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

Lets All Of Us Cheer!

Finally we have arrived. No more money wasted on aborted AGMs! Our nightmares are over, finally.

I'm not a fan of Nazri, but upon his appointment as the de facto Law Minister, I posted on this site that we will finally resolve our quoram nightmare with him around.

The DAP has indeed been caught on the wrong foot.

The party's representatives should have highlighted this basic anomaly, but did not.

When caught napping, it rendered the excuse that any amendment it proposed would have been stonewalled.

This is a BLATANT EXCUSE for the lapse, not a VALID REASON.

On a much more positive note, let me voice the joy with all those who advocated for the repeal of s.46A (i) - that repugnant law that disallows young lawyers with less than seven years of practice form serving on state and national committees of the Bar.

We have taken the first step in the long journey. The next step remains. The young lawyers must remain in the forefront and continue to fight against the rule that politicians and trade unionists cannot hold office in the Bar Council.

What I said in another post is still relevant, and here it is:

BRING BACK QUALITY REPRESENTATION
Written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng on 2006-07-05 21:58:43
--------------------------

In the days of old, back when we first achieved Merdeka, the QUALITY of political representation was HIGH.

Then, teachers were disallowed political participation unless they got prior sanction.
That meant denying the political process of one group of people who are, if they choose to be, well placed to represent the rakyat.

Now, it LOOKS like lawyers are also being discouraged from taking part in the political process.

Meanwhile, the QUALITY of political representation keeps dropping. Just read the proceedings of our legislative assemblies and Parliament to confirm this.

Perhaps, the Government should direct its mind and do something to arrest this drop in QUALITY.
Overall, the interests of the nation dictate and demand that the quality of representation must be maintained at a HIGH level.

Malaysian Government leaders must be aware that Malaysian Bar members are not that easily influenced. Each and every one of them has a calibrated mind of his or her own, at least in theory. On any one issue, I dare say that we will have at least four positions, although the majority view prevails. That is what makes the Bar an interesting place to be in.

Other consequences of the 2006 Amendments to the LPA

While the quota requirement has been reduced after years of battle (kudos to Bar Council) and the 7 year rule has been laid to rest (well done Bar Council & the Junior Lawyers Committee) there have been other, no less important, amendments to Part VII relating to Disciplinary Proceedings.

The old system began with a written complaint (and after that) went through the 2 stages of the Investigating Tribunal (IT), and if the nature of the complaint was found to be serious, then to the Disciplinary Committee (DC).

At each point in the investigation the DB was involved in a decision-making process that either put a stop to the investigation, or moved it up to a higher level.

The old system worked like this: Complaint-(DB)-IT-(DB)-DC-(DB)-notice-(DB)-release/punishment-H/Crt. Stated even more succinctly, it was: Complaint-IT-DC-(DB)-release/punishment-H/Crt.

After the amendment, the old 3-tier (cumbersome) investigation process has been replaced with a 2-tier system, with rights of appeal all the way to the Federal Court, like this: Complaint-(DB)-DC-(DB)-notice-(DB)-release/punishment-H/Crt-C/App-F/Crt. To put briefly it is now: Complaint-IT-DC-(DB)-release/punishment- H/Crt-C/App-F/Crt.

The DB and the DC are now given wider powers to demand evidence from any person, including the relevant legal firm. Under the old view, whether a DC had this power was a point of considerable contention.

Further, a firm, can now be proceeded against as a firm, unless the other partners get together and show the DB that it was not their fault.

The amendment from the 3-stage to the 2-stage process, is rather welcome, as it will reduce the backlog of cases now dogging the DB; and render some relief to the person complained against from having the Damoclean sword hanging over his head for a long, long time.

The right of appeal is now, after the 2-stage DB process is over, to a single High Court judge, followed by the Court of Appeal and then to the Federal Court. This appeal procedure was doubted under the old system.

After the amendment, a High Court has no power to examine the decisions of the DB under a certiorari application, granting a clear ground for the DB to complete its investigations quickly.

As a result of a happy accident between 3 MPs, including Nazri, Karpal and Kula, the principle of natural appeared to have been preserved when these 3 gentlemen persuaded Parliament to refuse to allow a representative of the Bar Council sit in at DB proceedings when the Bar Council was the complainant. The Bill had catered for this rather draconian step, but after the debate, that portion was been excised, and passed with the deletion.

It appeared to me, when I last cast a bleary eye at it at 4 a.m. yesterday, that there had been between 25 to 32 amendments to the LPA, some minor and some major, depending on how one looked at it.

Just for your information.