Lawyers Don’t Do What They Preach…
By admin | November 26th, 2008 | Category: Lawyers' Articles, Malaysian Law News |
By Khairul Anuar bin Shaharudin (Advocate & Solicitor)
There are a lot of politicians from the legal background either as a graduate of law school but never practice law or famous law practitioners who are fodder for their soundbites in or out of Parliament. They are well-known to be hardliners and don’t care what people say about them. Either to their face or behind them. Some of the best politicians, which are subjective (I mean, what is a good politician? A good bullshitter?) are lawyers. Either in the opposition side or the current government side. Either in the Parliament of Malaysia or as a state assemblyman. All are known for being very good in talking the talk. But do they walk the walk?
Currently, there is a kind of a upheavel among lawyers on the lack of lawyers willing to take the mantel of a presidency of the Bar Council or being on the council itself. There are a few articles in newspaper like in the Star newspaper on 21.11.08 by the Putik Lada columnist or a campaign by http://www.elawyers.com/ aboth the lack of voting papers being returned to the Bar Council secretariat. We vote by post you see.
If any one of the candidate want to rig the voting, I think its plausible as it is just a piece of paper with the name of the candidate and a column for you to tick your choice. This year, there are 23 candidates for 12 post. Everyody remember the fiasco of last year’s Bar Council election? I think, but am not sure, the case on that election is still on appeal. That what’s I love about the Bar Council, half of our yearly fees go to defending the Bar from litigations due to some members not being satisfied with the Council’s decision.
Choose me as the next Bar Council President and I will act cute to get what I want
According to that article in the Star newspaper (pg. N55) by Janet Chai Pei Ying, it is said that out of the 13,000 current registered Bar Council member, only 3,500 will return their ballot paper. The other ballot paper will be recycled as rough paper (that’s what I usually do with all the circular sent by the Bar Council before they started to send me emails) or even worse just thrown out into the trash. If the list of candidates of this year is anything to go by, nearly 80% of it are the same candidate you see year in, year out.
Why you say? Like what Janet said in her article, the Bar members who will always itching for a fight and argument during the Annual General Meeting, have no interest in being leaders or charts the course of the Bar Council. They were willing to let a few who sometimes have to sacrifice their time to sleep to fight for all the things the Bar Council stands for. Some I may not even agree with but I have just realised the power of my vote and I voted this year. I even sent SMSes to a few of my lawyer friends and asked all the lawyers in my firm to vote.
I have experienced the localised version of the Bar by being a member of a Committee in a Bar Committee of a state in Malaysia. My partner is a chairperson of one of the Committee in the same Bar Committee and we have found out the hardship and the sacrifice that we have to make worthwhile. It was great to learn about being a member of a society like we did once in university but it is a different ballgame althogether. Next year, we may do a role reversal…
Back to my comment on lawyers in general especially with regard to the Bar Council. Lawyers just don’t want to care when they are supposed to. They should vote and don’t just bitch about the lack of support or the fights that the Bar is fighting is not up their alley or they don’t agree on it. Vote and determine who leads. Then you can make a change. Like that guy in a country halfway across the world says,
“Yes, we can…!!!”
Dear Khairul,
Though you make some valid points about the lack of participation of lawyers in wanting to (i) participate in the election of its representatives and (ii) assume the mantle of leadership at the Bar, it is regrettable that you did not go further in exploring the various social, cultural and practical currents that may influence the existence of (i) and (ii). Though I do not claim complete knowledge as to what goes on in all the Bar Council, its subcommittees and State Bar Committees, my brief experience with them has been such a profoundly poor one (both directly and vicariously) that I have now no ambitions and possess a great reluctance to sit in any subcommittees at any level whether in the Bar Council or the State Bar Committees, or to stand for any position. If you start sitting in a few, I somehow feel that it is more likely than not that you may come to the same conclusion.
I do not intend to go into a lengthy examination on this issues save to say that there are several reasons for our present state of affairs: (i) Education - The legal education has become little more than some training course one passes in university. Both graduate from local and overseas universities are not interested to learn the traditions of law or practise. Some senior lawyers here think that traditions only apply to others as and when they see fit and themselves do not set a good example. They see the practise of law as a 9 - 5 (or whatever) job that they do and go home. They act and behave no more than as a clerk would. In their practise, they forget they are lawyers. And that goes from some senior ones as well. (ii) Lack of camaraderie - there is a great schism at the Bar I feel between the local graduates generally and ‘the rest’. I think if one did a racial composition test, you would find that the majority at the Bar are the Malays. But then where are they at the forefront of practise, of breaking new law, of taking up responsibilities at the Bar? Hardly any, and those you see at the Bar prove the exceptions than the rule (and on general, their English tends to be above average from what passes off as the standard). The majority of those Malay lawyers I sometimes feel are only too happy to take judgment in defaults, going as far as summary judgment while they wait patiently for that day when that billion dollar contract job falls in their laps and they live happily ever after (note I said nothing about the work). In short, they are content to wait for fantasies whilst wallowing in mediocrity. They are content to stay in the little cliques and not mingle with the rest - they throw up all the racial, religious boundaries - halal, tudung, talk in Malay only, etc. to exclude the rest to the point they exclude themselves. Some will say they are the sleeping majority. I say they’re just sleeping. (iii) Senior lawyers - as you have pointed out 80% are the same faces. I counted 5 former Bar Presidents there. Why are they all still sitting in there? Why can’t they make way for others. Some have argued that what is wrong? I’ll tell you what is wrong - they act as a deterrent to all newcomers who intend to stand. They make the entry level so tough for newcomers. Why? Because voting at the Bar has very little to do with a reasonably considered view of all the candidates because it is likely that you do not know all of them. You are more reluctant to vote for those you don’t know or have a feel for. So you vote for those you know. In short, it’s an awareness and popularity game. Why do you think some people so jealously guard over the calls to the Bar? It’s so that their name is drilled into all the newcoming lawyers. So when the time comes to vote - they will tick their mover - out of gratitude and out of recognition. Want to test how true this is? Ask those who have been moving the calls to the Bar for years to cease doing so - to leave it to some new protege of theirs. And then watch them refuse very strongly and come up with all sorts of rationalizations why they should be there. (iv) The responsibilities are great. Even if you don’t have a position and involve yourself at the Bar, the responsibilities are heavy if you want to do it right. You have to sacrifice a lot of professional work and family time. If you are an officer bearer it’s even heavier. How many understand the nature of sacrifice and then are willing to do it - not for yourself, but all those people you will never meet, who won’t know you and even hate you for it? Too many these days are so hard up to get recognition for the pittance of work they have done. It’s disgusting and this is what you will have to contend with - people inflating themselves and grabbing credit where they can to advance themselves towards these office bearing positions or higher up . And these responsibilities are not entirely productive. I assumed office for a short time at the LAC KL and I spent the majority of tenure fighting fires and trying to contain fall outs instead of any productive work. I confess I hated it. I’d rather be in the courtroom defending some drug dealer the file from which I got from LAC KL instead of being in LAC KL treading lightly over egos, agendas and ulterior motives. We’re all clever enough to know which is the real work out of the two. The other point about responsibilities being great is that unless you have sufficient resources to back you up - you will be taking a dip in your income, because time is limited. Time spent at the Bar is time away from your work especially during office hours. (v) Not all legal developments has to stem from the Bar. That I think is the fallacy a lot of lawyers have. We can do these same things we want to do at the Bar ourselves. We can support the Bar Council but not making every bloody activity BC related, we can do things without having to invite the BC President all the time. And we can help the Bar and BC achieve its goals if we take the opportunity to create conditions in which the BC and Bar can flourish. Like Eddie’s site here or The Rostrum discussion group I have set up - creating space outside ‘official BC’ area so that lawyers can discuss issues more freely and without the weight of officialness. There is much more that can be done on the outside for the betterment of the Bar. I hate to use such cliches but lawyers have to really start thinking out of the box’ instead of contenting themselves to merely seeing the 4 corners, because anybody with eyes can see that.
These are not exhaustive and what I’ve set out is just my very brief thoughts on it. A serious study should be done on this at the Bar, but I am not hopeful. Arguments, not evidence seems to rule the day there. I have not yet dealt with all the interrelations between those factors and others that for the time being is inconvenient to discuss. I hope it will provoke thoughts and bona fide discussion on the matter.