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

Referring to the Bar’s concern over the process of appointments and promotions in the Judiciary, Datuk M. Kayveas acknowledges that there is merit in the Bar Council’s actions (NST, 6/10/03).

What the Deputy Minister would have preferred is that, instead of being open and vocal about our concerns and position in this matter of public interest, in his view it would have been better if we had found less “disruptive ways” of addressing the issues. He refers here to the Bar Council’s efforts to convene an EGM last Saturday.

We do not see how the holding of an EGM to discuss matters of public interest can be “disruptive”. More importantly, avoidance of public awareness of or an open discussion on issues of public importance is, in 21st century Malaysian society, a futile and counter-productive effort. As Datuk Seri Rais Yatim had rightly said during an interview with Asiaweek in June 2000, everyone is free to comment on matters pertaining to public interest.

The lack of quorum last Saturday reflects the unrealistic requirement imposed on the Bar (and on no other professional body in the country), something which the Bar has been highlighting for years. It certainly does not indicate lack of interest or support from members of the Bar, as Datuk Kayveas tries to maintain. If, for example, 1,458 doctors (or engineers, or accountants, etc) had gathered to discuss a matter; one could hardly deduce a lack of interest in or support for the particular cause. It is likewise for the Bar.

The Deputy Minister’s further comment, that the Bar Council should get the mandate of the majority of the members of the Bar before “initiating any action”, is even more strange. The Bar Council is obviously mandated. The Bar Council consists of annually elected representatives from the Bar. We are no less mandated than the Government which consists of representatives elected once every 4 to 5 years. What may be different, and which the Bar Council has not been hesitant to do, is that it consults its members from time to time and is always prepared to subject its actions to members’ views and scrutiny. The Bar Council is transparent and consultative. It does not resort to the argument, frequently used by power-holders when their actions are questioned, that the only means for one to express one’s objection is at the ballot box.

A lack of quorum merely meant that a resolution could not be formally tabled or carried. However, what took place last Saturday remains a consultative process; the outcome of which (and of the informal discussion that took place) is that the Bar very clearly supports the Council’s position. It was a democratic process undertaken by the Bar Council, undeterred by the prohibitive quorum requirement and other obstacles placed in its path. The Council has once again stood for its beliefs.

The Malaysian Bar will continue to engage itself in the process of seeking to improve the administration of justice in this country, which includes improving the system of appointment and promotion of judges. Amongst the pursuits of the Bar is striving for greater transparency and accountability. Those who choose to only pay lip service to these tenets are perhaps too engrossed to notice the national awakening that is taking place among increasing numbers in the Malaysian public.

Dated 7th October 2003

HJ. KUTHUBUL ZAMAN BUKHARI
Chairman
Bar Council