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

By Jagjit Singh, Serene Ong, Rajendra Raj and Alex Tan

The Editor,
Info Johore Bar

Sir,

We, the undersigned members of the LawCare Fund Management Committee refer to your Editorial entitled "Knocks on the Doors of LawCare" in the January 2006 issue of Info Johor Bar.

To recap, the said article:-

•  Talks about LawCare in terms of "alms" and "charity",

•  Draws an analogy between LawCare and Banks and Bankers who “lend you money if you can prove that you don’t need it” or “lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining, but wants it back the minute it begins to rain”,

•  Alleges that it took LawCare 3 months to respond to the appeal of a member of the Johor Bar and then by releasing only RM10,000.00 when the LawCare levy for 2005 was RM1.25 million and this, only when pressed by the Johor Bar,

•  Implies that LawCare “lumber(s) and place(s) obstacles delays and block(s) and make(s) the stricken person look even more humbled”, does not accord “immediate response respect and a speedy relief” and does not “care”, and

•  Questioned the quantum of RM10,000.00 granted under the LawCare Fund instead of RM100,000.00.

The Writer in his aforesaid Editorial, appears to have premised the same on a misconception of the facts and a misperception of the LawCare scheme which seem to have led him to blurred conclusions contained in the Editorial. Hence the need for our response which is as follows.

1. Alms and Charity

LawCare is not about Charity. It is about assistance to members in need out of a fund to which they have contributed. It does not work on the principles of a compensatory fund.

2. Bankers and Lending

Whilst the LawCare rules do provide for loans as well as grants, LawCare has so far only made grants, never a loan. And if LawCare does ever make a loan, it would only be in exceptional circumstances.

The analogy to Banks is therefore irrelevant and a propos nothing.

3. Appeal for assistance from a member of the Johor Bar

A period of 58 days (not 3 months) elapsed between receiving the said Appeal and sending to the member the first portion of a total sum of RM17,050.00 (and not RM10,000.00).

The timing of the Application was unfortunate in view of the then prevailing unusual circumstances which led to an unavoidable delay.

What transpired is as follows: -

(1) the Application (which was not quite complete) was received by the Bar Council on 13.10.05,

(2) at the time of receipt of the said Application, by the judgments of the High Court on 27.5.05, the Court of Appeal on 15.7.05 and the Federal Court on 17.10.05, the Malaysian Bar AGM held on 19.3.05 was declared invalid with the consequences that :-

(a) the election of the office bearers of the Bar Council was likewise invalidated,

(b) their appointment on the LawCare Fund Committee was likewise invalidated, hence the Committee was non functus, and

(c) the resolution for the LawCare levy passed at the invalidated AGM in 19.3.05 was also invalidated.

(3) to rectify the situation and validate, inter alia, the office bearers and their appointment to the Committee and the implementation of the LawCare levy, a reconvened AGM was held on 22.10.05 after which, the Bar Council naturally needed some time to put certain affairs in order including its finances and Bank mandates and signatories,

(4) On 23.10.2005 a Notice was issued scheduling a meeting of the LawCare Fund Committee on 5.12.2005 which was subsequently brought forward to 1.12.2005 by a notice dated 25.11.2005,

(5) at the meeting of the LawCare Fund Committee on 1.12.05, the Application was tabled for the first time, considered and immediately approved,

(6) On 2.12.2005, a cheque for RM10,000.00 was sent to the Applicant, and

(7) On 24.1.2006 a cheque for further sum of RM7,050.00 (sent in by other caring members of the Bar) was issued in favour of the Applicant and was sent to the Chairman of the Johor Bar Committee for transmission of the same to the Applicant, making a total sum of RM17,050.00 by way of financial assistance to the said Applicant.

4. Why only RM10,000.00 when LawCare levy is RM1.2 million?

(1) LawCare is and was always intended for the purpose of only assisting members in need by way of contribution. Its funds are insufficient to enable it to assume the entire financial burden of members, and this was never the intention of LawCare,

(2) At the time the said Application was received, the LawCare levy was not yet in place as not every member had made his contribution. Furthermore, as the levy was paid pursuant to an invalid resolution, these monies could not be utilised,

(3) At the beginning of 2004, LawCare Funds totalled RM4,163.55. In 2004 and 2005, fund raising projects were implemented by the LawCare Fund Committee, the Bar Council Sports Charity & Welfare Committee, and several State Bars to replenish LawCare’s fast depleting resources, and

(4) LawCare does not and will not have RM1.2 million, let alone Rm1.25 million, annually to dole out. A major portion of this sum will be paid out in insurance premiums to cover each and every member as of right for RM 30,000.00 for TPD (Total Permanent Disability) and PPD (Partial Permanent Disability) and a further RM30,000.00 for death. This is as directed by the general body under the second limb of the LawCare levy resolution passed on 22.10.05.

5. The grant of RM10,000.00 by LawCare instead of the suggested amount of RM100,000.00.

The Writer ought to be mindful that the LawCare Fund does not operate in the same vein as the Compensation Fund. There were 28 practitioners who passed away last year and should every one of their family make an application for the sum as suggested by the Writer, the LawCare Fund would be required to make out a whopping sum of RM2.8 mil. This does not take into account any applications for medical purposes.

From the foregoing, we trust that it is now clear that :-

• Assistance from LawCare is by no means charity,

•  LawCare is not a lending institution whether for profit or otherwise, and

• The response to the Appeal from the member of the Johor Bar was neither dilatory nor paltry in the circumstances.

Please be minded that we are duty bound as custodians of the monies in the LawCare Fund to manage the same in a fair and proper manner.

In the interest of fairness we would appreciate your:

1. printing this response in toto without any deletion or amendment in your next issue of Johor Info Johor Bar, giving it prominence equal to that of your said Editorial, and

2. checking with us beforehand to ascertain the exact facts before publishing any further editorial or article on LawCare. This is what the Press does. One expects no less of a publication of the Bar.

For finality, we would be grateful if in the event you have any queries or wish to respond to the aforesaid, please let us have your response before publication so that we can make the necessary rebuttals to ensure that the readership has a fair and balanced view.


Yours Faithfully,

Jagjit Singh, Serene Ong, Rajendra Raj, Alex Tan


c.c.

The President, Bar Council
The Chairman, Johor Bar Committee
Chairperson, LawCare Fund Management Committee
Webmaster, Malaysian Bar Website - We trust you will publish this reply
Webmaster, Johor Bar Website - in your respective websites.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed