©New Straits Times (Used by permission)
Outside of court, what should lawyers be doing with their time? Should they walk, march, protest, or just sit quietly and make money? Senior lawyer and Bar Council president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and Bar Council human rights committee deputy chairman Amer Hamzah Arshad thrash it out, with ANIZA DAMIS sitting in.
ROLE OF LAWYERS IN SOCIETY
Amer: You have to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, without fear or favour.
Over and above that, lawyers need to take a more proactive role in terms of creating awareness, educating the public, taking up causes on behalf of the public.
We know the law, we know how the system works, and we know its failings.
We are now trying to come out with a hybrid lawyer –– a legal expert who is also a human rights activist.
Ambiga: The examples set by our predecessors were very good.
In 1988, we had the judicial crisis and Operation Lallang; it was a very tense situation. Despite that, the Bar stood up.
SPEAKING, NOT WALKING
Aniza: De facto law minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said, after the lawyers' "Walk for Justice" in 2007, that their role is to speak, not to march.
Amer: Speaking up in court is one way of advancing an issue. But we have to be creative in trying to put forward our views.
We had been communicating, engaging with the government, and yet it wasn't working.
Just because we went to the streets to send a strong message to the government about the judiciary doesn't mean that we turned into a mob.
Ambiga: We always start by dialogue, by issuing statements, by trying to reason.
But when it falls on deaf ears, then we have to make a decision how we want to advocate this in stronger terms.
We are doing this for the institution of the judiciary and for the country.
Aniza: In December 2007, when you had the Walk for Freedom, you, Ambiga, didn't walk; Amer did. Why?
Ambiga: The Bar Council called off the walk because we thought there would be a security issue.
Especially as the police were already making noise that they were going to come down hard on the walkers.
So, we felt a responsibility towards the other people, the non–lawyers who were going to walk.
I was disappointed there was so much pressure on us to call off that walk.
The only reason we did that was in the public interest at that time.
But, of course, a group of lawyers decided otherwise. They were exercising their rights.
Amer: Different lawyers would have a different take of the situation.
The country had just had the Bersih and Hindraf rallies. The situation was tense.
It was important to send the right message to the government that it's possible to have a peaceful demonstration in the name of human rights.
From the government's perspective, the Hindraf and Bersih rallies were associated with violence.
So, we were trying to send a strong and correct message to the government that it is okay to have peaceful assemblies and rallies.
Ambiga: The council came under a lot of criticism, including from Amer and friends, for calling it off.
Sometimes, I feel that perhaps Amer and friends don't appreciate the issues that we have to deal with.
We are not only there for a group of 30 lawyers; we represent a much larger group of lawyers.
Aniza: Amer, did you think it was the right decision?
Amer: I would say the right decision would have been to proceed with the walk, and to have the walk in a very coordinated and peaceful way.
Ambiga: There were people who said we chickened out.
Amer: Yes, I think that was some of the criticism.
Aniza: By marching, didn't you feel you were creating some sort of schism in the Bar Council?
Amer: It shows that the Bar is dynamic.
Whether you like it or not, that was the decision of the council.
At the same time, the council respects the views and rights of other people to exercise their constitutional rights, and that's what happened.
Ambiga: We respect the right to freedom of assembly. That's why we were not angry with them for walking.
POLITICAL ACTIVISTS?
Aniza: Do you worry that the younger generation is going to be just activists, and is not going to look at the bigger picture?
Ambiga: I think they do get a feel for what's happening around them.
Amer's group, the human rights committee, gets very heavily criticised by the members.
But they are also entitled to their own views.
Recently, we were criticised by our members for being so political.
They said: "Stop all this and start looking after the interests of the members."
But we are looking after the interests of the members. We just don't publicise it.
Amer: Different people will have different views on the Bar's function or role.
I cannot impose my views on the others. The most I can do is to sell my views.
What's wrong with being labelled political?
We are not being partisan political, we are not taking sides with Party A or Party B; but we have to be political on issues, like the Internal Security Act, for example.
On certain issues, people tend to perceive it as being political, when in fact it is something that involves human rights issues, human rights violations.
Take deaths in custody, for instance.
Some people might say speaking out against death in custody is trying to be political. I disagree.
What's wrong with voicing out our concerns on deaths in custody, which affect the public at large?
Ambiga: Every issue we take up is in relation to the Rule of Law and human rights. It's never outside that.
If within the political parties, they are having fights, we don't comment on that.
Aniza: As we saw with the Conversions forum, there was such a reaction from various sectors. Do you still think lawyers should get involved in such matters?
Ambiga: That was a legal forum; we were talking about legal issues.
We explained what it was to everybody.
We were only dealing with legal issues; we were talking about the laws and the decisions made by the courts; we were trying to find ways to resolve them.
Amer: People said we should just accept the court's decision.
And if we weren't happy about it, we should just disband and register the council as a political body.
We can't run from the fact that any political issue will have a legal and human rights angle to it.
And we cannot stop from discussing or debating such issues.
Because everything that we do in life will have a political angle, the human rights angle and the legal angle. So, there's bound to be some overlapping.
ANTI–GOVERNMENT, PRO–GOVERNMENT
Ambiga: People say we are anti–government, and the opposition thinks we are pro–government.
That only shows you how independent we are.
Because a lot of issues are in relation to abuse of power or concern people in authority, I suppose it looks as if some of the issues can be anti–government.
But we are not anti–anyone. We are pro–human rights, we are pro–the rule of law, and we are pro–justice.
Recently, the minister said we were "publicity–seeking", because we called for the separation of the public prosecutor role from the attorney–general's role."
Once you label, you don't have to deal with the merits. And that's how they've been dealing with the issues (we brought up).
It's also time we realise that opposition is not a bad word.
It is part of governance, the whole parliamentary process. People should get rid of this idea that if you are pro–opposition, it's bad.
The opposition should also stop saying that if you are pro–government it's bad.
They must concentrate on issues.
Labelling is the easiest thing in the world to do.
At the end of the day, this whole thing about human rights and right to assembly is a process of negotiation with the government.
We have to show we can be responsible when we conduct assemblies.
We must show that they don't have to be paranoid about it.
Right at this point, they are paranoid about all these things. They don't have to be.
And the way we do that is by being responsible about how we conduct assemblies.
So, this whole process is a growing process for all of us.
Some people like Amer are not patient enough, perhaps. They want it today; now.
Amer: We need to push the government, and the council.
We need the members of the Bar to check and balance the council. Similarly, the council should be the check and balance for the government.
If it is an issue that affects all of us, then all of us should stand up and voice our concern in unison.
Aniza: Amer, as you and your group move further up the ladder in the council, do you think the running of the council is going to change?
Amer: Maybe, maybe not.
We are not trying to dominate the council and say: "This is just a human rights organisation" –– it is part and parcel of the Malaysian Bar.
Even assuming that the younger lawyers will eventually take up the mantle of the leadership of the Bar, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to focus on this one issue.
You can't. Because when you talk about running the Bar, it is similar to running the country: there are other issues apart from human rights issues that need to be resolved and looked into.
So, that can't be the sole agenda; but it should be the big agenda.
Ambiga, what are the views of the senior lawyers towards the younger lawyers, who seem to be quite vocal and critical at times?
Ambiga: Oh, there is a group that is critical of the younger lawyers who are (laughs) "outspoken".
But, as I say, I have total faith in the Malaysian Bar that when push comes to shove, we have never wavered on principle –– whether senior or junior.
Amer: Prior to the amendment to Section 46A of the Legal Profession Act, which prohibits young members –– those who have been in practice for less than seven years –– from being a member of the council or holding a position in the Bar committees, you hardly saw any young lawyers in such committees in the council.
But after the amendment, there was a gradual entry of younger lawyers at the council and committee level.
Do you think that's a step in the right direction?
There are some complaints saying: "The young lawyers are too impatient. They are trying to take over the Bar."
Ambiga: It's for a senior and junior to get together and thrash it out.
I do feel sometimes that you all don't appreciate what we have to take into account in decision–making.
I think that as you come up the ladder, I hope you will be in a leadership position, so that you can understand how difficult it can be to make these decisions! (laughs)
This is life as it should be. What binds us all, ultimately –– no matter what –– is principle. If there is a violation of a principle, we are always united.
EAGER YOUNG LAWYERS
Aniza: Do you think that young lawyers are too impatient for change?
Ambiga: Not too impatient.
Amer: I wouldn't say impatient. I think we're just eager to see change.
Ambiga: I don't have a problem with them being impatient for change for the good. It is good to be impatient, because there is nothing wrong to want things to change for the better.
Amer: And after 50 years, I don't think we can say we are impatient.
Though we may not be born back then, but still 50 years of independence and nothing much has changed in terms of human rights values and norms? How much longer do we have to wait?
So, if by pushing for it, we are accused of being impatient. So be it. These are issues or matters that need to be addressed, and things that should be done now, we should not wait until tomorrow.
Ultimately, we would like issues to be publicised so that people from all walks of life can appreciate the issues.
It is through this process that we can make a real change when everybody is aware of the issues.
Amer: You have to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law, without fear or favour.
Over and above that, lawyers need to take a more proactive role in terms of creating awareness, educating the public, taking up causes on behalf of the public.
We know the law, we know how the system works, and we know its failings.
We are now trying to come out with a hybrid lawyer –– a legal expert who is also a human rights activist.
Ambiga: The examples set by our predecessors were very good.
In 1988, we had the judicial crisis and Operation Lallang; it was a very tense situation. Despite that, the Bar stood up.
SPEAKING, NOT WALKING
Aniza: De facto law minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said, after the lawyers' "Walk for Justice" in 2007, that their role is to speak, not to march.
Amer: Speaking up in court is one way of advancing an issue. But we have to be creative in trying to put forward our views.
We had been communicating, engaging with the government, and yet it wasn't working.
Just because we went to the streets to send a strong message to the government about the judiciary doesn't mean that we turned into a mob.
Ambiga: We always start by dialogue, by issuing statements, by trying to reason.
But when it falls on deaf ears, then we have to make a decision how we want to advocate this in stronger terms.
We are doing this for the institution of the judiciary and for the country.
Aniza: In December 2007, when you had the Walk for Freedom, you, Ambiga, didn't walk; Amer did. Why?
Ambiga: The Bar Council called off the walk because we thought there would be a security issue.
Especially as the police were already making noise that they were going to come down hard on the walkers.
So, we felt a responsibility towards the other people, the non–lawyers who were going to walk.
I was disappointed there was so much pressure on us to call off that walk.
The only reason we did that was in the public interest at that time.
But, of course, a group of lawyers decided otherwise. They were exercising their rights.
Amer: Different lawyers would have a different take of the situation.
The country had just had the Bersih and Hindraf rallies. The situation was tense.
It was important to send the right message to the government that it's possible to have a peaceful demonstration in the name of human rights.
From the government's perspective, the Hindraf and Bersih rallies were associated with violence.
So, we were trying to send a strong and correct message to the government that it is okay to have peaceful assemblies and rallies.
Ambiga: The council came under a lot of criticism, including from Amer and friends, for calling it off.
Sometimes, I feel that perhaps Amer and friends don't appreciate the issues that we have to deal with.
We are not only there for a group of 30 lawyers; we represent a much larger group of lawyers.
Aniza: Amer, did you think it was the right decision?
Amer: I would say the right decision would have been to proceed with the walk, and to have the walk in a very coordinated and peaceful way.
Ambiga: There were people who said we chickened out.
Amer: Yes, I think that was some of the criticism.
Aniza: By marching, didn't you feel you were creating some sort of schism in the Bar Council?
Amer: It shows that the Bar is dynamic.
Whether you like it or not, that was the decision of the council.
At the same time, the council respects the views and rights of other people to exercise their constitutional rights, and that's what happened.
Ambiga: We respect the right to freedom of assembly. That's why we were not angry with them for walking.
POLITICAL ACTIVISTS?
Aniza: Do you worry that the younger generation is going to be just activists, and is not going to look at the bigger picture?
Ambiga: I think they do get a feel for what's happening around them.
Amer's group, the human rights committee, gets very heavily criticised by the members.
But they are also entitled to their own views.
Recently, we were criticised by our members for being so political.
They said: "Stop all this and start looking after the interests of the members."
But we are looking after the interests of the members. We just don't publicise it.
Amer: Different people will have different views on the Bar's function or role.
I cannot impose my views on the others. The most I can do is to sell my views.
What's wrong with being labelled political?
We are not being partisan political, we are not taking sides with Party A or Party B; but we have to be political on issues, like the Internal Security Act, for example.
On certain issues, people tend to perceive it as being political, when in fact it is something that involves human rights issues, human rights violations.
Take deaths in custody, for instance.
Some people might say speaking out against death in custody is trying to be political. I disagree.
What's wrong with voicing out our concerns on deaths in custody, which affect the public at large?
Ambiga: Every issue we take up is in relation to the Rule of Law and human rights. It's never outside that.
If within the political parties, they are having fights, we don't comment on that.
Aniza: As we saw with the Conversions forum, there was such a reaction from various sectors. Do you still think lawyers should get involved in such matters?
Ambiga: That was a legal forum; we were talking about legal issues.
We explained what it was to everybody.
We were only dealing with legal issues; we were talking about the laws and the decisions made by the courts; we were trying to find ways to resolve them.
Amer: People said we should just accept the court's decision.
And if we weren't happy about it, we should just disband and register the council as a political body.
We can't run from the fact that any political issue will have a legal and human rights angle to it.
And we cannot stop from discussing or debating such issues.
Because everything that we do in life will have a political angle, the human rights angle and the legal angle. So, there's bound to be some overlapping.
ANTI–GOVERNMENT, PRO–GOVERNMENT
Ambiga: People say we are anti–government, and the opposition thinks we are pro–government.
That only shows you how independent we are.
Because a lot of issues are in relation to abuse of power or concern people in authority, I suppose it looks as if some of the issues can be anti–government.
But we are not anti–anyone. We are pro–human rights, we are pro–the rule of law, and we are pro–justice.
Recently, the minister said we were "publicity–seeking", because we called for the separation of the public prosecutor role from the attorney–general's role."
Once you label, you don't have to deal with the merits. And that's how they've been dealing with the issues (we brought up).
It's also time we realise that opposition is not a bad word.
It is part of governance, the whole parliamentary process. People should get rid of this idea that if you are pro–opposition, it's bad.
The opposition should also stop saying that if you are pro–government it's bad.
They must concentrate on issues.
Labelling is the easiest thing in the world to do.
At the end of the day, this whole thing about human rights and right to assembly is a process of negotiation with the government.
We have to show we can be responsible when we conduct assemblies.
We must show that they don't have to be paranoid about it.
Right at this point, they are paranoid about all these things. They don't have to be.
And the way we do that is by being responsible about how we conduct assemblies.
So, this whole process is a growing process for all of us.
Some people like Amer are not patient enough, perhaps. They want it today; now.
Amer: We need to push the government, and the council.
We need the members of the Bar to check and balance the council. Similarly, the council should be the check and balance for the government.
If it is an issue that affects all of us, then all of us should stand up and voice our concern in unison.
Aniza: Amer, as you and your group move further up the ladder in the council, do you think the running of the council is going to change?
Amer: Maybe, maybe not.
We are not trying to dominate the council and say: "This is just a human rights organisation" –– it is part and parcel of the Malaysian Bar.
Even assuming that the younger lawyers will eventually take up the mantle of the leadership of the Bar, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are going to focus on this one issue.
You can't. Because when you talk about running the Bar, it is similar to running the country: there are other issues apart from human rights issues that need to be resolved and looked into.
So, that can't be the sole agenda; but it should be the big agenda.
Ambiga, what are the views of the senior lawyers towards the younger lawyers, who seem to be quite vocal and critical at times?
Ambiga: Oh, there is a group that is critical of the younger lawyers who are (laughs) "outspoken".
But, as I say, I have total faith in the Malaysian Bar that when push comes to shove, we have never wavered on principle –– whether senior or junior.
Amer: Prior to the amendment to Section 46A of the Legal Profession Act, which prohibits young members –– those who have been in practice for less than seven years –– from being a member of the council or holding a position in the Bar committees, you hardly saw any young lawyers in such committees in the council.
But after the amendment, there was a gradual entry of younger lawyers at the council and committee level.
Do you think that's a step in the right direction?
There are some complaints saying: "The young lawyers are too impatient. They are trying to take over the Bar."
Ambiga: It's for a senior and junior to get together and thrash it out.
I do feel sometimes that you all don't appreciate what we have to take into account in decision–making.
I think that as you come up the ladder, I hope you will be in a leadership position, so that you can understand how difficult it can be to make these decisions! (laughs)
This is life as it should be. What binds us all, ultimately –– no matter what –– is principle. If there is a violation of a principle, we are always united.
EAGER YOUNG LAWYERS
Aniza: Do you think that young lawyers are too impatient for change?
Ambiga: Not too impatient.
Amer: I wouldn't say impatient. I think we're just eager to see change.
Ambiga: I don't have a problem with them being impatient for change for the good. It is good to be impatient, because there is nothing wrong to want things to change for the better.
Amer: And after 50 years, I don't think we can say we are impatient.
Though we may not be born back then, but still 50 years of independence and nothing much has changed in terms of human rights values and norms? How much longer do we have to wait?
So, if by pushing for it, we are accused of being impatient. So be it. These are issues or matters that need to be addressed, and things that should be done now, we should not wait until tomorrow.
Ultimately, we would like issues to be publicised so that people from all walks of life can appreciate the issues.
It is through this process that we can make a real change when everybody is aware of the issues.