Webmaster
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 83 |   |
|
Arthur Lee (Sarawakian Lawyer): Why exclude us from this website? - 2008/11/10 20:47
by Arthur Lee (via email)
I read with some reservations the comments that Sarawakian and Sabahan Advocates are disinterested in the happenings and developments pertaining to the legal profession. In the first place, just how many Malayan bar members are aware that we Borneon Advocates cannot post comments on the forum?
Secondly, why exclude us when it appears to be the wishes of Malayan Advocates and Solicitors to practice here? It is like gagging us and saying we did not raise a hue and cry! Thirdly, the panel who ruled that Malayan Advocates and Solicitors can appear in Borneo related appeals in the court of appeal are not even Judges who have served in the Borneon states before to be informed of the historical reasons for the Advocates Association of Sarawak and Sabah Law Association maintaining that stand. Is there any sanctity of the Malaysian constitution left?
Think of it, I cannot even sign up as a user of the forum to let Malayans to know how the majority if not all of the Borneon Advocates feel of the Borneon bashing, so why should U as a Sarawak Advocate agree to let Malayan Advocates and Solicitors practice in the Borneon states when I am not welcome to post on your Malaysian Bar Council Forum? I am not treated as a Malaysian Lawyer, that is why!!! Your Malaysian Bar Council is in fact THE MALAYAN BAR COUNCIL!!!!!
Arthur Lee
MBW: Dear Arthur, even though we have restricted our website membership to members of the Malaysian Bar, we always welcome comments from legal practitioners in Sabah and Sarawak. We also allow comments from the public so long as they identify themselves and let me have their contact particulars. In fact, we have published comments and articles here from Sarawakian lawyers such as George Lo and Lau Yen Tseng. I even spoke with an office bearer of the Sabah Law Association about a month ago offering to publish the Sabah Legal Directory on our website, but until know I have not heard from him. I understand that unlike the Malaysian Bar, it is not compulsory for a practitioner in Sabah and Sarawak to be a member of the Sabah Law Association and Advocates' Association of Sarawak respectively? I personally feel it is wrong for lawyers and judges in East Malaysia to refer us as Semenanjung or Malayan lawyers when the 'Malaysian Bar' is a statutory body established under the Legal Profession Act 1976. Why 'Malaysian Bar'? Section 2 of the LPA actually reads: 'This Act shall apply throughout Malaysia but shall only be made applicable to Sabah and Sarawak with such modifications as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by order make; and such Order shall be published in the Gazette. So, why can't Sabah and Sarawak join us? The law is already there for the three Bars to be fused into one.
Anyway, just email me if you want to post anything in this forum or any part of this website.
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Webmaster
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 83 | |
|
Re:Arthur Lee (Sarawakian Lawyer): Why exclude us from this website? - 2008/11/12 10:39
by Arthur Lee (via email)
In response to your views, may I point out that it is one thing to be given permission to post on your fantastic website but another to be able to do so freely as a member?
Your terms of use clearly requires membership that discriminates against Borneon Advocates to the point that I cannot sign up even if I wanted to.
The fact,as you correctly pointed out, that the Legal Profession Act is a Malaysian Act is meaningless to us Borneon Lawyers as it missess the point that I ,as a Malaysian Lawyer , cannot join the Malayan Bar, despite being in practice for over 20 years, without being required to do chambering before petitioning for admission in the Malayan Bar.!
Look at the Legal Profession Act, which is self explanatory. In fact it is easier for me to be admitted to the Brunei Bar and we have quite a few Sarawakians in legal practice in Brunei then to the Malayan Bar. That,is my respectful view why we Borneon Lawyers treat the Malaysian Bar Council as the Malayan Bar Council, it is full of Malayan Lawyers, not Malaysian Lawyers.
If one cares to examine The Advocates Ordinance of Sarawak (and the Sabah provisions), one should note that these legislation (at least for Sarawak) are deemed to be Federal law by virtue of the Modification of Laws (Declaration of Federal Present Laws (Sarawak) Order 1965-FLN-200 of 1965.In other words, it is Parliament who legislates thereon, not merely the Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak.
Your members may be interested to note Malayans can and do practice in Sarawak, as do Singaporeans, United Kingdon nationals and even New Zealand nationals!! The reason why they can do so is because they took the trouble to find out how and why our practice imposes the requirements that is in place today. In fact, do a MLJ search and you will note there are instances of Sarawakians not being permitted to be called to the Sarawak Bar!!
I have not had the privilige of reading the court of Appeal published ruling, but suffice to say I have with other concerned members requested that an EGM of the Advocates Association of Sarawak, Kuching Branch, be convened to discuss this ruling and pass the appropriate resolution thereon, as it is in direct conflict with a federal Court judgment that only a Borneon Advocate may represent a litigant of an Appeal to the Appellate courts sitting in Malaya that originates from the Borneon States. I have the highest of respect for the capabilities of Malayan Lawyers but note that they have in the pass, applied and obtained a ad-hoc licence to practice in Sarawak ,of Appeals of Borneon Courts, sitting on circuit in Sarawak so why do they feel there is a right to do so without so applying for ad-hoc admission this time? In fact the learned judge himself applied for ad-hoc admission in the past when he was in private practice.
The fact that a litigant may attempt to circumvent this legal requirement by requesting for an Appeal to be heard in Putra Jaya instead of on circuit in Sarawak, as has been previously done, is als contrary to the practice that a litigant may not choose the adjudicators or venue of the forum of his dispute is apparently now irrelevant, just as is the practice that any Appellate court sitting on circuit in Sabah and Sarawak should have in the panel of judges, a judge with Borneon experience is irrelevant for the last few sittings on circuit.
These safeguards are constitutional, if members of the Malaysian Bar Council are unhappy with them, move for a change in the constitution first, not just the Law, as the parliamentary draftsman t failed to do when he formulated the Act that set up the Malaysian Bar Council, without having regard that it was in fact only Malayan in application.
Any eventual unity of the existing 3 bars in Malaysia can be realised by choice of the Borneon Advocates and for benefits, not by sheer brute implementation from big brother as we Borneon Advocates see the Malayan Bar and the Judiciary.
Are the constitutional safeguards requested and obtained from our British Colonial masters AND the elected representatives of the Federation of Malaya (as it was then) and Singapore to be discarded without asking the beneficiaries if it may now be discarded first? If this were a n action in the high Court, the judgment would be a forgone conclusion but we Borneon Advocates cannot see why that very court now sees it fit to decide otherwise!!!
The continued condescending attitude of the Malayan Bar is the real reason for the resistance to a common Bar!!
As a matter of interest, when I was the secretary of the Advocate Association, the then Bar Representitives of the Malaysian (Malayan) bar, Sabah Bar and Sarawak bar united and resolved that the 3 bar system was to remain ,when the Malayan bar sought our support to object to foreign lawyers being allowed to practice in Malaysia. What now? Do not forget, that ghost is being resurrected again! Do we 3 bars stand united or should we Borneon Advocates say let them in and be dammed, after all these foreign lawyers are not coming to Borneo, only Kuala Lumpur or Penang and the Malayans have went back on their words that they gave those many years ago just to get our support to keep out the foreign Lawyers!!
Please never underestimate the thin end of the wedge, once the crack gets bigger very and little force is required to throw open the floodgates!!!!
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Tan Peek Guat
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 78 | |
|
Re:Arthur Lee (Sarawakian Lawyer): Why exclude us from this website? - 2008/11/13 14:30
Hi Arthur,
Thank you for calling our Website a 'fantastic' one.
Sometimes it is indeed 'fantastic' but not all the time though.
Last week I had a tough time trying to get my comments published - and they all failed, for numerous days. This is because the 'administrator' had blocked my 'login' - for reasons unknown to me.
Anyway, we sincerely hope that we, i.e. all the 3 bars of/in MALAYSIA, can get united and be ONE, one really big, fat, one; though, even then, not all of us members will be similarly 'big', or 'notable' and 'effective' in terms of income, etc., etc., or in any / all ways all together!
Best of luck, and CHEERIO!
Tan Peek Guat
MBW: You were blocked because in one instance, you posted 15 same comments on the same story! And for this posting, you sent 5 times!
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Tan Peek Guat
User
Junior Forumer
| Posts: 78 | |
|
Re:Arthur Lee (Sarawakian Lawyer): Why exclude us from this website? - 2008/11/16 23:37
Yes, Arthur, this is now a 'fantastic' website indeed.
Now, with just one 'click' at 'enter', my message is immediately sent out. This means I need not 'click' repeatedly at 'enter' anymore - and to avoid having the same message being inevitably sent out so many times - much to my own surprise!
Thank you, Mr Webmaster.
You are indeed doing a good job for us all.
Tan Peek Guat
|
|
|
| | The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Circular No: 7/2008 - Palestine Humanitarian Fund
