Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Dear Mr Webmaster,

You have pictures of pretty girls at the EGM.

Since there are only pretty girls attending this EGM, I am not going. If you put up pictures of handsome lang chai's I'd probably be there to make up the quorum.

Nik Elin Zurina Bt Nik Abdul Rashid

Wait for everyone to leave, then reintroduce the original proposal with a minor change.

I notice 200 people who voted against the Bar Council's motion did not vote (no doubt because they left) for Mr Ananthasivam's motion (as amended). Did they realize that Sivam's motion would be amended beyond recognition.

Perhaps this is the danger of the statute requiring a quorum only when the meeting commences, and not when the vote is taken.

Shanmuga Kanesalingam

Nik Elin

I believe if you were there, your picture would have been taken 1st and posted up by the Webmaster.

Lai Chee Hoe

I humbly take my hat off to my learned friend, Richard Wee, of Kuala Lumpur whose amendment was carried.

The significance of the vote for the amendment of a RM100 increase means that those who went to the emergency general meeting to just obstruct the cause of the Malaysian Bar by voting down the Bar Council's motion were stopped in their tracks.

It is significant that none of them ever amended the Bar Council's proposal, despite the fact that our leaders had said that the Bar faced insolvency in the next few months.

It was as if, like spectators in a circus, they wanted to savour the satisfaction of seeing the trapeze walker fall from the heights, if possible without the safety net! Such perversity! Such cruelty! This is one sentiment that cannot be condoned.

(I humbly dedicate this analogy of the trapeze walker to the late Dato' Richard Ho Ung Hun, our former colleague and former Cabinet Minister who passed away at the age of 81 after a short illness on Feb. 4 this year - three days before the Chinese New Year of the Rat. That this dedication to a Richard involves another Richard is a pure coincidence.)

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Oh, by the way MBW, trust me in the dotage of my years to forget about your indisputably indefatigable contribution to the Malaysian Bar.

I find your blow-by-blow account most helpful, especially to those of us who circumstances have conspired to absent ourselves from the EGM.

I, for one, count my blessings as I partake of the fruit of your labour of love. May you continue to serve the Bar and serve it with the dedication that craves emulation. May the Lord shower you with His blessings all your life.

One up for those who love the Bar and one down for those who loathe the Bar!

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

My name is Rao Suryana. Not Suriani. My concerns was not that the increase would be a burden as I am a single parent and my point was not that to obtain sympathy. The issue, I reiterate, is RM200 means something to many of us AND the answer to the issue at hand, which is the dire straits of the BAR's finances, IS NOT JUST BY AN INCREMENT. IT'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT and ACCOUNTABILITY. I am a young practitioner and not young lawyer. Please publish the facts right. Mr Kanesalingam has a good point. Was it correct for the motions to be re-tabled in such a way, after the majority has left??

Rao Suryana binti Abdul Rahman

MBW: Sorry about the name. But you did say that RM200 meant a lot to a single parent, and that the sum, though small, would go a long way to help you financially. In any event, thank you for your clarification.

I was at the EGM today and was one of the 500 odd people who left after the 1st motion as the debate dragged on for 2 1/2 hours even though or esteemed President said she would allow a 1/2 hour or so for debate. Well, in case anyone is wondering why 500 over people left an EGM early despite having battled a 1-hour "lunch-hour traffic jam" just to attend.

For the "Amended Motion " .... The motion was amended with the witnessing of 300 over members in the hall and without any notice whatsoever to the 12,700 other members of the Bar (rough estimation only!). If you were to amend the motion, don't you think you should give prior notice to all the members of the Bar should they wish to be heard on your "Amended Motion"? Has 12,700 members of the Bar Council been deprived of the right to be given notice of the "Amended Motion" when they are bound by it? So, are we bound by this "Amended Motion" when we were not even given notice on it? Hmmm ...

One more thing, since 807 people signed up at the EGM, the 2/3 votes should be based on 807, right? So, the "Amended Motion" needs (2/3 of 807) 538 votes to succeed. Does that mean that the "Amended Motion" is also defeated as 2/3 majority is not met, having only the 323 votes for it?

Thanks for the input, if any.

Tina Cheah Yee Teen

I was asked to explain this,
http://the-archangel.blogspot....s-in.html

Let me first apologise to the MBW for making that comment about MBW only putting up pictures of pretty girls.

It was not my intention to ridicule any member of the Bar by being petty about pretty girls. I have no objections to pretty girls.

It was just that it was so very funny to have pictures of only 3 women attending the EGM. No other pictures were put up initially. I had followed the EGM proceedings from the comforts of my office. I am guilty of not making any effort at all to attend the EGM as I hate long drawn meetings and having to put up with so many people who could just go on and on and on and on. I wished that they would keep it short and precise and concise like Tuan Hj Sulaiman does.

Thank you.
Nik Elin Zurina Bt Nik Abdul Rashid

Saya sokong shanmuga...lepas ni saya nak tahu jumlah wang terkumpul untuk bayaran subscription yang terlewat bayar (sahaja) selepas ia dinaikkan. Apapun, saya hairan, tiap tiap tahun nampak macam kelam kabut. Pastikan bila BC masuk court, kalau kalah, jamgan guna duit BC (SEBENARNYA YURAN AHLI) untuk bayar kos kepada pihak yang satu lagi.

Mohd Azizan Bin Mat Nayan

I heard your comments during EGM and although wanting to speak further, the chairperson has decided to put everything to vote. Let me choose to reply it here and hopefully I did not catch it wrong. My recollection are worded loosely and I hope I have captured the essence correct, if not, I apologise in advance.

No increment/bonuses to the bar secretariat staff

I fully agree with Andrew's change in his stand after hearing the explanation from our Madam President. The Bar Council after all owe their explanation to the members of the bar, but give them at least a chance to remedy the dire situation first. But we can't decide to withhold all bonuses and all increments to the staff. They have served us loyally and like yourself and everyone of us, they too have mouths to feed and petrol to pay. Let's not exchange one rice bowl for another. Be fair to them. Like us all, they are also forced to face the escalating costs.

To have create different classes of lawyers

We fought hard to repeal section 46A of the LPA and now, by our own doing, we are choosing to create our own class within a class? This can't be right. Are we now segregating the rich lawyers, senior lawyers and etc? I am young and still struggling with this profession, but I do not want this form of classification because afterall, we are all equal as members of the Bar.

If my recollection and account of what you have said has been wrongly interpreted, then my reply would be unjustified, but besides that, I stand by the above strongly.

Ng Chung Yee

Sad to say, during the EGM yesterday, some lawyers from among the crowd had lost their cool and were unnecessarily heated in their debates.

They were emotional, and almost hysterical, and even attacked on the 'person' instead of the topic and the substance thereof. I sincerely opine that all these were uncalled for - and are not giving right examples to proper conduct.

Two lawyers (Ngan and another who had said that he could have easily earned the additional RM200/= by just leaving the hall and doing his running-down cases) were disgusted with the accountant who had spent time explaining to the audience his proposed motion, and for whatsoever other reasons.

The accountant was badly hurt and demonstrated his disgust and had shouted that he would not want to sit on the "finance board" - which had been offered to him by the President.

The two lawyers said that the lawyers in the hall had been reduced to being 'accountants', etc., etc. which had hurt the feelings of former accountant and had probably belittled his former profession.

Now I know that lawyers are a proud bunch of professionals- and with many cliques within as well!

The proposer of the motion was a former accountant, now turned a lawyer.

He felt insulted and there was a rough exchange of words between him and Ngan - which were all uncalled for - because everyone who had attended the EGM yesterday, had attended in good faith.

After the episode, and after the accountant's motion was put to vote, I had therefore, sincerely felt that it was necessary and timely for Ngan and the other lawyer to have at least apologised to the THE ACCOUNTANT because after all, it was the accountant's proposed motion that had saved the Bar's coffers - because the bar's motion had already been voted upon and defeated - in spite of the President's special address to the members before the voting.

If not for the accountant's motion, therefore, the Bar's coffers would have nothing extra to be added on, or to be forthcoming from among the members - in spite of yesterday's EGM, and the President's special appeal, and talk.

It was also on account of the accountant's motion to be voted upon that had allowed some of the lawyers to have 'cleverly' and 'freely' amended the motion - to have reinstated the other funds in which reductions had already been suggested by the accountant in his original motion.

At least half a loaf is better than none, right? Bar Council members must not forget that it was the accountant who had initiated and allowed for that extra half a loaf to the bar's coffers - and an increase of the RM100/= per member to the main fund!

Therefore, Bar Council members, please apologise to the accountant on the 2 lawyers' behalf, and thank him for his motion - and for him to have allowed for the amendments - so freely. We need to be fair in order to be just. Be fair to EVERYONE, not just SOME, or SOMEONE.

I sincerely felt that the apology was necessary because it was not right for lawyers not to give the same respect to the other professionals, lawyers as lawyers may be - unless they do not expect to be respected by other professionals. We are not a special breed.

When I suggested that the two lawyers apologised to the accountant, both the lawyers had refused to apologise, and Ngan shouted that he had his right to speak, and of whatever he had wanted ( and probably to even scream and scold as well !).

Before that, when the accountant had interrupted his speech, he had shouted at him : "When I speak, you sit down and listen to me, etc".

So, the President of the Bar finally said "Never mind, they will buy him a beer".

Then, one of them said, "I don't drink beer".

There it goes, friends, no apology, no beer!

Conclusion:
"You can have the motion for 'free', but please do not bite me! After all, this is humanity".

Thank you.

Tan Peek Guat

Thank you, Tina, for your input.

It has substance, concern and clarity.

We need to be fair in order to be just.

Yours sincerely,

Tan Peek Guat

Mr Webmaster,

I thank you sincerely, though not gratefully. It looks like you will not leave me alone - even though lowly as I would want to be - without compromising, of course, on JUSTICE!

However, I guess your eyes were slanted yesterday.

You ought to have put in the pretty girls' pictures in the first slot - ooorrrrr you ought to have informed me to have supplied you with a photo showing myself when I was younger - definitely pretty and sweet, not to boast (but only thinking back of all the suitors)!

What do you expect to get when you shoot off my pictures in the first slot? Praises, insults, or condemnation? I pray you get what you expect, and please do not be dishearted if you do not!

All I have, is nothing to boast, - Except two X 2 doctors, and two young grandchildren - who are indeed innocent, no heart-aches and lovely audience to the stories I have to tell - stories about the world and the humans in it. Great, isn't it?

For all things, big and small, we need to PRAISE HIM.

I praise God for you - although we have never met.

Thank you.

Tan Peek Guat

It was noted above that at 5.07p.m., I was denied the opportunity to speak.

After Ngan had shouted and drowning the whole hall, I had merely wanted to say what I had once written before:

"Please do not be sensitive,
Please do not be emotional,
Please do not be personal either".

Unfortunately, I was not given the chance to speak.

Never mind. Thank you, MBW, for this opportunity to write.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Tan Peek Guat

My words at the EGM too, were worded loosely. So perhaps it was not clear in context. Contrary to what many thought, I did not go with a (prepared) speech.

Although the Bar was in deficit, and concerns over the finance had been going for 5 years prior to this, yet we were told that the staffs were given 3 months bonuses. So I felt compelled to enquire, whether the increase would go towards bonuses still, or can the Bar Councillors guarantee that they will better manage our house (financially) first? Any business establishment would ensure profit first before giving extra perks or incentives. Should't we be getting back on our feet first before any pay rise or bonuses be thought of?

As regards section 46(2) of the LPA, I am merely saying that since some of us are adamant for the increase then why not those who want to, do so? Differences exists between us. Perhaps its too bad that said section chose the use of the word "class", but it is not the same as the issue under section 46A. Call it by any other name, some of us can command hourly fees, some of us not. Some of us are "Tier 1,2, or 3" Law Firm, some of us not. We are each practising in our own style and way, by no means are we segregating each other. BUT, the section does provide for different amounts to be paid by different "classes". Maybe the Councillors can show accountability by declaring to be the first set to pay more?? Geez. Nobody seems to focus on the principles, just the RM - is it big, is it small. A leader, and on top of everything else, a trustee, in fact, in this regard, should be saying that "Yes, I am a man of action. I have the strength and the will to succeed. I have complete faith in myself. I direct, encourage, motivate. I face adversity with courage. I have a sense of mission. I ACCEPT THE ACCOUNTABILITY RESTS ON MY SHOULDERS. I am worthy, and shall always be worthy, AS A LEADER." After all, action speaks louder than words.

Apart from that, I sincerely meant to offend no one. Like I said, there is no sinister insinuation of any act of dishonesty etc. But there HAD been poor financial management.

"To life!"

Rao Suryana binti Abdul Rahman