|
by Eric Choo
The resolutions carried by the Malaysian Bar in its recently
concluded EGM on 11 May, 2012 have led many to talk and debate about the Bar
Council, the Malaysian Bar and its resolutions. Amongst the thoughts which I
have had the opportunity of reading, I am particularly intrigued by the views
exchanged between Roger Tan and 8 LoyarBurokkers, namely Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat,
Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira
Sacha Abu Bakar and Sharmila Sekaran. I am, however, perturbed by some of the
arguments of the 8 LoyarBurokkers and I wish to put forth my views here.
At the outset, whilst I am a member of MCA, which is a known fact to the likes
of Edmund, Shanmuga, Marcus and Roger, I hope that this fact, when read together
with this article, would not be construed as an attempt by me to be a candidate
or to obtain any sort of benefit from the ruling coalition. I see it necessary
to highlight this fact not because the 8 LoyarBurokkers have mocked Roger for
not expressly revealing his political affiliation, but for the acts of some
members of the Bar who, at the height of anger during the EGM, have conveniently
made such accusations against those who spoke against the motion at the recent
EGM.
With that record set straight, I shall endeavour to put forth my disagreements
with some of the arguments of the 8 LoyarBurokkers.
The stand of the 8 LoyarBurokkers
The essence of the 8 LoyarBurokkers’ 2,600 words long article “Fallacies Spun by
Critics of the Bar”, to my understanding, are as follows:-
(1) The Bar did not prejudge the issues as the resolutions carried were based on
the observations of the monitoring team whose credibility is undoubted; and
(2) The Bar need not condemn the unruly behaved protesters and it was a fallacy
or misapprehension that to be an independent organisation, the Bar must always
be even handed or restrained in its remarks.
Whilst I may lack the wisdom of the 8 LoyarBurokkers or that of Roger Tan, it
appears to me that some of the fallacies alleged by the 8 LoyarBurokkers do not
hold water.
Did the Bar prejudge the issues?
In 900 or so words, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have sought to argue that the Bar did
not prejudge the issues. The arguments of the 8 LoyarBurokkers were premised
upon the grounds that:-
(1) the 12 resolutions carried by the Bar were based on the observations of the
80 monitors whose credibility are without doubt, and
(2) the political or social belief of one would not impair the ability to state
fact of how excessive force was used by the police or how a fellow Malaysian was
assaulted and battered by the police.
Firstly, in support of the 8 LoyarBurokkers’ contention that the credibility of
the monitors of the Bar are without doubt, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have cited the
names of 5 notable, respectable senior lawyers who were also members of the
monitoring team. It is not my intention to challenge the credibility of these 5
respected senior members of the Bar but the fact remains that the Bar has,
intentionally or otherwise, left out the names of the remaining 75 or so
monitors.
What is the rationale behind the Bar’s action to hide the identities of these
remaining 75 or so monitors? Is it because the Bar Council is fully aware of the
fact that at least 1 of its monitors was playing the role of both a prosecutor
and a judge, when the monitor is also a member of Bersih’s steering committee?
At this juncture, before any form of attack is hurled at me, I have no qualms
confessing that, despite my known political affiliation, I was part of the
Melaka Bar monitoring team that observed the Bersih 3.0 protest in Dataran
Pahlawan, Melaka. After I submitted my report, I also informed the person in
charge, the Melaka Bar Representative to the Bar Council, Desmond Ho, that some
of my observations may have been worded in what some may perceive as a biased
manner, and I left it to him to make necessary amendments before he compiles all
the observations and submitted to the Bar Council.
Hence, I am of the honest belief that a monitor’s political or social belief do,
to a certain extent, affect the observations recorded.
This leads me to the second point where the 8 LoyarBurokkers appear to be
undisturbed by the political or social beliefs of the individual monitors.
Whilst I wish to thank them for indirectly having that sort of confidence in me
that I would have been able to report my observations as they were, I am
perplexed by the fact that some of these 8 LoyarBurokkers have just, not too
long ago, criticised the appointment of Tun Hanif Omar as the head of the
Government-appointed panel which is tasked with investigating the events and
allegations surrounding the Bersih 3.0 rally.
For the record, I share similar concerns on Tun Hanif’s appointment as the
chairman of the panel, as the panel ought to be free and independent from the
interested parties i.e. the Government, the police and the participants. As
such, I am of the view that the former Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Tan
Sri Steve Shim would have been a better person to lead the so-called independent
panel, with the former IGP Tun Hanif Omar assisting the panel by sharing his
knowledge from his experience as a former IGP.
In the same vein, I also believe that whilst it may be difficult or impossible
for the Bar to form a completely neutral monitoring team, the Bar ought to have
at least disclosed identities of the members of the monitoring team who may have
vested interests. The Bar ought to be open about it and, I am sure, has nothing
to hide. This is particularly so when the Bar must not only be independent, but
also be seen as independent.
Moving on, in their article, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have also asked important
factual questions- who ordered the closure of the nearby LRT stations so as to
prevent the people from dispersing; who ordered the destruction of cameras
belonging to journalists; what justified the 4 hours of continued attacks.
Ironically, when the 8 LoyarBurokkers claimed that the Bar did not prejudge,
they have also admitted in their article that answers to these questions have
yet to surface. Yet, without answers to such important factual questions and
with the factual matrix in dispute, the Bar had for instance, made the finding
that the police had fired tear gas in a manner to box in the protesters rather
than to disperse. As a matter of fact, when the tear gas cannisters were fired,
were the police fully aware of the fact that access to the nearby LRT stations
have been closed thus preventing people from dispersing since the persons
instructing the police and those in charge of the LRT stations are different?
Notwithstanding the fact that we have yet to obtain any answer to such pertinent
factual question, the Bar in its Resolution 1 (c), however, has condemned the
police of, amongst others, “trapping… the participants with water cannon and
tear gas instead of permitting them to disperse”. If this is not prejudging,
then I ought to be guided by the more senior members of the Bar of the meaning
of prejudging, hoping to earn some CPD points in the process.
The unruly protesters were less blameworthy?
In their article, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have also argued that there was no need
to condemn members of the public who turned violent for, amongst other reasons,
“most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media… are not
convinced that these so called ‘rioters’ are as blameworthy as the police”.
This is a dangerous notion as it seeks to create a sort of “pecking order” of
blameworthiness. Section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 impels
members of the Bar to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour and the
Bar is not to allow its interests or that of its members to affect them in any
way.
It then begs the question of how could we speak out only for the wronged
protestors and not for the wronged police officers? We cannot treat the
sacrosanct principle of equality before the law as something economical that can
be altered to suit a manufactured “pecking order” of culpability. As such, it is
my honest belief that all members of the Bar, including the 8 LoyarBurokkers,
share my view that a wrong is a wrong regardless of who the culprits are and the
scales of justice cannot be tipped simply because we feel one is less culpable
than the other.
Having said that, it is only prudent to come to such a drastic conclusion after
a thorough probe had been conducted. At the very least, we ought to let the
Courts decide whether or not the alleged offences have been committed and the
amount of damages suffered. In this respect, instead of urging the Government to
pay “just and proper compensation” to the victims, as was stated in Resolution
7, the Bar ought to have urged the victims to come forward and assist them to go
through the due process of law to obtain compensation.
Notwithstanding the above, the Bar’s carefully worded resolutions have also
omitted the fact that the Bersih protests were conducted in 11 cities in
Malaysia whereby no untoward incident was reported except in Kuala Lumpur. Given
that the respective state Bars have also sent their respective monitoring teams
to observe the various protests around the country, it begs the question why
weren’t the reports from the monitoring teams in the other states tabled to aid
members in developing a more complete view of the events that took place in
Kuala Lumpur and 10 other cities on 28 April 2012?
Further, in the unholy haste to compile the final report, the Bar has neglected
to at least mention an incident in Melaka where a DAP state assemblyman breached
the barricade in Dataran Pahlawan, Melaka. Hence, it is only natural for some to
question the impartiality of the Bar because we have been perceived as selective
in our use of facts and in our condemnation; contravening long-cherish legal
principles. While I accept this may have been inadvertent given the hurried
manner in which the report was compiled, it is not too late to correct this.
Also, I wish to raise a procedural matter with regards to the EGM where we were
compelled to vote for the resolutions en-bloc rather than opening each of the 12
resolutions to be voted individually, allowing us to vote in favour of the
neutral ones and voting against the ones some of us found to be contentious and
lop-sided.
I do hope in future, the Bar will allow greater degree flexibility in such
matters, in line with the democratic values we rightly demand others to respect
and uphold. This, I believe, is what the so-called detractors of the Bar want
and will, in the long run, makes the Bar a better partner in the administration
of justice in this country.
Comments () |
|
|
|
|
|
