KUALA LUMPUR: The government’s decision to amend the Legal Profession Act 1976 is merely meant to make the Bar Council more transparent and democratic, and to return it to its original purpose.
Tan Sri Mohamad Apandi Ali, in defending the decision, said it should not be viewed as a move to curtail the freedom of the council nor to stop it from criticising the government.
Writing in his column for Berita Harian Ahad, the attorney-general said he was supportive of the decision to amend the act.
“In the seven years that I held a position as an officer of the Bar Council, I became familiar with the ins and outs of how it operates. The government does not have any intention of controlling the Bar Council and, in fact, is much more open to criticism (than before).
“This is why the government approved the amendment to the Sedition Act 1948 last year that made the action of spreading hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the government no more a seditious offence.
“When the Bar Council is not representative anymore (of the legal fraternity), then the council’s purpose, to ‘uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour’, as underlined in Section 42(1)(a) of the act would not be achieved.
“Defending justice is a noble duty, but justice for whom?”
Apandi said if the composition of the Bar Council was seen as being not representative of its members, then whether it has achieved the aims of two other subsections of the act — Sections 42(1)(d) and 42(1)(e) — could be called into question.
The first subsection states that the purpose of the council was “where requested so to do, to express its view on matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of the law in Malaysia” while the second is for the Bar Council “to represent, protect and assist members or of the legal profession in Malaysia and to promote in any proper manner the interests of the legal profession in Malaysia”.
“I am not surprised when I am told that there were some Bar Council affairs conducted secretly, that some members were not privy to certain things or if there is a ‘gag order’ placed on members.
“The biggest issue is the allocation under Section 50(1) of the act which states that the annual election for 12 office-bearers be done via postal ballot. It is unfortunate that a body which is against postal balloting in the general election system (practiced by Malaysia), a similar stand to Bersih, still uses postal balloting in its own elections.”
Apandi said several Bar Council members had brought up the question of a lack of transparency in the body’s postal ballot system, including the fact that the election committee is not monitored by any independent body.
“I still remember how there was a ruckus when 50 fake voting papers were found during the election for the 2007/2008 Bar Council session. I was informed that many members did not want to get involved in the elections nor even the annual general assembly as they were not confident in the transparency of the system.
“It would not come as a surprise if, in years to come, the number of postal ballots cast in Bar Council elections and the number of members present for the annual general assembly were low,” he said.
Apandi said, to overcome the problem created by the postal ballot system, and at the same time make the council more transparent and democratic, the government had decided to amend the Legal Profession Act to end the system for the Bar elections.
The new system will see a direct election at the state Bar level every two years.
Apandi said the Bar should remember that one of its purposes, under Section 42(1)(l), was to “promote good relations and social intercourse amongst members and between members and other persons concerned in the administration of law and justice in Malaysia”.
“However, we see that there is no good relationship between the Bar and the government.”
To ensure a better relationship, said Apandi, the decision was made to amend the act so that the minister in charge of legal affairs had the power to appoint two representatives to sit on the Bar Council.
“These two representatives, however, are not allowed to contest the posts of president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer.”
Apandi said the government had also decided to increase the quorum needed for the AGM to 25 per cent so that the Bar could be more democratic and representative of legal practitioners.