Reading the above postings has made me recollect a conversation I struck with a senior member of the Penang Bar while mingling at the Hotel Lobby where the Young Lawyers Conference 2008 was held in January this year. He was trying to convince me why he felt a Young Lawyers Committee (YLC) was not necessary, while I was trying to convince him otherwise.
The reasons given by him were the same ones we had heard of before:
- repeal of the s.42A Legal Profession Act, meant that young lawyers could already take part and/or be elected into positions in the State Bar Committee;
- the Penang Bar Committee in fact already consisted of quite a number of young lawyers;
- having a YLC would increase the divide between Senior and Junior practitioners;
- there shouldn’t be any form of discrimination calculated on years in practice;
- lawyers ought to serve the Bar, irrespective of their age or seniority.
My point of view was that a YLC in any State Bar was indeed necessary if not for any other reason than providing a forum for younger less experienced lawyers to integrate slowly into the arena of serving in the Bar amongst more senior lawyers.
He agreed with my suggestion that there was a difference between the two mindsets, causing the younger less experienced ones to feel apprehensive about speaking up among more senior lawyers, which he expressed was merely a ‘perceived’ notion which could easily be thrown aside with some courage.
He also sided my point that it was an undeniable fact that the two types needed to work together: generally senior lawyers have the wisdom and experience to make sound decisions for the direction of the Bar, which complimented the general disposition of the younger lawyers who were full of energy and fresh ideas, which would provide the drive for a State Bar to move forward. Without either component, a State Bar Committee would eventually grind to a halt.
I related to him my own experience serving in 2 Bar Sub-Committees last year: the National Young Lawyers Committee and the Legal Profession Committee. The former was full of bright young sparks with energies to match, while in the latter I was the youngest practitioner, with quite a number of Committee members having been called to the Bar way before I was born! There was such a stark contrast between how I participated in each Committee, in the first I was at ease and expressed my views confidently, whereas in the second I mostly just listened and piped in my comments only when called upon.
I saw firsthand why a YLC was essential to encourage and provide for the early participation of young lawyers in the Bar activities:
- it provided a launching pad for the integration of the less experienced junior practitioners with the more experienced seniors;
- small projects carried out by the YLCs enable them to cultivate the skills needed for later (more ‘serious’) projects under the Malaysian Bar;
- young lawyers would naturally mingle with their own peers at first, until (as a result of these projects) they start making friends with the seniors, discovering their ‘lingo’, understanding the culture and learning to ‘fit in’.
Due to this, I believe that the existence of a YLC does not increase the divide between young and old, but instead bridges the gap between them.
I also feel the ‘discrimination’ issue is without basis, since a committee serving the young Bar is necessary to deal with issues peculiar to young practitioners such as their working conditions, remuneration and social interests; just the same way an Criminal Practice Committee deals with issues concerning State criminal practitioners or a Syariah Practice Committee deals with issues peculiar to the Syariah practitioners. The existence of these other committees does not cause discrimination to exist between Criminal Practitioners and Civil Practitioners nor between Syariah Practitioners with their non-Syariah counterparts, just as the existence of a State YLC can cause no discrimination between the Senior and the Junior Bar members.
The repeal of s.46A of LPA cannot be used as basis to argue that a YLC is unnecessary either, since the numerous young lawyers holding posts in the State Bar Committee (which deals with overall management of the State Bar) would not equate there being a forum to address concerns of the younger practitioners, save for the existence of a State Bar YLC set up specifically for this purpose.
Finally, whilst it is noble to argue that practitioners should take time out to serve the Bar irrespective of their age or seniority, human nature determines that 'like attracts like': in order to attract a younger brood into the community (and therefore nurturing the future of the Bar), common sense dictates that a smaller ‘clique’ within the fraternity be formed, where young lawyers can begin getting their feet wet on issues ‘close to their hearts’, to which they can directly relate.
Hopefully this perspective may provide some food for thought to those still struggling with this issue!
Best regards,
Tina
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Lee Shih
User Fresh Forumer
Posts: 23
Re:Penang YLC - 2008/03/03 00:21I think Tina has accurately set out the oft-used arguments against the existence of the YLC. These arguments normally seem to centre around either the repeal of section 46A or that the YLC is a form of discrimination.
First of all, I would be interested to hear views against the continuation of the YLC. This present thread seems to only have one side of the argument in support of the YLC.
My view is that the YLC cannot be said to be based on s.46A or that the sole purpose of its formation was to push for the repeal of s.46A. Now that s.46A is repealed, the argument goes that YLC is no longer necessary. But this argument flies in the face of the global recognition and establishment of young lawyer committees. Everywhere from the various State Bars in America, State Bars in Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, all these jurisdictions have seen the establishment of a YLC. These countries did not have some form of statutory restriction on young lawyers which necessitated the formation of a young lawyer committee.
I think Tina has set out very succinctly the many grounds in support of the formation and the continuation of the YLC. For a committee which encourages the involvement of the more junior members of the Bar, and a committee which brings together both senior members (for example, Tuan Hj Sulaiman) and the junior members, I cannot see why there seems to be such strong resistance towards the YLC.
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
2012 Hotel Corporate Rates Attending seminars? Going for a holiday? Click on the link above to check out the list of hotel corporate rates for Members of the Bar, which is updated regularly.
Talk on Intellectual Property Law (10 Feb 2012) Organised by the Selangor Bar Committee, the talk on “Intellectual Property Law” will take place at 5:00 pm, at the Selangor Bar Committee Auditorium, on 10 Feb 2012 (Friday). The talk will feature Bahari Yeow Tien Hong. Click on the link above for more details.
Seminar on the Fundamentals of Bankruptcy Proceedings (21 Feb 2012) Organised by the Kuala Lumpur Bar Professional Development Committee, the seminar on “The Fundamentals of Bankruptcy Proceedings”, featuring Sanjeev Kumar Rasiah, will take place at 3:00 pm, at the Kuala Lumpur Bar Auditorium, on 21 Feb 2012 (Tuesday). Click on the link above for more details.
Seminar on the Fundamentals of Conveyancing (24 Feb 2012) Organised by the Kuala Lumpur Bar Professional Development Committee, this seminar featuring Jeremiah R Gurusamy will take place at 3:00 pm, at the Kuala Lumpur Bar Auditorium, on 24 Feb 2012 (Friday). Click on the link above for more details.
Mediation Skills Training Course (29 Feb to 4 Mar 2012) Organised by Bar Council, the Mediation Skills Training Course will take place at 8:30 am to 5:30 pm, at Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Bar Council, on 29 Feb to 4 Mar 2012 (Wednesday to Sunday). Deadline for registration and payment is 17 Feb 2012 (Friday). Click on the link above for more details.
Talk on “Land Fraud: An Australian Perspective” (13 Mar 2012) Organised by IGIL, GSGSG and UUM COLGIS, this free talk featuring Quintin George Rozario of Delta Law, Brisbane, Australia, will take place at 9:00 am, at Dewan Seminar A, Pusat Konvensyen, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah, on 13 Mar 2012 (Tuesday). To RSVP, contact Mr Abutt (04-928 4397; abutt@uum.edu.my).
Circular No 023/2012: Talk on ISO 9001 | 2008 Quality Management System Certification
