The Malaysian Bar - The 63rd Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held at the Grand Ballroom, Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur

The 63rd Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar held at the Grand Ballroom, Legend Hotel, Kuala Lumpur - 14 March 2009

Saturday, 14 March 2009 05:10pm

Item 7.1 of the Agenda Motion proposed by Bar Council on setting up a Self-Insurance Fund (SIF) as an alternative to the present Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Scheme, dated 7 February 2009 WHEREAS,

a)	At the 62^nd AGM of the Malaysian Bar on 15 March 2008, the floor approved the motion authorising the Bar Council to take all necessary steps towards determining the viability of a Self-Insurance Fund (SIF) as an alternative to the present Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Scheme.

b)	The Bar Council is proposing that the Malaysian Bar proceed to look at the SIF as an alternative to the present PII Scheme.

c)	The key objectives of the Bar Council in moving to a SIF are to insulate the PII Scheme against insurance market volatility, exert greater control over the Scheme and its management, and over time provide stable and affordable premiums to members of the Malaysian Bar.

d)	Section 78A(1), Legal Profession Act 1976 states that “the Bar Council may, with the approval of the Attorney General, make rules concerning the taking out of professional indemnity for advocates and solicitors against any class of professional liability and the rules may for the purpose of providing such indemnity do all or any of the following:

	a)	authorise the Bar Council to take out and maintain insurance in the name of the Malaysian Bar with any person permitted by law to carry on professional liability insurance business or pecuniary loss insurance business and covering every practising advocate and solicitor;

	b)	*authorise the Bar Council to establish and maintain a fund or funds for the aforesaid purpose; or*

	c)	require advocates and solicitors to take out and maintain insurance.”

A legal opinion was sought from a senior member of the Bar to determine that the Legal Profession Act 1976 provides for the setting up of a SIF. The said legal opinion confirmed that Section 78A(1)(b), Legal Profession Act 1976 empowers the Bar Council to make such rules to set up a fund, subject to the approval of the Attorney General.

e)	Salient features of the proposed SIF are as follows:

	(i)	SIF Model/Structure

	The SIF will replace the current PII Scheme, but not in its entirety. A centrally retained fund will be created from members’ PII Contributions. The Bar Council would then proceed to purchase insurance for claims beyond a certain limit. This (optimal) limit would be determined based on the various studies conducted:

		●	Actuarial analysis of historical PII Scheme claims.
		●	Financial Modelling of the SIF, incorporating the actuarial claims analysis, investment income analysis and operating expense assumptions.

	A key objective of the SIF is to reduce the long-term insurance cost of members. This is to be achieved by reducing the PII Scheme’s reliance on the commercial insurance market, which historically imposed higher premiums on the PII Scheme due to external factors (e.g. post 9/11 terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, etc.). Under this Model/Structure, members’ contributions to the SIF will be primarily used to pay for actual PII claims. That is, the SIF will be rated based on the Malaysian Bar Scheme’s own merits and claims history.

	(ii)	Operating Structure

	The operating structure will consist of several Committees appointed by the Bar Council to oversee the management and administration of the SIF. Duties and responsibilities of these Committees are to be formally documented, e.g. a Charter, Article or Memorandum of Association. The proposed Committees are to consist of members of the Bar and/or industry experts deemed appropriate by the Bar Council which include but are not limited to the following:

		●	PI Committee. This Committee reports to the Bar Council, who will report to the Malaysian Bar at Annual General Meeting(s). The PI Committee will govern the overall running of the PII Scheme/SIF as provided under the Legal Profession Act 1976.

		●	SIF Management Committee. Responsible for formulating strategic policies, advising the PI Committee on risk retention structure, and reviewing the SIF financial reports and audit findings.

		●	SIF Claims Committee. Oversee the SIF Claims Management, Claims Administrator and determine claims against SIF in accordance to agreed terms and conditions.

	These Committees will be supported by outsource third parties where necessary, e.g. an Insurance Consultant (combining the role of ‘Insurance Broker’ and ‘SIF Administrator’) and Third Party Claims Administrator. Further, these Committees, whilst independent from the Bar Council, are ultimately answerable to the Bar Council.

f)	The process of obtaining the relevant approvals is in progress. This includes meetings held with Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AG’s Chambers).

	(i)	BNM

	Two meetings have been held with BNM on 27 July 2007 and 24 April 2008. At these meetings, the proposed SIF Model/Structure was presented to and discussed with BNM, and there has not been any objections.

	(ii)	AG’s Chambers

	Amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Liability) (Insurance) Rules 1992 to govern the administration and protection of a SIF were presented to the AG’s Chambers at a meeting held on 22 December 2008. Once approved by the Attorney General, such rules would replace the Legal Profession (Professional Liability) (Insurance) Rules 1992. The proposed amendments to the Legal Profession (Professional Liability) (Insurance) Rules 1992 are to ensure that the SIF is protected and used for the sole purpose of PII.

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT Bar Council shall proceed to implement a SIF, if it remains viable as an alternative to the current PII Scheme at 1 January 2010 or at a time and date it deems appropriate depending on economic and other related factors.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item 7.2 of the Agenda

Usul dicadangkan oleh Majlis Peguam berkenaan hak-hak Orang Asli, bertarikh 11 Februari 2009

Badan Peguam Malaysia,

mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia sebagai ahli kepada Majlis Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu wajib mempertahankan nilai-nilai yang mendasari undang-undang dan norma-norma hak-hak asasi manusia antarabangsa seperti yang termaktub, antara lainnya, dalam Perisytiharan Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat 1948, Waad Antarabangsa Mengenai Hak-Hak Sivil dan Politik 1966 dan Waad Antarabangsa Mengenai Hak-Hak Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya 1966;

mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia telah meratifikasi Konvensyen Berkaitan Penghapusan Segala Bentuk Diskriminasi Terhadap Wanita 1979 dan Konvensyen Terhadap Hak-Hak Kanak-Kanak 1989, dan telah menandatangani Konvensyen Terhadap Hak-Hak Orang Kurang Upaya 2006 yang mana, antara lainnya, memberikan perlindungan kepada golongan yang mudah terjejas seperti wanita, kanak-kanak dan orang kurang upaya di Malaysia;

mengambil perhatian bahawa Malaysia telah mengundi, di Majlis Hak-Hak Asasi Manusia Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan Perhimpunan Agung Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, untuk menerimapakai Pengisytiharan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Hak-Hak Orang Asal 2007 yang, antara lainnya, mengulangi hak-hak Orang Asli dalam menentukan nasib mereka sendiri;

didorong oleh keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan dalam kes Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v Sagong Tasi & Ors [2005] 4 CLJ 169 yang mengiktiraf hak-hak Orang Asli dalam dan ke atas tanah adat mereka di bawah undang-undang lazim;

didorong oleh perkembangan terbaru pengenalan dan penubuhan “Badan Bertindak Mengenai Hak-Hak Tanah Orang Asli” oleh Kerajaan Negeri Perak (di bawah Pakatan Rakyat);

amat prihatin bahawa tanah adat Orang Asli menerima ancaman berterusan yang dilakukan atas nama “pembangunan” (mengikut tafsiran sendiri dan pemahaman satu hala oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, tanpa perundingan atau persetujuan Orang Asli);

amat prihatin bahawa sungguhpun Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri mempunyai tanggungjawab fidusiari untuk mendukung dan melindungi kebajikan dan hak-hak Orang Asli namun sebaliknya Orang Asli sering dipaksa melepaskan tanah adat mereka kepada syarikat berkaitan Kerajaan atau swasta, atau atas alasan usahasama;

amat prihatin bahawa Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli telah gagal memenuhi tanggungjawab fidusiarinya untuk memperkasa dan membantu kebajikan Orang Asli, malah terlibat sama dalam perlanggaran hak-hak Orang Asli;

amat prihatin bahawa sesungguhnya implementasi polisi-polisi integrasi telah mengakibatkan penempatan semula Orang Asli secara paksa, memisahkan mereka daripada sumber mata pencarian untuk hidup mereka, cara hidup dari segi fizikal dan rohaniah mereka dan warisan ekonomi, sosial dan budaya mereka yang telah diamalkan dan dikembangkan sejak berabad-abad lamanya;

amat prihatin bahawa majoriti Orang Asli tidak dapat menikmati sepenuhnya hak-hak asasi mereka oleh kerana tradisi, adat dan nilai mereka sedang dihakiskan;

amat prihatin bahawa dalam usaha menjustifikasikan polisi “pembangunan” serta tindakan menempatkan semula dan mengintegrasikan Orang Asli, pihak berkuasa cuba menggambarkan Orang Asli sebagai menentang perubahan-perubahan yang dikatakan untuk kebaikan Orang Asli sendiri;

amat prihatin bahawa walaupun permintaan dan rayuan seringkali dibuat kepada pihak berkuasa, tanah adat Orang Asli masih belum diiktiraf dan dilindungi dengan sepenuhnya;

mengambil perhatian bahawa sesungguhnya tiada penyelesaian mudah atau satu penyelesaian sahaja kepada pengiktirafan dan perlindungan rasmi tanah adat Orang Asli kerana masalah-masalah yang dihadapi bergantung kepada tempat dan komuniti berkenaan;

mengambil perhatian bagaimanapun, terdapat pelbagai pilihan sedia ada bagi pengiktirafan dan perlindungan rasmi tanah adat Orang Asli bergantung kepada keperluan-keperluan masyarakat Orang Asli yang berkenaan, antara lainnya:

(a)	pemberian hakmilik tanah secara individu kepada setiap keluarga Orang Asli;

(b)	pewartaan bahagian-bahagian tanah komunal oleh Kerajaan-Kerajaan Negeri yang berkenaan, di bawah Seksyen 62 Kanun Tanah Negara;

(c)	pewartaan bahagian-bahagian tanah komunal di bawah Akta Orang Asli 1954 dengan kebebasan yang tiada had masa serta tanpa sekatan ke atas hak-hak untuk mencari sumber makanan melebihi kawasan bahagian-bahagian tanah komunal yang telah diwartakan; dan

(d)	dalam kes-kes berkecuali iaitu yang berhubungkait dengan masyarakat Orang Asli yang hidup secara separa nomad, yang merupakan kumpulan Orang Asli yang paling mudah terjejas, peruntukan hak untuk mencari sumber makanan dengan bebas yang tiada had masa serta tanpa sekatan (selari dengan peluang yang lebih besar bagi pendidikan dan bimbingan vokasional ke arah melestarikan sara hidup mereka);

amat prihatin bahawa kebanyakan komuniti Orang Asli tinggal tanpa kemudahan asas, ameniti-ameniti dan infrastruktur

mengiktiraf bahawa Orang Asli adalah masyarakat yang sangat bernilai tetapi mudah terjejas, dan kehidupan, kebudayaan dan tanah adat mereka berhak mendapat perlindungan kita;

1.	Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli dan semua syarikat dan individu awam dan swasta supaya menghormati hak-hak Orang Asli sejajar dengan Pengisytiharan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Hak-Hak Orang Asal 2007, dan tidak bertindak bertentangan dengan hak-hak tersebut.

2.	Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri dan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli, melalui perundingan dan kerjasama dengan Orang Asli, supaya mengambil langkah-langkah yang sewajarnya, termasuk melalui aspek perundangan, dalam usaha mencapai maksud dan tujuan Pengisytiharan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu Mengenai Hak-Hak Orang Asal 2007.

3.	Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli dan semua syarikat dan individu awam dan swasta menghentikan apa jua bentuk “pembangunan” (mengikut tafsiran sendiri dan pemahaman satu hala oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, tanpa perundingan atau persetujuan Orang Asli), pembersihan hutan dan aktiviti-aktiviti pembalakan di atas tanah adat Orang Asli sehingga proses perundingan dengan masyarakat yang terjejas dijalankan, dan kebenaran bebas, yang natijah dan maklumat-maklumatnya dijelaskan terlebih dahulu, serta kerjasama diperolehi daripada masyarakat yang terbabit.

4.	Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri dan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli supaya mengiktiraf, melindungi dan menjamin secara rasmi hak-hak Orang Asli dalam dan ke atas tanah adat mereka di seluruh negara dan mewartakan tanah-tanah adat sebagai kawasan simpanan Orang Asli, dan jika perlu meminda undang-undang tanah negara ini bagi memastikan tujuan tersebut dapat dicapai. Dalam keadaan-keadaan yang menimbulkan keraguan, pemetaan yang dilakukan dengan rundingan dan kerjasama dari masyarakat Orang Asli hendaklah dilaksanakan.

5.	Dengan lantangnya menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan supaya mengadakan dan menjadi penganjur kepada sesi perundingan kebangsaan dengan masyarakat Orang Asli, badan-badan yang berkenaan dan pihak-pihak yang terbabit untuk membincangkan, mereka dan menerimapakai satu rangka kerja yang menyeluruh untuk dilaksanakan bagi menambahbaik kehidupan masyarakat Orang Asli termasuk memberikan setiap individu Orang Asli keseluruhan hak-hak yang dijamin di bawah undang-undang dan norma-norma hak-hak asasi manusia antarabangsa.

6.	Dengan lantangnya menyeru supaya sebuah “Badan Bertindak Peringkat Tertinggi Berkaitan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli” yang bebas ditubuhkan dengan dianggotai oleh wakil-wakil masyarakat Orang Asli, Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Negeri, Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli, Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia, Peguam Negara, badan-badan bukan kerajaan, kumpulan-kumpulan hak-hak asasi manusia dan Majlis Peguam, antara lainnya, untuk mempertimbangkan pindaan-pindaan yang perlu ke atas Akta Orang Asli 1954 konsisten dengan undang-undang dan norma-norma hak-hak asasi manusia antarabangsa, dan untuk merumuskan polisi-polisi serta menyelaraskan inisiatif-inisiatif yang disasarkan untuk memperbaiki tahap perlindungan hak-hak masyarakat Orang Asli di negara ini.

7.	Memberi mandat kepada Majlis Peguam untuk mengambil dan meneruskan langkah-langkah yang sesuai dan perlu bagi mengimplementasi, membantu dan memperkasakan masyarakat Orang Asli dalam perjuangan mereka mengangkat martabat dan melindungi hak-hak mereka di bawah undang-undang dan norma-norma hak-hak asasi manusia antarabangsa.

Motion proposed by Bar Council on indigenous peoples' rights, dated 11 February 2009 (English translation)

The Malaysian Bar,

taking note that Malaysia is a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council and is obliged to uphold the underlying values of international human rights laws and norms set out in, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966;

taking note that Malaysia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 1979 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, and signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 which, inter alia, accords protection for vulnerable groups such as women, children and the disabled in Malaysia;

taking note that Malaysia voted, at both the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly, in favour of adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 that, inter alia, reiterates the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination;

encouraged by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kerajaan Negeri Selangor & Ors v Sagong Tasi & Ors [2005] 4 CLJ 169, which recognises the right of indigenous peoples in and over their ancestral lands at common law;

encouraged by the recent introduction and establishment by the Perak State Government (under Pakatan Rakyat) of an “Orang Asli Land Rights Task Force”;

deeply concerned that the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples are under constant threat in the name of “development” (as unilaterally defined and understood by the Federal and State Governments without consultation with, nor consent of, indigenous peoples);

deeply concerned that notwithstanding the fiduciary duty of the Federal and State Governments to promote and protect the welfare and rights of indigenous peoples, the latter are instead often coerced into relinquishing their ancestral lands to Government-linked or private enterprises, or under the pretext of integration;

deeply concerned that the Department of Orang Asli Affairs has failed to perform its fiduciary duty to empower indigenous peoples and assist with their welfare, but is instead complicit in the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples;

deeply concerned that the implementation of integration policies causing coerced resettlement of indigenous peoples removes them from their source of livelihood, their physical and spiritual way of life and their economic, social and cultural heritage which have been practised, and have evolved, over centuries;

deeply concerned that the majority of indigenous peoples are not able to fully enjoy their fundamental human rights as their traditions, customs and values are being eroded;

deeply concerned that the relevant authorities, in an attempt to justify their “development” policies and actions to resettle and integrate indigenous peoples, seek to portray indigenous peoples as resistant towards changes that are purportedly for their benefit;

deeply concerned that despite numerous requests and appeals to the relevant authorities, the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples have yet to be fully recognised and protected;

taking note that there is no simple nor single solution to the formal recognition and protection of these ancestral lands, as the problems encountered vary according to place and community;

taking note however that various options are available for the formal recognition and protection of these ancestral lands depending on the needs of the respective indigenous communities, inter alia:

(a)	the issuance of individual land titles to every indigenous family;

(b)	the gazetting of communal land parcels by the State Governments under Section 62 of the National Land Code 1965;

(c)	the gazetting of communal land parcels under the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 with perpetual and unlimited foraging rights extending beyond the gazetted communal land parcels; and

(d)	in exceptional cases of certain semi-nomadic indigenous communities, who are the most vulnerable of indigenous peoples, perpetual and unlimited foraging rights (with concomitant and greater opportunities for education and vocational training towards sustaining their livelihood);

deeply concerned that many indigenous communities still live without basic needs, amenities and infrastructure;

recognising that indigenous peoples are invaluable yet vulnerable communities whose livelihoods, cultures and lands are deserving of our protection;

1.	Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments, the Department of Orang Asli Affairs and all public and private enterprises and individuals to respect the rights of indigenous peoples pursuant to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, and not to act in any manner inconsistent with those rights.

2.	Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments and the Department of Orang Asli Affairs, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples, to take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to achieve the spirit and intent of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007.

3.	Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments, the Department of Orang Asli Affairs and all public and private enterprises and individuals to discontinue any “development” (as unilaterally defined and understood by the Federal and State Governments without consultation with, nor consent of, indigenous peoples), deforestation and logging activities on indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands until a process of consultation is conducted with the affected communities, and their free, prior and informed consent and cooperation are obtained.

4.	Strongly calls upon the Federal and State Governments, and the Department of Orang Asli Affairs, to formally recognise, protect and guarantee the right of indigenous in and over their ancestral lands throughout the country and to gazette such ancestral lands as reserved areas for them, and if necessary to amend our land laws to achieve the same. In cases of doubt, a mapping exercise in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples must be carried out.

5.	Strongly calls upon the Federal Government to organise and host a nationwide consultation with indigenous peoples, relevant bodies and interested parties to discuss, design and adopt a holistic programme of action to better the lives of indigenous peoples, including according every indigenous person the full extent of all rights guaranteed under international human rights laws and norms.

6.	Strongly calls for the establishment of an independent “High-Level Task Force on Orang Asli Affairs”, comprising representatives of indigenous communities, the Federal and State Governments, the Department of Orang Asli Affairs, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, the Attorney-General, non-governmental organisations, human rights groups and the Bar Council, to, inter alia, consider making amendments to the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 consistent with principles of international human rights laws and norms, and to formulate policies and co-ordinate initiatives to better protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

7.	Mandates the Bar Council to take and continue all appropriate and necessary action to implement, assist and empower indigenous peoples in their struggle to promote and protect their rights under international human rights laws and norms.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item 7.3 of the Agenda

Motion proposed by Bar Council on Detention without Trial laws, dated 11 February 2009

The Malaysian Bar,

affirms that the detention of persons held without trial under laws such as the Internal Security Act 1960, Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 is an unjustified infringement of universal principles of human rights, and a violation of the rule of law and the principles of a democratic Government;

affirms that legislation which ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts to review the detention of persons held without trial is a further violation of international human rights law;

taking cognisance of the numerous complaints of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment inflicted on detainees by law enforcement personnel;

concerned that the said complaints have not been investigated properly and transparently, nor the perpetrators held accountable and prosecuted or disciplined for their actions;

concerned that the Government appears to sanction the use of unlawful and questionable methods in the interrogation and detention of detainees;

concerned with the immunity that the Government appears to accord to the perpetrators of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

encouraged by the recent landmark judgments of the High Court of Malaya in the cases of Abd Malek Hussin v Borhan Hj Daud & Ors [2008] 1 CLJ 264 delivered by Mr Justice Hishamudin Mohd Yunus and Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri delivered by Mr Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Bin Syed Ahmad;

1.	Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately and unconditionally release all persons presently detained without trial, and where appropriate, to prosecute them in a public and fair trial.

2.	Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately repeal the Internal Security Act 1960, Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985.

3.	Strongly denounces torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment inflicted on detainees during their interrogation and detention.

4.	Strongly calls upon the Government to advise the King to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full and open investigation into the complaints of torture or of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment inflicted on detainees by law enforcement personnel.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item 7.4 of the Agenda

Motion proposed by Bar Council on deaths in custody, dated 11 February 2009

The Malaysian Bar,

recalling Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which states that:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

recalling Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which states that:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

noting that on 8 July 2008, the Ministry Of Home Affairs reported in Parliament that, based on the Prison Department’s statistics from 2003 to 2007, 1535 persons died in prisons, rehabilitation centres and immigration detention camps;

noting that based on the Royal Malaysia Police’s statistics from 2003 to 2007, 85 persons died in police custody, while 600 persons died in remand centres for drug addicts;

noting that the victims of custodial deaths are from various ethnic groups;

distressed that on 20 January 2009, Kugan Ananthan, a 22-year old reportedly detained for investigations into car thefts died in police custody;

shocked that the relevant authorities, at first instance, appeared to certify that Kugan Ananthan’s death was not caused by any person criminally concerned;

noting that the nature of Kugan Ananthan’s death once again raises concerns regarding the treatment of detainees in the custody of law enforcement personnel and the interrogation methods used on detainees;

deeply concerned that custodial deaths continue to occur and erode public confidence in and perception of the Royal Malaysia Police;

1.	Strongly calls upon all law enforcement agencies and their personnel to respect, protect and promote the rights of detainees.

2.	Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately sign and ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and implement it as domestic legislation.

3.	Strongly calls upon the Royal Malaysia Police, the Attorney-General and the Judiciary to cause all custodial deaths to be investigated by inquiries conducted pursuant to Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code, and ensuring that all inquiries are conducted expeditiously, transparently and in a meaningful manner.

4.	Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately advise the King to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate the issue of custodial deaths including, but not limited to, Kugan Ananthan’s case.

5.	Strongly calls upon the Government to immediately establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission and implement all the recommendations of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item No 7.5 of the Agenda

Motion proposed by M Manogar on Detention of P Uthayakumar, M Manoharan, R Kengatharan and V Ganabatirau under the ISA dated 13 February 2009

(1)	Whereas Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

(2)	And whereas Article 8 of the Federal Constitution guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.

(3)	And whereas Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution guarantees that except as expressly authorized by this Constitution there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race or descent or place of birth

(4)	And whereas Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association.

(5)	And whereas Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

(6)	And whereas Article 12 of the Federal Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth:-

	(a)	in the administration of any educational institution, maintained by a public authority and in particular the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees or; and

	(b)	in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational, institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside the Federation)

(7)	And whereas Article 153(1) of the Federal Constitution provides that it shall be the responsibility of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of the other communities in accordance with the provision of this Article.

(8)	And whereas Article 153(2) provides that the Yang Di Pertuan Agong is to ensure the reservation for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and when any permit or license for the operation of any trade or business is required by Federal law

(9)	And whereas Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 empowers Advocates and Solicitor to represent their client’s interest without fear or favour.

(10)	And whereas Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights stipulates that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the most widely subscribed body of principles that establishes Universal Human Rights norms and standards.

(11)	And whereas the Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of society to promote and protect Universally Recognised Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, adopted by consensus by the United Nations General Assembly on the 9th of December 1998 recognises the legitimacy of the activities of human rights defenders their rights to freedom of association and to carry out their activities without fear of reprisals.

(12)	In the Harare Commonwealth Declaration 1991, the Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth had reaffirmed the pledge that were set out in a Declaration of Commonwealth Principles agreed to by their predecessors at their meeting in Singapore in 1971 among them being that, they believe in the liberty of the individual under the law in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives. They recognize racial prejudice and intolerance as a dangerous sickness and a threat to health development and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil. They oppose all forms of racial oppression and they are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality.

(13)	And whereas the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states in it’s preamble that it developed out of recognition of the fact that “in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the ideals of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone especially the minority may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights as well as his civil and political rights”.

(14)	And whereas Articles 3, 10 and 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 provides for no detention without trial, right to personal liberty and a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

(15)	And whereas the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the term racial discrimination shall mean any on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental and any other field or public life.

(16)	At the world conference on human rights held in Vienna, Austria in June 1993, Malaysia along with 170 other countries reiterated the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

(17)	And whereas the preamble to the Internal Security Act 1960 starts of by stating “An act to provide for the Internal Security of Malaysia preventive detention, the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organized violence against persons and property in specified areas of Malaysia, and for matters incidental thereto. “Whereas action has been taken and further action is threatened by a substantial body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia:-

	(a)	To cause and to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear organized violence against persons and properly; and

	(b)	To procure the alteration otherwise than by lawful means the lawful Government of Malaysia by law established.

(18)	And whereas even the drafter of the ISA, the late Professor R.H. Hickling had said that the Internal Security Act (ISA) was only intended against communist insurgents and those bent on armed struggle. In an interview with the New Straits Times (on the 30th day of July 2006) Hickling said the ISA was being used against people for whom it was not intended “it was designed to be more limited in its scope than it is at the moment”. Organised violence is the key to this preamble but a lot of people who had nothing to do with organized violence at all were arrested (and detained under the ISA). “I would want Judicial review at all times”.

(19)	And whereas Advocates and Solicitors P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau had at all material times been discharging their duties pursuant to Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act and further to the aforesaid Malaysian Constitution, Laws of Malaysia Commonwealth, United Nations and International laws and obligations in particular in championing the minority, human rights and dignity of the Malaysian Indian community who are suffering from about the worst forms of violations of minority and human rights.

(20)	And whereas when P.Uthayakumar had filed a RM100 Million Civil Suit against the aforesaid parties, they had speedily and without even filing their statement of defence filed an application to strike out the Writ of Summons and Statement of claim now denying that they were referring the said terrorist link to P.Uthayakumar. They had further stated that they were merely referring to Hindraf leaders knowing fully well that P.Uthayakumar was the main Hindraf leader.

(21)	And whereas these Advocates and Solicitors are still languishing in Malaysia’s very own “Guantanamo Bay” the Kemta Prison without trial and against the rules of natural justice and the rule of law for about one year and three months as at the date hereof despite having pursued their struggle only through legal and peaceful means.

(22)	And it is now hereby resolved by the Malaysian Bar that :-

	(a)	Advocates and Solicitors and activists P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau were at all material times acting without fear or favour through peaceful legal and legitimate means further to the Federal Constitution, Laws of Malaysia, the Commonwealth, United Nations and the International laws, conventions and obligations as aforesaid.

	(b)	The arrest and detention of Advocates and Socilitors P.Uthayakumar,M.Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau is against the letter and spirit of Article 5 of the Federal Constitution the Internal Security Act 1960, Laws of Malaysia, the Commonwealth, United Nations the International Laws, Conventious and Obligations, rules of natural justice and the rule of law.

	(c)	Justice has not been done for Advocates and Solicitors P.Uthayakumar, M.Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau who have now been detained and imprisoned without trial for one year and three months now since the 13th day of December 2007 and for an indefinite period of time thereafter.

	(d)	The Malaysian Bar hereby calls upon the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia to forthwith set free and release from ISA detention the aforesaid P. Uthayakumar, M. Manoharan, R.Kengatharan and V.Ganabatirau.

	(e)	That all the remaining 43 detainees currently detained under the Internal Security Act 1960 also be forthwith released.

	(f)	The Malaysian Bar calls for the abolishment of the Internal Security Act 1960 which provides for detention without trial and all other such laws providing for detention without trial with immediate effect.

The amended motion was unanimously carried.

Item no 7.6 of the Agenda

Motion proposed by Bar Council on SRO Enforcement dated 27 February 2009

1.	At the 58th AGM of the Malaysian Bar, held on 20th day of March 2004, members resolved, inter alia, that:

	(a)	The rate of scale fees specified in the Schedules to the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 1991 [P.U.A (475/1991] be increased in accordance with the rates specified therein;

	(b)	The Bar Council do take necessary and positive steps to enforce the compliance by all members of the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 1991, whether amended or otherwise.

2.	In exercise of the powers conferred by section 57(a) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976, the Bar Council made the Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules 2004 which came into force on 1st November 2004.

3.	In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection 113(3) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976, the Solicitors Cost Committee made the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order 2005 which came into force on 1st January 2006.

4.	The Bar Council in reviewing the effectiveness of the steps taken to enforce compliance by all members of the SRO, notes the following:

	(a)	Since enforcement started, the Bar Council through the continued efforts of the Conveyancing Practice Committee (CPC) and the SRO Enforcement Committee (SREC), have had:

		(i)	the support of the Solicitors’ Cost Committee comprising the Chief Judge of Malaya, the Attorney-General, the Chief Registrar and four (4) advocates and solicitors nominated by the Bar Council when they recently made the SRO 2005, in which the no discount rule was maintained;

		(ii)	full support of Bank Negara Malaysia, the regulator of financial institutions;

		(iii)	the official support of nearly all financial institutions in that these financial institutions have, since enforcement, made commitments or affirmations in writing that they will comply with the SRO on fees to be paid to a solicitor;

		(iv)	the backing of FOMCA;

		(v)	the backing of the National House Buyers Association;

		(vi)	the support of many other professional bodies when they issued a joint memorandum in January 2006 to state that it is not in the interest of the public or the various professions for professional fees to be decided by market forces; and

		(vii)	the support of a majority of the members of the Bar, which is evidenced by a recent survey conducted by the CPC on a related matter, where 50% of the responses received are in support of the no discount rule:

	(b)	Many members have commented that the no discount signage has helped to dissuade clients from asking for a discount on fees.

	(c)	The need to file a return is always at the back of the minds of conveyancing lawyers and this is likely to deter them from giving a discount.

	(d)	The attendances of solicitors before the SREC to explain their returns have not only discouraged members from contravening the no discount rule, but have served as opportunities for members of the Bar to learn more about scale fees, as it is clear from these attendances that ignorance on how to charge fees is rampant.

	(e)	Visits by the enforcement teams to law firms have constantly reminded members not to breach the SRO and the no discount rule, and such visits have been quite instructive to members of the Bar who are not conversant with the SRO and how to charge fees.
	(f)	In many instances, solicitors have had to return to their clients, fees and disbursements which they have overcharged, as directed by the enforcement team.

	(g)	Nevertheless, since enforcement started, the Bar Council had to face the following obstacles:

		(i)	REHDA has continued in its efforts to dictate how much fees should be paid to a conveyancing lawyer and it has become clear that REHDA treat professional services as commodities;

		(ii)	There are still many opposing members of the Bar, who want the scale fees to be maintained but to be able to give a discount on the scale fees;

		(iii)	Three legal suits have been filed by members of the Bar against the Bar Council for the making the Enforcement Rules, and these suits have in some way jeopardised efforts on enforcement. Many solicitors have refused to file returns or attend or allow visits by stating that they wish to wait for outcome of these suits;

		(iv)	Many members have resorted to refunding the discount to their clients in cash. In such instances, on record the client would pay the full scale fees and the solicitor will refund the discounted portion to his client in cash from his personal account. These kinds of transactions are impossible to detect under the current enforcement environment;

		(v)	Some members of the Bar give the refund of the discounted portion to their clients in shopping vouchers;

		(vi)	A large number of members are still giving discounts on scale fees for the reason that they do not wish to lose out on conveyancing work. These are members who wish scale fees to be maintained but with discounts allowed;

		(vii)	Many members who are in compliance or who wish to comply are losing out and are frustrated with the fact that Bar Council is unable to stamp out discounting by lawyers;

		(viii)	Although at HQ level, most financial institutions have made a declaration that they will abide by the scale fees, at branch level there is still tremendous pressure exerted by some financial institutions on solicitors to give a discount especially in cases of “free legal fees package” where the bank will pay the fees of the solicitors appointed by them instead of the borrower;

		(ix)	Membership of the SREC is seen to be dwindling over the years with the same members serving in this committee, as there are not enough members of the Bar are keen to volunteer their time and money to serve; and

		(x)	Due to budget constraints, the SREC has to abandon attendances and visits to legal firms, and support from the secretariat had to be reduced, and these factors have hindered enforcement efforts.

5.	Taking into consideration that:

	(a)	It is clear that the Bar Council has not been able to stamp out the discounting of scale fees by members of the Bar;

	(b)	It is clear that members wish the scale fees to be maintained and to be able to give a discount;

	(c)	It is obvious that for scale fees to be maintained there must be enforcement. Even if a discount is allowed, enforcement is still required to ensure that members do not give more than the allowed discount; and

	(d)	If current enforcement rules are not sufficiently effective, then there is a need to make new or further rules;

	the Bar Council therefore proposes the following motions to be considered and passed by the members:

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

1.	The Bar Council take all necessary steps to revoke the Solicitors’ Remuneration (Enforcement) Rules 2004 and simultaneously in substitution thereof, to make rules under section 77 of the Legal Professions Act, 1976 pertaining to enforcement of the Solicitors Remuneration Order 2005 which shall include provisions:

	(a)	empowering the Bar Council and its enforcement team to have at all times full and free access to the premises at which an advocate and solicitor carries on practice and to all documents relating to the transactions for the purposes of obtaining full information for ascertaining whether or not an advocate and solicitor has complied with the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order or any rules or rulings of the Bar Council relating to the Solicitors’ Remuneration Order and the Bar Council shall also be entitled to inspect, copy or make extracts from any such documents without making any payment.

	(b)	requiring every advocate and solicitor practising at such premises to provide the Bar Council with all reasonable access, facilities and assistance for the exercise of the powers under the enforcement rules.

	(c)	empowering the Bar Council to take possession of any documents to which it has access where in its opinion: -

		(i)	the inspection of them, the copying of them or the making of extracts from them cannot reasonably be undertaken without taking possession of them; or

		(ii)	they may be interfered with or destroyed unless the Bar Council takes possession of them; or

		(iii)	they may be needed as evidence in any disciplinary proceedings against the advocate and solicitor concerned.

	(d)	empowering the Bar Council to investigate any complaint lodged by an advocate and solicitor or any person having information about any matter relating to:

		(i)	the non-compliance by an advocate and solicitor of the Solicitors' Remuneration Order; or

		(ii)	any inducement made or given to an advocate and solicitor by any person for the advocate and solicitor to commit a breach of the Solicitors' Remuneration Order.

2.	The Bar Council take all necessary steps to cause the Solicitors Costs Committee to be convened pursuant to Section 113(2) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, as soon as possible, to make the following orders pertaining to remuneration of solicitors: That a solicitor be allowed to give a discount on fees by: The substitution of Rule 6 of the Solicitors' Remuneration Order 2005 with the following rule: “Discount on scale fees A solicitor may give a discount on the fees specified in this Order provided that the discount shall not exceed 25% of the fees specified."

The amended motion on paragraph 1 was put to a vote. It was not carried. [89 voted in favour, 140 against, and 5 abstentions]

The amended motion on paragraph 2 was put to a vote. It was not carried. [70 voted in favour, 155 against, and 6 abstentions]

Item no 7.7 of the Agenda

Motion proposed by Bar Council on Hillside Development dated 13 February 2009

WHEREAS THE MALAYSIAN BAR

Deeply concerned with the alarming rate of hillside disasters having occurred in the recent past resulting in fatalities, injuries and severe loss and destruction of property;

Deeply concerned by the Federal Court’s decision in Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya v Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors [2006] 2 MLJ 389 which ruled that local authorities are immune from any action against acts of negligence pursuant to section 95(2) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974;

Disillusioned by the blatant disregard by the authorities concerned on the compliance and enforcement of the applicable laws, regulations and guidelines and proper planning procedures concerning hillside developments;

Disillusioned by the lack of will and competence by the relevant authorities in verifying and evaluating safety aspects of hillside development on an independent basis, for the protection and safety of purchasers and residents of hillside development;

Completely perturbed by the lack of intense and urgent action by the relevant authorities to conduct a comprehensive investigation on the recent hillside disasters with a view to prevent and minimise the risk of future disasters;

Deeply concerned by the weakness in the current development process, including the lack of competent expertise in the design, construction, site supervision, maintenance and communication amongst various parties involved during construction;

Disenchanted with the lack of initiative and lackadaisical attitude of the relevant authorities in investigating and taking precautionary steps following the Highland Tower collapse in 1993;

Disenchanted with the lack of monitoring of hillside development and paying attention to persistent complaints of danger signs; and

Concerned with the lack of efficient laws and non-uniformity in the various laws and guidelines between Federal, State and Local Governments, resulting in ambiguity, uncertainty and room for abuse in the approval process;

HEREBY RESOLVES THAT

1.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the immediate setting-up of a Royal Commission of Enquiry into the Bukit Antarabangsa tragedy on 6 December 2008.

2.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the removal of the immunity of local authorities and officers under section 95 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act, 1974 and its repeal.

3.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for appropriate action or sanction to be taken against the parties identified as being responsible for the Bukit Antarabangsa tragedy, which claimed four (4) lives and caused substantial injury and damage and destruction to property.

4.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the relevant authorities to sanction the immediate discontinuation of all on-going hillside development projects which do not meet the minimum requirements of safety and/or have not complied with the applicable laws, regulations and guidelines. As a precautionary measure until proper laws are passed, including the setting up of a Malaysian equivalent of the Geotechnical Engineer Office and compliance of a comprehensive Geo-Hazard Map for the whole country, all hillside development on gradient exceeding 25 degrees be banned.

5.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the relevant authorities to conduct an immediate safety review of all existing hillside development.
6.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for an immediate review of all existing approvals at the cost of the Developer.
7.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the relevant authorities to enforce strict compliance of all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines with immediate effect.

8.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the relevant authorities to set up a monitoring team immediately to provide monitoring of all hillside developments and to detect any signs of danger.

9.	The Malaysian Bar strongly demands utmost transparency and accountability of the relevant authorities in respect of the approvals granted and to be granted for hillside developments.

10.	The Malaysian Bar strongly calls for the relevant authorities to immediately consider necessary amendments and/or modification to existing legislation and/or propose new legislation to further strengthen and enhance the measures required to ensure hillside developments attain a satisfactory level of safety.

11.	The Malaysian Bar strongly condemns the acts on the part of the relevant authorities and/or other connected parties, which have or seek to compromise the safety and precautionary requirements of hillside developments.

The motion was unanimously carried.

Item no 7.8 of the Agenda

Motion of Censure proposed by Major Dato’ M S Murthi dated 5 March 2009

Whereas the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules, 1978 permits a practitioner to use the term “consultant” in the Letterhead of the firm if:-

a)	the practitioner has been in practice for 20 years; or

b)	in active practice for 10 years and has been a member of the Judicial & Legal Services or Judge for an aggregate period in active service for not less than 20 years.

Whereas the Legal Profession (Practice & Etiquette) Rules 1978, Rule 62 states:-

The Bar Council may, in writing, with the approval of the Attorney-General waive any of the Rules.

Whereas the Bar Council of 2002/2003 has waived the application of this Rule in the matter of the Honourable Mr Justice K C Vohrah with teh approval of the Attorney-General.

Whereas the application for waiver of the Rule vis-à-vis the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas was rejected by a majority vote of the Bar Council.

Whereas on 14th of February 2007 Tun Salleh Abas wrote to the Attorney-General for similar dispensation as was afforded to the Honourable Mr Justice K C Vohrah.

Whereas the above information is extracted from information contained in public domain.

Whereas it is clear that the Bar Council of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 has treated the former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas abrasively and without any respect whatsoever.

Whereas Rule 62 as applied by the Bar Council of 2002/2003 clearly vests the Bar Council with a discretion to waive the application of the Rule to any particular applicant provided the approval of the Attorney-General is obtained in writing.

Whereas the Bar Council under the Presidency of the incumbent President has displayed double standards – it was willing to and had compromised the hallowed principles of independence for a dinner at a five-star hotel at the cost of the Government but was not willing to consider sympathetically a mundane request of the Grand Old Man of the profession who paid the heaviest price ever by a Chief Justice to uphold the independence of the Judiciary.

Now it is hereby resolved:

That this House censures the Bar Council of 2008/2009 for its indifferent, disrespectful, abrasive and uncouth (kurang ajar) conduct towards the former Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas and his application for the exercise of discretion to waive the operation of Rule 60(1) of the Etiquette Rules despite the willingness of the Attorney-General to consider favourably any application for his approval thereof under Rule 62.

The motion was put to a vote. It was not carried. [4 voted in favour, 122 against, and 7 abstentions]

Item no 7.9 of the Agenda

Motion of No Confidence proposed by Major Dato’ M S Murthi dated 5 March 2009

Whereas the Legal Profession Aemndment Bill 2006 (LPA) was passed by Parliament on 27 July 2006.

Whereas the members of the Malaysian Bar were outraged by the scope and extent of the amendments to the LPA.

Whereas on 7 August 2006, 3,243 members attended an EGM and passed a resolution to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to examine the amendments and report thereon.

Whereas the Ad Hoc Committee received 29 representatives and made 14 major recommendations on various sections of the amended LPA.

Whereas the Bar Council accepted the recommended amendments with only some minor variations of its own.

Whereas the LPA amendments were without further delay incorporated into the parent Act by the Government and gazetted on 14 September 2006.

Whereas the members of the Bar requisitioned an EGM on 16 November 2006 to pass a vote of no confidence in the Bar Council then under the presidency of Mr Yeo Yang Poh for its failure in connection with the amendments to the LPA.

Whereas at the said EGM, the then President took full responsibility for the mistake in these words:-

	“The Chairman said that if the members feel that a mistake of such serious proportion has been made, for which someone must answer, then that someone must be him. But it would be wrong to bring down the other Council members who have sacrificed time and effort to serve the Bar. It would not be right to blame the many Council members who did nothing more than serving the Bar in good faith. That would damage the Bar as a whole. He urged members not to harm the Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar in that way.”

Whereas there was another motion of no confidence at the last 2008 AGM and the present President is recorded as having said the following:-

	To the enquiry by T Kuhanandan as to the current status of the proposed amendments to the LPA, the Chairperson replied that all amendments have been agreed upon by the Bar Council and the Disciplinary Board. The Bar Council will be meeting at the AG's Chambers soon. A circular on the status has already been posted on the Bar website. The Bar Council will keep members informed of the outcome of the meeting with the AG's Chambers.

Whereas the President’s Annual Report 2008/2009 touches, inter alia, on:-

a)	Review of the 1988 Judicial Crisis;

b)	Judicial Appointments Commission;

c)	Royal Commission of Enquiry into video clips;

d)	Appointments in the Judiciary;

e)	Discussion with the Judiciary;

f)	Changes in the mode of payment at the Court Counters;

g)	Proposed Combined Rules of Court;

h)	Increase in subscription and other matters of finance;

i)	Complaints and Interventions;

j)	Inquiry into allegations pertaining to the Legal Aid Centre, Kuala Lumpur;

k)	Practice Issues;

l)	Human Rights and public interest issues including Unsafe Hill Development Issues and Palestine Humanitarian Fund;

m)	On other matters concerning the Bar, international visits and visitors, Lawasia Conference, Departed Members and Departure of the Malaysian Bar Webmaster.

Whereas the plea of 3,243 members who attended the EGM on 7th of August 2006 and the demand that the 2006 amendments be modified and the 14 recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee has been totally and completely ignored by the 2008/2009 Bar Council. Whereas it is clear that the Bar Council of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 has treated the plea of the general body of the members of the Bar with utter contempt and has not done anything in its power to push for the amendments demanded by the members. Now it is hereby resolved:-

	That this House expresses no confidence in the President and the members of the Bar Council in office in 2008/2009 for their failure to diligently pursue the task of and effectuating the amendments to the Legal Profession Act 1976 as commanded by the 3,243 members assembled at the EGM on 18th of August 2006 and in terms of the Ad Hoc Committee Report dated 15th November 2006.

The motion was withdrawn.

Item no 7.10 of the Agenda

Motion proposed by P Suppiah dated 5 March 2009 on the Draft Rules to govern meetings of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and the State Bar and its Committees

That the Meeting approve the Draft Rules attached herewith to govern Meetings of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and the State Bar and its Committees made pursuant to Section 42(2)(d) and 42(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (Act 166) (hereinafter called the said Rules), Annexture "A".

The motion was withdrawn.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

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