President of the Malaysian Bar, Ambiga Sreenevasan,
Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, Lim Chee Wee,
Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar, George Varughese,
distinguished speakers and guests,
delegates of the 3rd Young Lawyers Convention,
ladies and gentlemen: a very good evening.
Thank you for supporting this important event and gracing us with your presence.
I would just like to set the tone of this Convention by discussing the role of
the National Young Lawyers Committee, and secondly, conveying my sentiments
about the Convention.
I. The National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC)
The Bar Council's National Young Lawyers Committee was formed by a Bar Council resolution on 17 January 1998. It is therefore fitting that we celebrate our 10th anniversary with this Convention. We have come very far and grown very strong, in no small measure due to the leadership of my predecessors.
Nevertheless, there continues to be some opposition of the NYLC and its work. In fact, I understand that there have been efforts to undermine, and to boycott participation of this Convention. This is extremely disheartening given that the Convention is an event of the Malaysian Bar. We are therefore proud that despite these attempts, the Convention has attracted more than 150 delegates – a record number – and you are one of them! I especially note that there are 10 young lawyers from Penang and 1 from Negeri Sembilan who have graced us with their presence today.
The appearances of misgivings and doubts regarding the NYLC
require an engagement, and a reaction. Permit me firstly, to trace in brief the
recent genealogy of the NYLC, a committee which I have been fortunate to lead
the past 2 years.
At the NYLC’s brain–storming meeting on 9–11 June 2006 at Selesa Hills Homes,
Bentung attended by leading young lawyers from around Malaysia, a Plan of Action
and Vision known as the ‘Selesa Conclusions’ was formulated and adopted by
consensus. The Plan states as follows:
1. We reaffirm that the NYLC aims to represent, protect and promote the
interests of young lawyers of the Bar and to empower them to contribute to
social good.
2. We recognise the following as the core aspirations of the NYLC:
2.1 To profile the NYLC as a platform for young lawyers to
voice their views and concerns on issues affecting the Bar such as the
administration of the Bar and professional practice, and on issues of public
interest such as the administration of and access to justice, and law reform.
2.2 To maintain and nurture good working relationships with other Bar Council
committees, various governmental agencies, NGOs, other organisations and the
media, and to work together with these committees, agencies and organisations in
rallying issues of concern affecting young lawyers and society in general.
2.3 To establish and/or re–activate Young Lawyers Committees (YLCs) at State
levels and to provide opportunities for the effective networking and exchange of
information, ideas and opinions among young lawyers of different states.
2.4 To collate and study data pertaining to the demographics of practice and
working conditions of young lawyers, and to engage employers, the Bar Council
and other stakeholders in constructive dialogue with the intention of creating a
better and wholesome working environment for young lawyers.
2.5 To assist the education and enhance the continuing professional development
of young lawyers in maximising their potential in terms of producing quality
legal work, achieving a balanced and fulfilling career, and contributing to the
Bar and social good.
After the repeal of section 46A(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act, 1976, the NYLC made the following decisions:
1. That State Bar YLCs and the NYLC should continue to exist as per the current structure adopted by the Bar Council.
2. That the aim of representing, protecting and promoting the interest of young lawyers within the Bar and to empower them to contribute to social good, and the 5 core aspirations of the NYLC decided in Selesa Hills Homes on 11 June 2006 is re–affirmed.
3. That a practical working guide in defining the target group of young lawyers is of those under 40 years in age or 7 years in practice.
4. That all members of the Bar, irrespective of age or seniority in practice, are invited and to serve on the NYLC.
On 2 December 2006 (at its 10th meeting), the Bar Council adopted the NYLC’s decision outlined above.
Post–repeal, the NYLC noted an increase in the number of young lawyers wanting to take part in our activities. We have encouraged these young lawyers to work at the State YLCs to develop and strengthen the work of the State Bar Committees, particularly in relation to young lawyers.
Unfortunately, the Penang and Negeri Sembilan State Bar
Committees decided in early 2007 not to re–activate their YLCs resulting in a
gap of co–operation between these State Bars and the Committee. As a result,
young lawyers in Penang and Negeri Sembilan lost out with many having to seek an
alternative platform to contribute to the work of the Bar. The NYLC has
continued to provide some of these members with the opportunity to serve the Bar
at the national level.
While some members of the Bar still wish to debate the existence and utility of
YLCs and NYLC, it would be useful if the energy channeled into such debate were
expended instead on working with the said committees. It should be noted that
the YLCs structure of the Bar exists in similar fashion in other leading
jurisdictions including Singapore, Australia, United Kingdom, Scotland and the
United States of America. Regional and global conglomerate bar associations have
recognised the importance of young lawyer platforms. The European Young Bar
Association represents over 200,000 young lawyers throughout Europe, LAWASIA has
a Young Lawyers Standing Committee and the International Bar Association’s Young
Lawyers Committee seeks to “further the interests and objectives of young
lawyers around the world”.
Hence, why are some members in the Malaysian Bar still bitterly opposed to the
work of the young lawyers? Anecdotal remarks have suggested that there should be
no distinction between the ‘young’ and the ‘old’; and that the young lawyers are
‘dividing the Bar’ post–46A repeal. It is of course the prerogative of anyone to
question and re–open contested questions. The intention must surely be to
contribute constructively or multiply the social utility in conducting a re–hash
of the discourse. But it should not form a metaphorical shield to justify
insular practices.
To un–pack the arguments would require one to ask the following questions. Who
are making these remarks? Why are they being made? Is there an underlying
context? Why have none of the criticisms been made public? Are the young lawyers
perpetuating the purported divide or in actuality uniting the Bar?
Note that in jurisdictions where YLCs are in existence, the baggage of legalised
discrimination tailored along our previous section 46A(1)(a) is absent. To
conflate the establishment of young lawyers platforms as solely motivated by the
46A(1)(a) prohibition is to confuse the issues. This much is clear.
The reality is probably one of control – the fear of losing control of the Bar
to younger members – given that this is an era where problems are being dealt
with in new ways. We have a great deal of similar issues being played up in
different arenas, and in various behavioural patterns. But the Bar is evolving,
and evolving very quickly. We need to keep up.
At another level, some say that for far too long, the Bar has been in an ivory
tower, that it is too comfortable, looking down at others and pronouncing
statements from afar. Some like it that way. But in this day and age, we cannot
command the respect, and expect to lead public opinion without the concomitant
recognition that we cannot do it alone. The disconnect is evident – within the
Bar and outside of it. And what is the truth? It is that young lawyers on the
ground provide the crucial link to close that gap, and energy to promote the
Bar’s interests in society.
If the young lawyers committees are perceived as a threat to the power structure
built up throughout the history of the Bar then so be it. If young lawyers wish
to agitate change or reform for greater inclusiveness in governance then let it
be. But arguments about young lawyers dividing the Bar are none other than
attempts to curtail the collective voice and aspiration of every member who is
interested in genuine progression. It has never been the goal of the young
lawyers to challenge inherent comfort zones, but if an inevitable effect of the
YLCs and NYLC’s work makes life uncomfortable for some, the final solution
cannot be to obliterate the committees.
There is another perspective, one which is slightly more hidden. It is this.
When young lawyers are needed to decide on a menu for a Bar dinner or organise a
talk or gather friends for an Annual General Meeting, they are called upon. A
failure to carry out the task successfully is a failure of the ‘young lawyers’.
When the ills of practice befall some in the profession and clients’ money are
unlawfully siphoned, ‘young lawyers’ are blamed. And do we still ‘talk down’ to
young lawyers and pupils–in–chambers, but not render humane respect? Yet during
the election periods at national and State levels, some wholeheartedly declare
support of and seek to protect the interests of young lawyers to ensure they
share a fair bargain in practice.
One gets the picture: when young lawyers are needed, they are everything; when
they are not, they are said to divide the Bar.
Make no mistake, the YLCs and NYLC have always endeavoured to work with all
members of the Bar. But until a few terms ago, ask how many times pre–46A that
the current spirit of inclusiveness has been practiced sincerely to have young
lawyers in various committees. Ask how young lawyers are treated when they
present their views before committees. Ask why some still fear sitting in some
of these committees but prefer being part of a cohesive and friendly environment
with their peers in the YLCs and NYLC.
To critique the work of the young lawyers committees over the years is
encouraged. Activities are open for audit. If the work creates mayhem, then it
is time to close the committees. But take a second, or perhaps a third look.
Attacking the fact of existence as opposed to questioning the work is oblique.
Substance is quite surely more important than form. And ask how little have been
spent on our activities from the Bar’s coffers compared to other programmes
where specific funds are provided.
At both levels within the Bar, and society, was there an ill–advised initiative
undertaken by the committees? Our work has not only strengthened links intra–Bar
but contributed to nation–building within society. Un–masking these in practice
necessarily meets the arguments of the theorists of ‘division’ and other
detractors. The fault, probably, of the committees lie in having taken on too
much and trying too many new things – there is probably a need to focus,
nevertheless, there is much to do.
As lawyers, we are linked. We are a globalised legal identity destined to uphold
the rule of law and united in the struggle for freedom and justice. Yet, there
is no compulsion for one to be recognised as ‘young’. There is a platform if you
wish, and everyone has the absolute option to opt–out, to be an apostate, so to
speak. If senior members wish to contribute in the committees, all are welcomed,
there is no bar. The mantra has been to stand guided by every member of the Bar
subject of course that the views adopted do nothing but furthers the Bar’s
cause. As a re–affirmation of the position, young lawyers have been working in
close and successful co–operation with some State Bar committees, the Bar
Council and senior lawyers the past few terms.
The aim of the committees is constructive and its work is meaningful. Young
lawyers are by and large shut out, whether by design or accident, from
leadership positions at the Bar or frequently, their interests are neglected or
overlooked. The committees allow young lawyers the opportunity to become
actively involved in some of the Bar’s activities and further enhance the
process of assimilation, thereby helping to develop a sense of belonging to the
Bar.
One probably has not seen in the years of the Bar so many hard–working, vocal
and intelligent young lawyers genuinely interested in the Bar’s activities, and
who concertedly wish to contribute towards shaping our future collectively, as
opposed to allowing the future shape them. Do not discourage this revivalism. We
cannot publicly and continually invite members to contribute and at the same
time find reasons to exclude our young members. As the workforce for many
initiatives, we have seen strength in numbers of the young lawyers.
If the State Bars are without the YLCs, just as the quorum required for our
Annual General Meetings have reduced, we will soon start to see diluted
participation, and a return to greater elitism among the upper echelons. It will
begin the end. The vaunted monopoly sheltered in the repealed section 46A(1)(a)
and sought to be neutralised at the dawn of the movement to repeal the divide
will prevail.
Many young lawyers have the potential to become future leaders of the Bar, and
to carry on the Bar's tradition in upholding justice without fear or favour. The
committees provide a good environment and a solid medium to expose and train
young lawyers towards this end. Let us encourage this progression. It is in this
spirit that I sincerely hope more lawyers would support the work of the YLCs and
the NYLC.
II. The Young Lawyers Convention
This year’s Convention is themed “Independent, Innovative and
International”. Initiated by our predecessors, the Young Lawyers Convention
which gathers young lawyers from across the Peninsular is known to forge
friendships, boost camaraderie, increase awareness of current issues, improve
skills and create controversy.
The Convention represents the final major project of the NYLC for the 2007/2008
term, and a culmination of a 2–year plan to strengthen the work of the NYLC. It
is also time for me to step down, and for others to take over, having been part
of the young lawyers movement for some time now. It has been a most enriching
experience, and joy to serve the Bar.
Having also participated in both the previous Conventions in Cherating in 2003
and Pangkor in 2005, I have learnt a great deal and have absolutely no regrets.
There are many friends in the previous conventions who are here today. It is
immensely satisfying to continue the work (and struggle!) at the Bar with many
delegates of the previous Conventions who share similar aspirations. It is
encouraging to see these delegates continuing to participate actively in the Bar
and take strong positions on issues affecting the Bar. This has been one of the
great achievements of the previous Conventions.
This year’s Convention will be no different from the previous ones in terms of
activities and goals. The theme is meant to convey 3 core attributes which need
to be inculcated as part of a young lawyer’s value system to meet the challenges
of the future. Not surprisingly, delegates will find much in common, cutting
across divisions of gender, ethnicity and religion. A cherished lesson I believe
many of us have learnt from our involvement within the Bar is that the agitation
for justice and that which is right is blind to the socio–political constructs
of gender, ethnicity and religion. We must strive to impress this upon our new
members.
A notable difference however from the past Conventions has been the record
turnout of delegates – more than 150 in number – and the fact that this
Convention is entirely self–funded. The allocation by the Bar Council to
organise this important event is not being used. No funds from our treasury will
be utilised save to sponsor 11 young lawyers totalling RM3,135.00, and we are
even confident that a modest profit will be made from this Convention.
Speaking for myself however, and in the words of a senior lawyer communicated to
me recently, “the young lawyers continue to be conscience of the Bar”. I trust
this Convention will bear testament to this statement.
Before Dipendra Harshad Rai gives an overview of the Convention, I would like
express my warm and sincere appreciation to those who have worked tirelessly to
organise this Convention, and in the practice recently set by our President, I
would like to introduce them to you:
Dipendra Harshad Rai
Noreen Binti Ahmad Ariff
Syamsuriatina Binti Ishak
Angeline Cheah Yin Leng
Sunil Lopez A/L Ceasar Lopez
Benjamin A/L Sathyanandam
Farez Bin Mohd Ali Jinnah
Desmond Ho Chee Cheong
Audrey Quah Hooi Kean
Kho Yieng San
Lai Chee Hoe
Lee Chooi Peng
Lee Shih
Robin Lim Fang Say
Noor Arianti Binti Osman
Richard Wee Thiam Seng
Seira Sacha Binti Abu Bakar
Simranjit Kaur Gill
Teo Nie Ching
Chandrika Bhaskaran
Lojini Soomaran
The NYLC is only as good as its members. I am extremely grateful to the NYLC
members who have stood by shoulder–to–shoulder and worked with me in the
Committee throughout these 2 terms. Particular gratitude must be extended to the
NYLC’s Deputy Chairs last term: Richard Wee Thiam Seng, Wong Fook Meng and Kenny
Lai Choe Ken and those of this term: Dipendra Harshad Rai, Desmond Ho Chee
Cheong and Noreen Binti Ahmad Ariff. Without them bearing the brunt of our work,
the NYLC would not have achieved everything which we had set out to do. I am
proud to mention that we have accomplished more than 99% of that we had planned
these 2 years.
The NYLC would also like to acknowledge the kind support of our corporate
sponsors, Yayasan Tun Suffian which sponsored 10 delegates and Raja Aziz Addruse
who sponsored 3 delegates.
I am sure you will benefit from this Convention, and I wish you all an
enjoyable, rewarding and enlightening time together.
Your presence today means very much to the Malaysian Bar. You are invaluable to
the Bar.
It is indeed my pleasure and an honour to welcome you, one and all. Welcome!