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

Every issue is a problem ... from the A. Kugan case, conversion cases, the political turmoil in Perak, and every time someone is unhappy with a decision of the judiciary.

In that sense, expectations from members can be handled because they understand what is to be expected, but it’s different with the public. Again, I blame my predecessors for bringing up the profile of the Bar until it is so high.

In terms of leadership of the Bar, I don’t see it as my task to chart the direction of the Bar. It has always been a continuation of consistent policies by the Bar over the past 30-40 years – on issues such as rule of law, judiciary and human rights.

In terms of the Bar Council’s public profile, during Tun Mahathir Mohamad’s time, it was shut out, including from the media. During the Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi era, there was a tacit agreement between the Bar and the administration to agree to disagree on issues. Yet, we could work together in many areas.

Pak Lah had given us more space, not only to the Bar but also to civil society and the media. Perhaps it was not by design but also how society itself had evolved – the bloggers, information over the Internet; a change that created greater awareness among the public. Maybe even because of the breakdown of public institutions as well.

There was a lot more criticism from the public and even the mainstream media had to change direction, from being subservient to the government, because issues of readership and sustainability are important. All this inevitably created more space for civil society and the Bar benefited from it.

Any president, when he or she speaks, speaks for the Bar Council and invariably for the Malaysian Bar, and your statement must reflect the stand of both. But in a sense, in most areas of public interest, there is no problem at all. In fact, in all areas of public interest, our stand is clear – we are on the side of human rights.

But your predecessor Ambiga received flak for her statements on the Perak crisis where she said Mentri Besar Datuk Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin had no choice but to resign as the sultan had acted within the provisions of the law in not agreeing to dissolve the state assembly. Members lynched her for that statement.

I have worked with Ambiga for two years, and before that with Yeo Yang Poh and Kuthbul Zaman Bukhari. Every year, you make about 200 statements. Generally, written statements are not a problem because you have time to prepare them. Sometimes speaking off the cuff is a very difficult position to be in because you may be caught off guard and be misquoted by the media.

(Laughs) But I think the position of the Bar on the Perak controversy is clear; that there should be re-election. Again if you make a statement which is incompatible for whatever reason, you have to defend that position. So you will be taken to task by the Bar Council and of course by the membership as well.

But I think members of the Bar are not as "difficult" because they understand that in an area of law, there can be two or three interpretations, but it is tougher with the public because as much as you know what the law should be, it may not be what the public wants to hear. But what we are always guided by are principles, what we think is right and how we can justify this to our members.

This is, in a sense, the strength of the position you hold. The Bar does unexpected things like walk for justice where we expected 200 lawyers to turn up but 2,000 came to march.

That’s the strength of the Bar, its members, and when it comes to the crunch, the members will come forward to support you but generally on a day-to-day basis everyone moves on and does his own thing. But when you hold a position as president and you make a mistake, the council, the Malaysian Bar will come down hard on you.

In a way, it is easy because you articulate the position taken by previous presidents, you don’t have to go through uncharted waters, and everything has been done, just follow through and carry on.

However, what you do and how you perform are dictated by outside factors, for example the government of the day, the political scenario of the day and the environment.

During the Mahathir era, the Bar and civil society were shut out and it was easy in a sense because we only criticised. But now we are put in a much more difficult situation because while we criticise, there are also parts of the government with which we have a good working relationship. So it’s engage and also to disagree. The balance is difficult.

Most of the time, what is right is popular. Issues like the ISA, judiciary, more open space for civil society, freedom of the press – those are easy decisions to make, very clear.

The difficult ones are issues dealing with religion, the Perak crisis, which are not so clear-cut in terms of what is right by law. This are uncharted waters and the position we would take is to do the right thing regardless of whether it is popular or not. I think one major problem that we need to resolve is religious conversion and the problem with the (inter-religious) forum last year does not take away the responsibility we have.

The main issue is that when we speak privately with people, they agree that what has been articulated by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz is the way forward, nobody will disagree with you on this in private, but when you take a public position, then you see differences creeping in – the right of guardianship, the argument that the law and court have decided, and that the policy decision by the government interferes with the court.

Generally, when you are the government (and) if the courts have decided one way, against the policy of the government, it is absolutely normal for the government to amend the laws. That happens all the time.

We have to accept that for once the government has come out strongly and unequivocally on this policy – that conversion matters should technically be resolved in the civil courts.

That is the position we have been taking for many years. But the concern we have is that in Malaysian politics, this is easy to say; the problem is to follow through.

Now the vested interests come in and the question will be how new Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak will push through this.

How to deal with politicians and pressure groups? You can see that it is already starting issues like how can you interfere when the court has decided? How can you interfere with the judiciary and so on.

But this is an area where if the government does not deliver, they are going to pay dearly at the next election.

Another area Najib has to deal with is when a decision favouring one race or religion is made; the other races and religions will feel that they are being slighted. This is one area that is entrenched because of the political makeup of the country. Najib has to deal with the problem, by convincing people that it’s not a zero sum game – that conversion issues being resolved in civil courts, does not mean the loss of rights for Muslims. That is still there.

The cases we have seen recently… it is difficult for a parent to accept that his or her spouse insists on converting the children. Why not teach the children values instead of changing their names on a form. Teach them substance, then let the child decide when he or she reaches the age of majority.

Also when a person leaves a civil marriage, it does not mean his contractual obligations like maintenance, custody and care end.

The election is spread out very well (among the) 36 council members. Each state elects two representatives to the council, while 12 members are elected from the floor. Of the 36 committee members, 12 or one third are Muslims, a fairly decent representation.

It is not representative of gender and race perhaps. Although I think in terms of gender, there is 50% representation of women in the Bar. Ballot papers are sent out to 12,500 members but only 3,500 ballots are returned.

Actually much less. We have 36 committees involved in human rights issues, practice areas (bread and butter issues), and public interest areas. Of this, 80-90% cover practice areas.

The participation in human rights and public interest issues is small, but because of the public positions we have taken and the exposure in the media, many people only see that aspect of the Bar. If we were to issue statements on the practice areas or the judiciary, this will rarely be carried. But the idea, at the end of the day, is not to build our profile but to continue the work we have already started.

At the end of the day, we deal with bread and butter issues of the profession, we run the most comprehensive professional indemnity insurance in the Asia-Pacific, we have a strong continuing legal education programme, compensation fund, legal aid, practice… 80% of the work we do is in practice areas for the members.

To be fair to the judiciary, Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, has many consultations with us. The main reason why the tracking system was brought in was that there were complaints that Kuala Lumpur which had 20 judges did not have a tracking system for managing a case.

Case management varied between the 20 judges. There was a huge difference in performance. If you’re lucky and get into a court with a hardworking judge, your matter gets cleared. If you’re unlucky you get a hearing date in 2015.

So the main reason why this tracking system was brought in was to make it uniform for everybody, but that does not mean that the system does not have its own problems.

But these are issues that can be resolved by tweaking the system. Because it’s a "new" system, it needs a settling down period and the courts have given it six months to one year to see whether it works. The cases are now managed and monitored centrally so we hope to see more effective disposal of cases and hope the issues will be resolved soon.

At the AGM on March 14, there was a lot of talk for us to take on this matter, so we organised a forum but only 18 people turned up. Lawyers have to be a little bit more pro-active and inform the Bar and state Bars.

Zaki has been responsive to the issues we have brought up. The only problem we have is when they ask – where is the problem? Which issue? Can you give me a file number?

Yes, tell us what the file number is, tell us which registrar is giving you problems, tell us which court, then it can be taken up to the relevant authorities. But if you don’t give us particulars how do we respond?

With the tracking system, the common experience is that the decision is fast but the court’s clerical staff cannot cope; so at the end of the day, the implementation of the decision takes just as long or even longer.

The biggest problem is a change in mindset of the staff of the judiciary. You must understand that this is the first time they are being pushed to work hard. So there are also many who are rebelling against these changes and are entrenched in their ways. So that is why it is important to identify who these people are so we can take it up with the authorities.

The CJ has asked us for details, so that he can investigate. But if we say everything in general terms, then when he goes down they will tell him "everything is fine" but if you can give particulars, then he can act on it.

The problem is also that when you bring about changes, not everybody will be happy. Which means you will have to work harder. So there will be people who break down and try to create problems for the system. So this is what is happening to certain parts of the judiciary.

You must also understand that the system we have is an archaic system which is more than 60 years old. Organisation is not there, the structure, the filing system, the court documents … there must be a comprehensive reform and review of all these changes.

Those were old cases, but judges are human beings and they have to be monitored too. You can’t just say I’m king of the court and I decide on everything. They must be fair to the litigants. In Kuala Lumpur, dates have been given in 2015. Now with the tracking system, cases are being heard in three months. This shows that it can be done, and it means the judges have to work harder.

But it does not make sense for a judge (to adopt the attitude) "I can sit and delay my case and still get the same salary and don’t get punished"; so now there has to be some element of performance and accountability.

I think for the first time in many years, the CJ is pushing judges hard. It’s not perfect; there are times when justice may suffer. Issues can be overcome but there will be no overnight changes.

No, I think the problem began in 1988, during the Mahathir era. We paid a heavy price for neglecting the judiciary, heavy price in terms of foreign investment, public confidence, investor confidence and only in the last three to four years has the government come out openly to admit that we need to reform the judiciary, that we have suffered, that the judiciary is not working.

For 20 years, we ignored this problem, the government ignored this problem. The condition, the morale, the investments were very low in terms of the judiciary, appointments were bad, and there was no regard for individuals of standing in society to be appointed.

What has happened (is that), as lawyers when we deal with foreign investors, the first thing they say is "I don’t want the dispute to be resolved in Malaysia, I don’t trust your judges."

This is the price you pay for 20 years of neglect and now we have to re-work, reform and recharge. Much more needs to be done.

We have met Nazri (minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, in charge of law) but not the prime minister himself yet. From what the PM is saying, it seems he understands and articulates the problems well. But I don’t know if he will be able to solve problems which are entrenched values within the old structure.

It was so entrenched that Abdullah couldn’t break through the walls that were being put up. Najib has to be much more persistent and stronger to push forward his values. He has to break down the walls and breaking down the walls means understanding. He uses the word ‘respect’ rather than ‘tolerance’ which is a huge difference from the past, which is great.

He has to engage civil society and various groups to resolve the crisis and make tough choices like reducing bumiputra equity, especially in this climate where we have to be more competitive.

The arrest of journalism lecturer Wong Chin Huat under the ISA for sedition for what he said on the 1BlackMalaysia campaign. What is the significance of this? (Wong has since been released)

This arrest is an act of intimidation and seems to follow through from the charging of Karpal Singh for sedition as well. We view these as attempts to cow and intimidate the public to refrain from expressing their views.

The police obtained a court order to prevent gatherings within a 500m radius of the state assembly in Ipoh on May 7. What does this mean for the right to assemble peacefully?

The court order for people to stay away from the state secretariat seems to be an attempt again to stop people from exercising their right to assemble. We view this as unnecessary and counter productive. The government must accept dissent as a legitimate form of expression and acceptable as democratic norms. As much as it is unpalatable, it must not be silenced but countered with reforms and concrete changes.

On the arrest of five lawyers sent by the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre to assist 14 people arrested for taking part in a vigil, how do you handle this? (The lawyers have since been released)

The arrests of the lawyers were unacceptable and an affront to the rule of law and go against all norms of the criminal justice system. We have called for an EGM to discuss this matter.