.

Fact: Again, any practising lawyer worth his salt would know that both issues are as different as night and day. The return to practice of ex-judges is an issue that has been deliberated upon by the Federal Court, which is the highest Court in the land. The Sedition Act, in fact, has not. Even “other practising lawyers of the Bar and members of the public” as you put it, know that the Court of Appeal is not the highest Court in the land. Furthermore the Prime Minister did not promise to repeal the LPA to ensure that ex-judges cannot return to practice. The return of ex-judges to practise has not caused the significant erosion of civil liberties and led to a chilling effect of free speech in Malaysia. Simply put sir, that comparison you are trying to make is ridiculous and as a practising lawyer, you should know better.

Myth: The Malaysian Bar should mind its own business.

Fact: The Malaysian Bar is “to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, without fear or favour”;” Where requested to do so, .. express its view on matters affecting legislation  and the administration and practice of the law in Malaysia” and also “to protect and assist the public in all matters ancillary or incidental to the law”. These are not my words; instead they are excerpts from Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act which sets out the purpose and objectives of the Malaysian Bar. Thus it is indeed the business of the Malaysian Bar to guard the administration of justice in Malaysia.

You and others who share your view are advised to read these sections and provisions in order to understand the meaning of being a practising lawyer. For despite popular belief, merely speaking good English and using bombastic words does not make one a proper practising lawyer. Instead it is a sense of justice and knowledge of the law that makes one a practising lawyer in every sense of the word.

FYI: The opinions here are my own and I only felt compelled to bring it up as I am also a member of the Malaysian Bar. I am nobody’s lackey and I have no hidden agenda. I do agree that the Bar Council hasn’t always been perfect. In fact I disagreed with the Walk for Peace and Freedom that was recently held by the Bar Council. This is simply because although I believe in the freedom of assembly and that the Sedition Act should rightly be repealed, I am of the view that lawyers belong in the courtroom and not on the streets. I would consider joining such walks as a private citizen, but never as a lawyer.

However I’d be damned if unscrupulous parties, especially fellow practising lawyers, will be allowed to take pot shots at a organisation of which I am a member of.

By the way, I note that you have written a further article in the Malay Mail that was published on the 3rd of November 2014 in collaboration with a man I believe is known as Buzze Azam on Facebook. The contents of that article are ludicrous to say the least. However I note that this Buzze Azam is the same man who at one point made uncouth remarks about Syahrezad Johan, the head of the Bar Council’s campaign to abolish the Sedition Act and urged other people to terrorise him via phone etc. The fact that you have chosen to associate yourself with this man speaks volumes about the kind of change you are talking about.