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

Number of Members present: 3,027

Item 5 – Motion by P. Suppiah

That the Meeting approve the Draft Rules (attached herewith with Explanatory Notes) to govern meetings of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and the State Bar and its Committee made pursuant to Section 42(2) (d) and 42(3) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA).

Motion not voted on as the Ad-Hoc Rules Committee under the Chairmanship of Dato’ Cecil Abraham is studying the proposed Rules.

Item 5 (i) Motions by P. Suppiah

Motion on the ‘No Discount Rule’ and Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 1991

(1) That the Resolution ‘No –Discount Rule’ remains and that the Bar Council continues monitoring and taking action against any violation of this Rule passed at the Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar on 27 March 2004 be rescinded.

(2) And that the Bar Council do take such steps as may be necessary to have the ‘Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 1991’ revoked.

Motion defeated overwhelmingly.

Item 5 (xiv) Motion by : T. Kuhanandan Seconder : Lai Wing Yong

Motion calling for amendment to Regulation 7 of the Solicitors Remuneration Order 1991 to allow discount up to a maximum of 20% and that the Solicitors Remuneration Enforcement Rules be amended to be enforced against Advocates and Solicitors who provide discounts over and above the 20% limit prescribed and the incoming Bar Council to take steps to amend the Regulations to give effect to the same immediately

RESOLUTION

The Solicitors Remuneration Order 1991 and the Solicitors Remuneration Enforcement Order 2004 (SREO) which came into force on 1st October 2004 has brought about a lot of displeasure amongst various sectors of the public.

The continued enforceability of the SREO has encountered a varied impracticalities and certain amount of allegations are being levied at the manner of enforcement.

The legality of SREO especially in terms of the affirming of Statutory Declarations by Advocates & Solicitors were questionable and are being questioned.

During this one year of its enforcement, substantial number of queries were levied, strict compliance of the SREO was not seen to be achieved and the impracticality of ensuring strict compliance has been encountered.

In view of the overall impracticality of holding on and enforcing the No Discount Rule, we the undersigned Proposer and Seconder wish to move this Honourable House to resolve that:

(1) Regulation 7 of the Solicitors Remuneration Order 1991 and the like misrepresentation under the Solicitors Remuneration Order 2005 (which has been approved but yet to be gazetted and hence not enforceable yet) which reads as follows:¬

"There shall be no discount on fees prescribed under this Order unless expressly provided by the Schedules"

be amended to cater for the followings:¬

That an Advocate & Solicitor attending to any matters as prescribed in the Solicitors Remuneration Order 1991 and/or 2005 be entitled to provide a discount up to a maximum 20% of the fees prescribed in the Schedules where the transactions are not governed by the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1996 (Act 188) or any subsidiary legislation made thereunder where the prescribed rates are provided therein.

(2) That the SREO be amended accordingly to be strictly enforced against the Advocates & Solicitors who provide discounts over and above the 'approved limits as stated in Resolution 1 and in the Solicitors Remuneration Order 1991 and 2005.

(3) That the Incoming Council take all steps to amend the necessary Regulation forthwith to give effect to the same immediately.

The motion was rejected by a majority of 857 votes against, 567 in favour and 8 abstentions.

Item 5 (xvi) Motion by: Louis Edward Van Buerle

Motion calling for the No Discount Rule under the SRO 1991 to be abolished and for members to be given the discretion to give discounts on the scale fees under the SRO 1991 using the scale as the maximum chargeable

WHEREAS two (2) referendums had been held by the Bar Council in regard the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 1991 (SRO 1991).

WHEREAS in both referendums the majority of those who responded were in favour of allowing members the discretion to give discounts on the scale fees under the SRO 1991.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that:¬

1. The No Discount Rule under the SRO 1991 be abolished and that members be given the discretion to give discounts on the scale fees under the SRO 1991 using the scale as the maximum chargeable.

2. The Bar Council do request for the Solicitors' Costs Committee to be convened to discuss and approve the relevant amendments to the SRO 1991 as provided for by Section 113 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

The motion was rejected by a majority of 930 votes against, 292 in favour and 6 abstentions.

Item 5 (ii) LawCare Fund

Motion on RM100 contribution to the LawCare Fund and insurance coverage for death and permanent disability and/or any other like schemes under the LawCare Fund Levy

WHEREAS:-

1. The Malaysian Bar is administering a Benevolent Fund for its Members called the LawCare Fund in accordance with the LawCare Fund Rules 2004.

2. It is desirable that funds be sourced from every member of the Bar to support the LawCare Fund which is for the benefit of all Members of the Bar and their immediate Family Members.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT: -

a. Every Member of the Bar shall contribute a sum of RM100/- per year to the LawCare Fund such sum to be paid with the Bar Council Annual Subscription (the LawCare Fund Levy).

b. The Bar Council shall be authorised to negotiate and arrange for insurance coverage for death and permanent disability and / or any other like schemes using the said LawCare Fund Levy or any part thereof for the benefit of members.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item 5 (iii) Motion by Charles Hector & Santhi Supramaniam

Motion on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION

WHEREAS some private companies, banks and establishments have a practice that law firms will not be generally retained by the said institutions unless there is compliance with certain ethnic/racial quota requirements with regard the composition of the partners, lawyers in the firm or employees in the firm.

WHEREAS these discriminatory practices have no basis in law by reason that there are at present NO Act, Regulation, Rules and/or any other subsidiary legislation that permits such discriminatory practices in Malaysia.

WHEREAS these practices are discriminatory in nature, and goes against the universal principles of Human Rights and also Malaysia’s constitutionally guaranteed rights as provided for amongst others in Article of the Federal Constitution.

WHEREAS these discriminatory practices goes against the universally recognised and acknowledged inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and more specifically spelt out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

WHEREAS these discriminatory practices goes against the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, where in Clause III (c) it is clearly stated that “No person shall be denied the opportunity to work or be discriminated against in any manner or exposed to greater physical risk by reason of religious belief, colour, race, origin, sex or language.”

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:-

a) That the Malaysian Bar acknowledges the inherent dignity and equality of all human persons irrespective of ethnicity, race, religious belief, colour, gender or language;

b) That the Malaysian Bar condemns all/any institutions and/or persons who uses, practices, propagates and/or encourages any form discrimination;

c) That the Malaysian Bar shall actively take whatsoever necessary steps with the object of ending any/all forms of discriminatory practices;

d) That the Bar Council shall cause to comply a list of institutions/firms which takes into consideration racial/ethnic quotas of law firms before considering to retain a particular law firm or a particular lawyer, and shall thereafter take the necessary and appropriate action against such institutions who practice and/or propagate such discriminatory practices;

e) That the Malaysian Bar call on the Malaysian government to immediately ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Paragraph (b) of the motion is to be deleted. The motion was unanimously carried.

An Ad-Hoc Committee under the Chairmanship of Charles Hector was appointed for follow up action.

Item 5 (iv) Motion by Charles Hector & Roland Engan

Motion on RM10 for Building Fund

RM10-00 FOR BUILDING FUND

WHEREAS the Malaysian Bar already do own a Building at No.13, 15 & 17 Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 KL

WHEREAS for the maintenance and upkeep of the present building, the sum of RM100,000.00 per year should reasonably be more than sufficient.

WHEREAS the Bar Council do earn additional income by the letting out of its Auditorium for third parties to use.

WHEREAS the Bar Council still do charge its members, who have been paying RM100.00 annually for far too long towards the Building Fund for the purchase of this Building, for functions held at the members' Bar Council Auditorium.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:-

a) Members of the Bar shall hereafter pay the sum of RM10-00 only towards the Building Fund;

b) That the Bar Council do present to its members a detailed breakdown as to how monies were utilized for the purchase of the present Building, and for the annual maintenance of the said Building;

c) That members of the Bar shall not be charged registration fees of more than RM10-00 per person per day for any function talk forum held at the Bar Council Auditorium;

d) That all State Bar Committees and/or committees of State Bar Committees and the Bar Council and/or groups of lawyers hall be allowed to use the premises of the Bar Council Auditorium and/or Meeting Rooms for free;

The motion was rejected.

Item 5 (v) Motion by : Malik Imtiaz Sarwar Seconder: Krishna Dallumah

Proposal for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

(a) WHEREAS the Professional Development Committee of the Bar Council (the ‘Committee’) has considered whether there is a need for the implementation of a mandatory continuing legal education programme for the Malaysian Bar; and

(b) WHEREAS having considered international trends in favour of the implementation of such programmes for the purpose of practitioners of law and the context of, and circumstances relevant to, the Malaysian Bar, the Committee has come to the conclusion that the implementation of such a programme would be to the benefit of the members of the Malaysian Bar and made a recommendation to that effect to the Bar Council; and

(c) WHEREAS the Bar Council has endorsed the said recommendation of the Committee

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

(a) the Malaysian Bar recognises the need for the implementation of a mandatory continuing legal education programme; and

(b) the Bar Council be authorised to take all reasonable steps towards the implementation of such a programme including, if considered necessary:

(i) making attendance by members of the Malaysian Bar at such courses or lectures or otherwise as are devised for the purposes of the programme compulsory;

(ii) putting in place measurers to enforce the mandatory nature of the programme;

(iii) imposing on members a subscription of no more than RM150 per member per annum for the purpose of funding such a programme.

(See Report by the Professional Development Committee entitled ‘Proposed Implementation Plan for Continuing Legal Education in Malaysia’) by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Member of the Professional Development Committee.

There were 179 votes against, 292 in favour and 7 abstentions. However the motion was rejected as it did not have 2/3 majority.

Item 5 (vii) Motion by P. Uthayakumar Seconder : M. Manogar

Motion on Independent Police Investigations Tribunal and Attorney General to prosecute without fear or favour all and any criminal abuse of police powers

Bar Resolution on:

1. Independent Police Investigations Tribunal

2. Attorney General to prosecute without fear or favour all and any criminal abuse of police powers.

Whereas :

1. Over the last ten (10) years (in particular) there has been growing public concern about the trend of arbitrary criminal abuse of police powers and the slow arm of the Attorney General's Chambers in prosecuting the perpetrators.

2. These concerns have also been reflected by the formation of the Royal Commission to enhance the Management and Operations of the Royal Malaysian Police Force in January 2005 by the Government of Malaysia.

3. A civil, caring and sharing and humane society should also reflect an accountable, transparent, disciplined and responsible police force abiding by the principles of justice, good governance and the rule of law.

4. The Attorney General by virtue of Article 145 (3) of the Federal Constitution and Section 376 ( 1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is to exercise his powers of prosecution without fear or favour. Further Article 8 of the Federal Constitution provides for Equality before the law.

5. The slow arm of the Attorney General's Chambers in prosecuting and addressing criminal abuse of police powers is evident for example even after the presentation and publication of the Paper titled “Police Accountability: Is there a need for an Independent Complaints Mechanism” (copy enclosed herewith for circulation together with this Resolution) by P.Uthayakumar at the 12th Malaysian Law Conference (Theme -Evolving a Malaysian Nation: the Rule of Law and Lawyers at Nikko Hotel, Kuala Lumpur from l0th - 12th December 2003).

6. In all the twenty (20) serious cases outlined therein which involves custodial crime and the six (6) murdered and one hundred (100) over seriously injured in the Kg. Medan tragedy no criminal action has been instituted by the Attorney General’s Chambers up to date save and except for the initiating of Inquests in four (4) of the fifteen (15) cases involving police shooting to death of suspects / death in police custody / death in the Kg. Medan tragedy. (Note: also some prosecutions for unlawful assembly cases and the prosecution for only one (I) murder in the Kg. Medan tragedy. (outcome unknown)

7. The latest Memorandum by the Police Watch and Human Rights Committee and 7 other NGOs’ titled “Police Abuses in Malaysia (1992 to 31.12.2004) -A General Overview and dated 20.1.2005 and presented to the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police Force (outlining 714 reported cases of criminal abuse of police powers and where hardly any criminal prosecution has been instituted in these cases gives rise to grave concerns.

8. The criminal abuse of police powers by certain members of the police force has gone unchecked because of the current legal and procedural mechanism empowering only members of the police force to investigate all cases of criminal abuse of police powers.

9. The Attorney General’s Chambers on the other hand may be unable to prosecute in these cases where members of the police force are themselves implicated / are the accused purportedly because “there is insufficient evidence”.

Now it is hereby resolved:-

1. That the Malaysian Bar views with grave concern the current legal and procedural mechanism where the police themselves investigate criminal abuse of police powers.

2. That the Malaysian Bar calls upon the Royal Commission to enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police Force, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission, the Attorney Generals Chambers and the Government of Malaysia to formulate legislation and / or implement laws / mechanism for the setting up of an Independent Police Investigations Tribunal with the view to independently investigate and prosecute all cases involving criminal abuse of police powers.

3. That the Malaysian Bar calls upon the Attorney General’s Chambers to prosecute in all cases of criminal abuse of police powers without fear or favour and by the same standards they would prosecute any other citizen.

4. That the Malaysian Bar welcomes the formation of the Royal Commission to enhance the Operations and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police Force by the Government of Malaysia.

The motion was withdrawn.

Item 5 (viii) Motions by P. Suppiah

1) That the Bar Council do make rules governing the exemption relating to the shortening of the pupilage period as provided for in Section 13 of the L.P.A.

2) That the Bar Council do make Rules governing the manner, method and procedure to be followed for the administration of the Legal Aid Scheme financed by the annual subscriptions of the members of the Bar.

3) That the Bar Council do make Rules governing the procedure to be followed in respect of prompt reporting (relating to policies taken out by the Bar Council with Insurers from time to time) whenever such reporting is a pre-condition before any claims can be made thereunder.

The motions were carried with the proviso that the Bar Council makes Rules if it deems necessary.

Item 5 (ix) Motion by K. Shanmuga Seconder :Fahri Azzat

Motion to limit by convention the tenure of Bar Council members and Chairpersons of Committees of the Bar Council

Limit by convention on the tenure of Bar Council members and Chairpersons of Committees of the Bar Council.

Whereas in order to bring about a better system of management of the Malaysian Bar it is the wish of the Malaysian Bar that that there be a continual refreshing of the composition of the Bar Council, through the democratic process so that fresh ideas and approaches are constantly brought to the management and leadership of the Malaysian Bar and therefore

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the following conventions be adhered to by members of the Bar :-

a) In this resolution `an election' means the election of members of the Bar Council under section 47(2)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ('the Act') and/or the election of the Chairman of a State Bar under section 70(4) of the Act and/or the election of a representative of the State Bar on the Bar Council under section 70(7) of the Act.

b) A member of the Bar who has served in the Bar Council for five (5) years shall not offer himself as a candidate in an election until a period of at least three (3) years has elapsed from the expiry of his last term of office.

c) A member of the Bar shall not offer himself as a candidate in an election if he has served as a member of the Bar Council for fifteen (15) years or more in aggregate.

d) A past President of the Bar having served 2 years in office as president shall not thereafter offer himself as a candidate in an election . For the avoidance of doubt, the disqualification in this clause (c) shall not affect the statutory term of office of the immediate past president as a member of the Bar Council pursuant to section 47(2)(a) of the Act.

e) The chairperson of any committee of the Bar Council established under section 58 of the Act shall not be appointed as Chairperson of that committee for more than three (3) continuous years nor shall he be appointed as Chairperson of that committee for more than ten (10) years in aggregate.

f) The Bar Council shall establish a Board of Advisers pursuant to section 58 of the Act to provide assistance and advice to the Bar Council as and when circumstances warrant it which may comprise members of the Bar otherwise disqualified from serving in the Bar Council by reason of the resolutions above but the Bar Council shall not delegate any of its powers to such a Board of Advisers

g) Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a person disqualified by reason of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) above from offering himself as a candidate for election or from being appointed as a Chairperson of a Committee as the case may be in any period of crisis faced by the Malaysian Bar if it is considered that the Malaysian Bar requires his particular expertise and leadership in the Bar Council and that there is no other suitable member of the Bar able and willing to serve in that capacity to meet that crisis.

The motion was rejected by a majority of 161 votes against, 54 in favour and 6 abstentions.

Item 5 (x) Motion by Edmund Bon Seconder : Amer Hamzah Bin Arshad

Motions on the proposal relating to Bar Council Elections.

WHEREAS civil and democratic societies recognize as essential the need for a competent, independent and impartial body of legally trained persons to promote and secure the proper administration of justice, provide legal services and uphold the rule of law and constitutionalism

WHEREAS the Legal Profession Act, 1976 established a body corporate known as the "Malaysian Bar" which his as one of its purposes being to uphold the cause of justice without
regard to its own interest or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour

WHEREAS the Legal Profession Act, 1976 established a Council known as the `Bar Council" for the proper management of the affairs of the Malaysian Bar and for the proper performance of its functions under the Act

RECOGNISING that the Bar council has the potential to be a powerful force in the machinery and administration of justice towards achieving a truly democratic Malaysia.

RECOGNISING that there is a serious lack of information from the Bar Council in respect of
decisions made and discussions had pertaining to important matters concerning the Malaysian
Bar.

RECOGNISING that the Bar Council has in recent years been losing touch with the needs and wishes of the majority of the members of the Malaysian Bar

RECOGNISING that only 25.7%of the members of the Malaysia far voted at the 2005/2006 elections (total number of ballots issued. 11,616 ad total number of ballots returned 2,984)

RECOGNISING that there are more than 11,000 members of the Malaysian far and the number of admissions to the Bar are growing at a fast rate

RECOGNISING that there is a serious lack of information in respect of what the candidates for elections to the Bar Council stand for and their positions on important issues

RECOGNISING that there is no opportunity for the members of the Malaysian Bar to meet with, raise issues and question the candidates for elections to the Bar Council before the elections

RECOGNISING that there is an urgent need to create and generate a wider interest in elections to the Bar Council

AND IN ORDER that the democratic process of elections to the Bar Council pursuant to section 47(2)(c) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 is enhanced to allow members of the Bar to be better informed about the qualifications of candidates for election.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED

1. That the Bar Council immediately takes suitable and adequate steps to encourage voting in Bar Council elections by members of the Malaysian Bar .

2. That the Bar Council reforms the elections including but not limited to the following:

Number of candidates

(a) The Bar Council shall take steps to increase the number of candidates from the floor for each elections.

Hustings

(b) The Bar Council shall hold at the Bar Council Auditorium or any other suitable venue no earlier than one (1) week after the distribution of ballot papers and no later than one (1) week prior to the close of the election at least one (1) 'Hustings' session in a manner which is fair to both voters and candidates.

Ballot papers

(c) Candidates shall submit a half A4 page manifesto setting out his/her pledges and objectives when tiling his nomination for elections.

(d) Candidates may include a passport-size black and white photograph in the half A4 page statement of their proposers accompanying the ballot papers in the election and the Bar Council shall cause that photograph to be published together with the said statement

(e) The Bar Council, when distributing ballot papers (and the envelope in which it is to be returned in) for the election, shall not publish or distribute any other information whatsoever other than:

i. The details of the procedure and rules governing the election.
ii. The requisite half A4 page statement by the proposers of the candidates
iii. The requisite half A4 page manifesto of the candidates.
iv. The notice of the time, date, venue and agenda for the hustings.
v. The number of years each candidate had previously served the Bar
Council, if any.
vi. The details of the decisions or orders made against each candidate by
the Disciplinary Board, if any.

3. That every duly elected President and Secretary of the Malaysian Bar be obliged to take a sabbatical from his/her practice to be contracted on a full-time basis to the Bar Council for his/her term and paid an appropriate salary.

Motion not voted on as the incoming Bar Council will look into the above proposals and present it at the next AGM.

Item 5 (xi) Motion by Sharmila Sekaran Seconder : Edward Saw

Motion on proposal relating to pupils being compelled to attend Court by their Masters where they have no locus and that Advocates and Solicitors having conduct of a matter who are unable to attend Court for a mention should make prior arrangements with another Advocate and Solicitor to mention on their behalf.

WHEREAS an advocate 8 solicitor shall not accept any brief unless he/she is reasonably certain of being able to appear and represent the client in court on the required days.

RECOGNISING that it has now become common practice for some advocates & solicitors having conduct of a cause or matter to send pupils to court to procure the assistance of any advocate & solicitor present in court to mention a cause or matter on behalf of the former advocate & solicitor.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that it is conduct unbefitting of an advocate & solicitor to send a pupil to court where that pupil has no standing to appear pursuant to section 36(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, for the purpose of procuring the assistance of any advocate & solicitor to mention a cause or matter on behalf of the advocate & solicitor having conduct of the cause or matter.

AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that if an advocate & solicitor having conduct of a cause or matter is unable to attend court for a mention, it is incumbent upon him/her to make prior arrangements with another advocate & solicitor to mention the cause or matter on his/her behalf.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item 5 (xii) Motion by Simran Gill Seconder : Ngooi Chiu -Ing

Motion on proposal to endorse and adopt the “Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” issued by the Ministry of Human Resources.

WHEREAS Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

RECOGNISING that pupils and lawyers are entitled to a safe and healthy working environment free from harassment and intimidation of a sexual nature.

RECOGNISING that men and women holding auxiliary or subordinate positions are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment.

RECALLING the Statement of the Second National Young Lawyers’ Convention, 2005 calling for the endorsement of the “Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” issued by the Ministry of Human Resources.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the “Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace” issued by the Ministry of Human Resources be endorsed and adopted.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item 5 (xiii) Motion by: Param Cumaraswamy Seconder: Porres P. Royan

Motion calling on the incoming Bar Council to publish all the four (4) written opinions pertaining to the need for a quorum for an AGM, in the next issue of the Infoline or Insaf whichever is the earlier.

WHEREAS at the invalidated 59th AGM held on March 19, 2005 the Chairman informed that five (5) opinions one of which was oral were sought and received by the Bar Council from senior lawyers of the Bar. Three of them were of the opinion that there was no need for a quorum. Based on these three opinions the Council decided on May 8, 2004 that there was no need for a quorum for an AGM.

REALISING that the contents of the four written opinions obtained by the Bar Council obviously for and on behalf of the Malaysian Bar have not to date been disclosed to the members of the Malaysian Bar.

CONCERNED that at the hearing of Louis Edward Van Buerle's (Van Buerle) suit against the Malaysian Bar before the High Court Counsel for the Malaysian Bar applied by summons supported by the affidavit of Yeoh Yang Poh obtained an order to expunge the four (4) written opinions exhibited to the affidavit of Van Buerle on grounds that they were opinions provided on a solicitor-client basis and that they were subject to the doctrine of privilege.

NOTING that the privilege claimed was the privilege of the Malaysian Bar of which Van Buerle and the lawyers who gave the opinions were and are members and therefore by necessary implication the client on whose behalf the opinions were sought;

CONCERNED also that the Bar Council thereafter caused an inquiry to be carried out among its members as to how the copies of the opinions got into the possession of Van Buerle. Members of the Council were requested to declare in writing that they did or did not disclose the opinions.

CONCERNED further that the said four (4) written opinions sought and received on behalf of the Malaysian Bar continue to remain privy to only a selected group of the Malaysian Bar namely the members of the Bar Councils 2004-05 and 2005-06.

RECALLING that the Malaysian Bar has throughout over the years publicly upheld the cause of democracy, the rule of law and human rights and moreover at critical periods in the history of the nation campaigned without fear or favour for greater transparency and accountability in public administration and urging among others for the enactment of a freedom of information legislation;

RECALLING further that only recently at the 58th AGM in 2004 the Malaysian Bar considered and adopted the following resolution:

A. The Malaysian Bar should strive to be the model of democracy, ensuring always that the principle of transparency and accountability is practised in its own organization at all levels.

B. That the leaders of the Bar should at all times actively and positively be responsive to its membership, and strive to ensure that freedom of expression and opinion is at all times not only respected but also practised within the Bar at all levels.

CONVINCED that the conduct of the Council and its office bearers in applying to expunge the four opinions from the Court records in the suit brought by Van Buerle and the continued refusal/failure to disclose the four (4) written opinions to all members of the Malaysian Bar were inconsistent with all the values and principles of transparency and accountability which the Malaysian Bar espoused and promoted throughout.

CONVINCED further that their conduct violated the very resolution adopted by the Malaysian Bar at the 58th AGM in 2004.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

the incoming Bar Council publish all the four (4) written opinions in the next immediate issue of the INFOLINE or INSAF whichever is the earlier.

The motion was withdrawn.

Item 5 (xvii) Motion by Louis Edward Van Buerle

Motion calling for a fine of RM200 to be imposed on Federal Territory and Selangor members who do not attend an AGM and a fine of RM100 for members from the other States who do not attend the AGM, such fine to be paid before the issuance of the Sijil Annual to such member.

Whereas it is mandatory to have 1/5 of the total number of members of the Malaysian Bar to be personally present at the Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar before any business could be proceeded with in the meeting.

Whereas it is the obligation of each and every member of the Malaysian Bar to ensure that the quorum is achieved at and on every Annual General Meeting.

Now it is hereby resolved that:

1. The following fines shall be imposed on members who fail to attend an Annual General Meeting:-

a. For members from the Federal Territory and Selangor who are not present at the AGM, a fine of RM200.00 will be imposed on the member, and

b. For members from States other than Federal Territory and Selangor who are not present at the AGM, a fine of RM100.00 will be imposed on the member.

2. The fine is to be paid by such member before the issuance of the Sijil Annual to such member.

3. All monies collected under this motion is to be paid into a separate fund and be utilised by the Bar Council on the recommendation of a Committee of 5 members who would authorise such financial assistance (subject to a maximum sum set by the Bar Council) as they deem fit to any deserving member who has health problems or whose dependant(s) require financial help upon the member's demised.

The motion was withdrawn.