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

Contributed by the National Young Lawyers Committee

Tharumarajah a/l Thiagarajan, a barrister from the Middle Temple, was admitted to the Malaysian Bar on November 2, 1985. He is a partner of a firm in Penang and recently Angeline Cheah managed to sit down with him for a chat.

Could you tell us about yourself briefly; your academic, work and family background?

I graduated from the University of London and am a Barrister-At-Law of Middle Temple. I am also a certified mediator. I currently have my own practice and my main areas of work include general civil litigation and insurance defence work. I am married with 2 sons. My elder son, Sohan, is currently reading law in the United Kingdom and my younger son, Narein, is in college doing his A-Levels.

What made you decide to read law?

I have always been very interested in the law but the main reason I wanted to be a lawyer was because I wanted to go into politics. However, I decided against it as having studied in England, I could see that the level and maturity of politics in our country is not yet up to the standard of something that I would like to be involved in.

You handle many accident matters. What is your take on the recent introduction by the Attorney-General’s Chambers of the No Fault Liability Scheme (NFL) in Malaysia as opposed to the existing fault based liability system?

I am a bit concerned regarding this as the NFL is not a tested system. I have read a little about it and as far as I know, the only place that it has worked is in New Zealand. In order for this system to work, the infrastructure must be there such as efficient police, hospitals and insurance companies. In England, everything is very quick and efficient. I think Malaysia is not ready for it yet. My main concern is whether does it actually satisfy the lay person’s requirement as money is very important to them. If people are not satisfied, what is the recourse? We don’t know yet. I think the main disadvantage of the NFL is that it will not satisfy a person who puts retribution above monetary compensation. In our current system, at least the parties can vent their feelings in court. The judge makes the decision and people will respect that. However, I am not against change, so long as its for the better.

The Bar Council has strongly objected to the NFL and has set up a Task Force to look into this matter. In your opinion, what steps can be taken by the Task Force to resolve this issue?

In my opinion, the Bar Council should study and compare both the systems and see which one is more suitable for our society. As I mentioned earlier, based on our available infrastructure, our country may not be ready for it as yet. Also, I feel that the lawyers’ role should not be taken away as I believe that people must have the right to legal representation. The AG has said that with the introduction of the NFL, lawyers’ fees can be done away with. However, people still need to consult lawyers for advice and therefore they will still need to pay consultation fees.

Do you think that it is important for lawyers, especially young lawyers to be involved in Bar activities? Why?

Yes I feel that it is very important. The young lawyers of today will become future leaders of the Bar. Some of them may even become members of the judiciary. Bar activities will help them to integrate within the Bar and help to shape them for their future roles.

In your opinion, how has legal practice changed since you were a young practitioner?

I think it has changed very much. To me, I feel that the profession was more satisfying before partly due to the attitude of judges, and also the prosecutors then were different. Having said that however, now changes are inevitable as working conditions are different. Judges are also more concerned with their own files being closed, but I feel that the discretion of judges must not be taken away at the price of meeting the needs of the people.

Some senior lawyers have the notion that many young lawyers nowadays are only in the profession to make money. Do you think this is true?

I do think that this is true, but there is nothing wrong with making money. It’s just a matter of how you go about it. There is nothing wrong with earning a good living the old-fashioned way; with honesty and hard work.

While money is important, what are other goals and achievements that you think young lawyers should strive for?

First and foremost, lawyers, whether young or old should have mutual respect and courtesy for each other. We are all brothers and sisters at the Bar, notwithstanding our seniority. Also, we should strive to uphold the profession and I believe that this value is encompassed under ethics in our Legal Profession Act. Besides that, lawyers should work together with other institutions such as the judiciary, court staff etc. This is to build closer ties to ensure that things can run more smoothly.

On a different note, can you share some thoughts with us on the recent moves by Bersih, Hindraf and even our own members of the Bar during the International Human Rights Day in organising their respective gatherings, illegal or otherwise?

The right to demonstration must never be taken away. It is my opinion that if any group wishes to organise a gathering, the police and authorities should co-operate and give them the opportunity to vent their feelings instead of banning their request for assembly. The authorities should try to organise it in such a way so as to procure a win-win situation such as by setting certain conditions which must be followed, a breach of which only would result in action being taken against them. Most countries which practise some form of democracy do allow gatherings and assemblies to be held. If the authorities co-operate, there would be no such thing as “illegal” gatherings. Even our own SUHAKAM is in favour of the right to assembly. In this type of situation, we should make a few people responsible for their actions, and not arrest 35 people for attempted murder, for example.

5 leaders of Hindraf have been detained under the ISA. If you were representing them, what would you do to procure their release?

I am not a human rights lawyer but speaking hypothetically, I would use whatever legal means at this point to obtain their release. It was alleged that Hindraf is linked to a terrorist group. If I were their lawyer, I will go all out to show that they are not in any way linked to this said terrorist group. Therefore, they should not have been detained under the ISA as they are no threat to the security of the nation.

Do you personally feel that there is freedom of assembly in Malaysia?

I would say that there is limited freedom of assembly in our country. Not that there is none at all, merely limited.

Speaking of freedom, the recent fiasco involving a prominent minister in a sex scandal has raised many issues regarding the freedom to a private life. Some quarters argue that this was his personal life and it was just unfortunate that he was caught on tape. What are your views?

Yes, it was said that he was indeed a good minister and that he should not have had to resign from his ministerial and all other posts. However, having said that, he is a leader and in his position as a politician, someone who promotes and sets laws, it is my view that he did the right thing. For someone in his position, you cannot say it is his private life. If you are caught, you pay the price. Although he was a good politician, it does not really matter now. It depends on who you are at the end of the day. I remember when I was in England, there was a scandal involving the leader of the Conservative Party who had an affair with his secretary. He also had to give up his position. If this can happen over there, what more over here with our Asian culture and values. The right to privacy is definitely a must, but depending on your station in life, the right is somewhat “caveated” and you must be ready to meet the consequences of your actions.

Do you think that it is right for us to impose our own moral standards or convictions on others? Why?

It is my opinion that on an individual and private basis, it is never right to impose our own standards on others. I would say “Do what you want to do, but at some point it will affect you and you must be prepared to face the consequences.” However, society on the other hand imposes a different kind of standard on people, and especially people in power.

Other tête-à-tête with:

• Abdul Razak Ahmad
• Teh Yoke Hooi

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed