Gerakan lawyer’s credibility is the problem, not the Bar Council

By Low Teck Kuan

I refer to the online exclusive piece of opinion written by Ivanpal Singh Grewal titled “The Bar Council’s credibility problem” published in The Star yesterday. Ivanpal is a graduate in law and also currently the Gerakan Selangor Youth Vice-Chairman and Secretary of the Gerakan Political Bureau.

In his article, Ivanpal made an attack against the Bar Council’s credibility by citing three points:

1. That in the course of his chambering when he was attending legal training organised by the Bar Council, the seminars were “peppered with critiques of the government and government policy”.
2. That the the Bar Council in an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) condemned the government’s handling of the Bersih 3.0 rally even before any official findings could be made by the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) is wrong, as “no one should be pronounced as guilty of any wrongdoing before a full and proper investigation is made”.
3. And finally that the Bar Council is mischievous to insinuate that the executive had influenced the judiciary in Anwar’s because “Malaysia is a constitutional democracy that practices the doctrine of separation of powers”.

On the first point, similar to Ivanpal, I completed my legal education in year 2009, obtained my Certificate in Legal Practise in year 2010, and underwent chambering in year 2011. During the course of my pupillage, I had also diligently followed the legal training and seminars conducted by the Bar Council as part of my legal training.

Here, I wish to put my point across strongly that at no time did the Bar Council delivered the contents in their courses and seminars to put the government to shame. In fact, the courses were only designed to equip pupils on matters in relation to their legal practice which had nothing on the government’s actions and policies.

Even through checks with my peers who had all done chambering in years 2010, 2011 and 2012, none of them had found that the legal courses conducted by the Bar Council for pupils had any contents which criticises the government.

Hence, it is wrong and highly dishonest for Ivanpal to insinuate that the entire Bar Council and the relevant state bar committees have a hidden political agenda and are abusing the mandatory pupillage course to undermine the government.

Secondly, Ivanpal had claimed that it was wrong for the Bar Council in its EGM to condemn the government in its handling of Bersih 3.0 rally as the government is innocent until proven guilty. Now, Ivanpal should take note that the Bar Council committee themselves did not issue the criticism. Rather, it was done via a motion passed and voted overwhelmingly by lawyers.

The Extraordinary General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar (11 May 2012)

After the public rally, an EGM was called to discuss the motion tabled by fellow lawyers. And after two hours of discussion, of the total attendance, 939 lawyers voted in favour of the motion against 16 who disagreed, to condemn the police’s actions who had used excessive force against rallygoers including observers from the Bar Council.

In fact, the motion even stood the test of times as in April 2013, after conducting a public enquiry Suhakam found that the police had used excessive and disproportionate force against the rally participants.

The Bar Council takes no sides of any political divide. But in cases where any parties (be it government or not) breaches natural justice, the Bar Council, with the approval of majority lawyers as its members has an onerous duty to speak against it. On the Bersih 3.0 rally, the Bar had definitely stood up against the misconducts by the police.

Finally, Ivanpal naively (or perhaps deliberately) state that Malaysia as a constitutional democracy is currently practicing the doctrine of separation of powers where there are clear separation between the judiciary and the executive. Hence to insinuate that the executive influences the judiciary is plainly wrong.

But this statement does not hold water, nor it is reflected as such in our legal system. Under Judicial Appointments Act 2009, a Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) was established to place the powers of appointment of judges under the thumbs of the head of executive aka the Prime Minister. Even in the JAC website, it is stated that one of the functions of the Commission is “to select suitably qualified persons who merit the appointment as judges of the superior court for the Prime Minister’s consideration”.

Based on this alone, clearly the Judiciary is not of the same level as the Executive but it is under the influence of the government instead. Hence, there are no separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary as judges actions are subjected to the scrutiny of the Prime Minister alone.

Justice Hishamudin’s snub to the Federal Court is one fine example. Despite being well known as the most respected serving judge, he was snubbed twice by the Prime Minister in the promotion of judges to the Federal Court for reasons that the Prime Minister himself knows best.

Hence, for Ivanpal to say otherwise, he has either misunderstood the legal system and the laws in place or had deliberately chose to close an eye to these laws. Coupled with his unsubstantiated insinuation against the Bar Council, unless he corrects it, Ivanpal has once again prove to the public that Gerakan has degenerated to the most unprincipled party in their history.