|
 by Teoh El Sen
Free Malaysia Today
In a forum, former Bar Council president K Ragunath says Malaysia should not
have an 'alternative Bar' or law academy, saying that Singapore is "not a good
model" to duplicate
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Bar Council president K Ragunath said today that Malaysia
should not emulate what Singapore has done to form its version of an ‘alternate
Bar’—the Singapore Academy of Law.
Speaking at a forum at the Bar Council office this morning, he saidthat
Singapore should not be a benchmark for the Malaysian Bar as its conduct and
achievements were “way above” its Singapore counterpart.
“We should not benchmark with Singapore. My goodness, [in terms of] human rights
we are way ahead. We have the best in the region,” he told an audience of the
“alternative Bar, alternative future” forum organised by the Bar Council’s
national young lawyers committee(NYLC).
The forum, part of Bar Council’s “Siri Pemikiran Kritis”, was discussing the
proposal and possibility of having a second Bar. The idea of having a body in
addition to the Bar was sparked soon after the Bar Council in May held an
extraordinary general meeting passing a motion which condemned police brutality
during the Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28.
Expressing his disapproval to having an alternate Bar or a law academy, Ragunath
said that Singapore was “not a good model… in many ways”
“We are way above Singapore. Don’t talk about independence[of the Bar], [even]
the activities of the members, are much higher than [what is done] in Singapore.
Yes, I stand by what I say,” said Ragunath.
Ragunath questioned the need for a legislation for a law academy and asked if
the public would be funding it. He said that the concern over having a law
academy was the fear that it would conflict with Bar Council’s role.
“The first step is the law academy, then you go one step further and offer
certificates and license to law academics to go to court. Then next, digruntled
members of the Bar who are sacked from the Bar for disciplinary reasons can then
practise in the new Bar? This is the concern.”
The president of the Bar Council [between 2009 and 2011] admitted that there is
perception that the Bar is pro-Pakatan, but stressed that it was merely
perception.
He stressed that many are unaware that “more than 90% of the work the Bar does
is actually pro-government” and “maybe only 1% of the work is controversial.”
Ragunath urged the current Bar Council president to engage with everybody and
work “10 times harder” to change the perception of the Bar Council being
“political”.
However, he said that he was “happy” to see differing views and commented that
this type of vocal variance of opinions would not have been tolerated in the Bar
Council 20 years ago.
Ragunath condemned “booing and shouting” that took place during the Bar
Council’s recent EGM and said that the Bar Council is supposed to accept
differing views. “Is it not better we learn to live with differences? Today we
have Bar A, next we have Bar B, an alternative Bar is not going to solve the
problems.”
Aside from Ragunath, other speakers at the forum were Umno legal adviser Mohd
Hafarizam Harun, vocal Bar Council critic Abu Backer Sidek, Bar Council veteran
Roger Tan Kor Mee, and Bar Council’s
Khaizan Sharizan Abdul Razak. It was moderated by Daniel Albert from the Bar
Council’s young lawyers committee.
Hafarizam said earlier that Malaysia should look to Singapore, being a first
class country, as it has a law academy.
“Why are we so worried[about having an alternative]. Are we afraid of our own
shadow? Let the government have it’s own Act,” he said, adding that Minister in
the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Aziz himself assured him yesterday that
only non-practicing lawyers would be members of the academy.
“Why do we need this now? Very simple, Bar council is now regarded as the fourth
opposition party other than DAP, PKR and PAS. The Bar Council is now infested
with political opportunists,” he said.
Hafarizam dismissed a question by moderator Daniel if the law academy was simply
to stifle dissent after the Bar Counci’s vocal stance against the government on
Bersih.
“Let’s be the man on the street. You have this perception here that the the Bar
Council is nothing but pro-opposition. The government took the responsibility to
listen to the voices of those unsatisfied Bar Council members.”
Meanwhile, Abu Backer expressed his ‘annoyance and hate’ that the Bar Council
had “supported Bersih”. He said he represented a lot of lawyers who are not
voicing their silent dissatisfaction.
“You are talking about phantom votes. Where is the hantu[ghosts]? [Bersih
co-chairperson S] Ambiga please, I’d love to see the hantu. But until today we
don’t see any hantu.”
“We are lawyers, we know how to take things up. We don’t go to the streets,
jumping, shouting. Be a professional body. It[the Bar Council] is over for me. I
welcome and fully support an alternative Bar. I would love to have that. We
always know that a monopoly is no good,” said Abu Backer.
He said that he was personally also setting up a body that would champion
lawyers’ without any political interference.
Both Abu Backer and Hafarizam also complained about how the Bar Council has not
taken care of the welfare of lawyers—including standing up for their members,
and making sure they earn enough.
Meanwhile, Bar Council national young lawyers’ committee chairman Richard Wee
spoke from the floor, saying that in principle, a law academy “seems something
we can embrace”.
However, Wee said that it was wrong for anyone to form a new committee or body
just because “you don’t like someone”.
“This opens the door. For example, I don’t like Petaling Jaya City Council[MBPJ],
then can we form alternative MBPJ? If I don’t like the PM, do we then have an
alternative government.
“The peninsular voted and 52% were against the government. Can the people then
form an alternative government? Can I put who I want as a prime minister there?
You can’t change the game because it’s not favourable to you.”
He said that if there are members of the Bar who are unhappy with its top
management, they could vote in its elections in November. “We have people from
all political backgrounds. The Bar is reflective of what people are.. The work
that we do is not pro- anyone. It is pro-law,” he said .
Meanwhile, in a press conference later, Bar Council president Lim defended the
stance to urge the government to reconsider having a law academy.
“Why is Parliament time being wasted to draft a legislation [we don't need?]. If
you need that, then perhaps you would also need legislation for the Hokkien
society, a pet shop owners association… the fear is that it would ultimately
usurp the Bar Council’s role,” he said.
He said that he has met Nazri and Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s
Department V K Liew and the two have agreed to consider the Bar Council’s views.
Asked if Nazri was agreeable to canceling plans for an academy, Lim said: “The
discussions are still ongoing, maybe I am a poor advocate… but our views in the
meeting are similar, nine out of 10 matters we agree on,” he said.
On perceptions that Bar Council was pro-Opposition, Lim said:” Every week, I try
to meet a BN leader. I engage as many [people] as I can.[It was mentioned in a
forum] that I was a MCA member, I had to resign, I had to be a-political when I
was elected president of the Bar.
Lim said that the legal bodies of other countries also supported Bar Council’s
decision to criticise police brutality.
Last week, Nazri said that the government’s idea of forming the law academy last
month should not be opposed as that would violate freedom of association.
“It does not involve the Bar at all. The academy will allow ex-judges, law
academics, representatives from the Attorney General Chambers and others to be
in a society. What right does the Bar Council has to stop them?” he asked.
In response, three lawyers’ associations– the Bar Council, Advocates Association
of Sarawak (AAS) and Sabah Law Association (SLA) – issued a statement saying
that a law academy is an attempt to diminish the independence of the Bar in
Malaysia.
One of the alleged reasons given by the government to justify the formation of
the law academy is to raise the standards and improve the quality of lawyers.
Comments () |
|
|
|
|
|
