Time for a change?

A lot of people I know dun really like changes. It’s when they are too comfortable and they just refused to make the effort to get off their bums! Then there are those who hold on to ancient beliefs and traditions and would hear nothing of moving away from these revered practices.

But there are also those who want a change – not for anything else but for their own benefit.

IMHO, these are the people who are, unfortunately, now known as the newly elected Bar Council of West Malaysia.

I wasn’t surprised when I read this in the Star Newspapers on Sunday because I received rumours that the newly elected Bar Council will proceed with the AGM on the 19th March 2005 even tho the quorum is not met!

I just have these questions to ask:-

• Why wasn’t this intention of the Bar Council made known publicly at a much earlier date? Was there some fear that they may receive opposition and protests and therefore they decided to “spring” a surprise on the 19th?
• The Bar Council apparently sought for and obtained a legal opinion that basically supports their intentions and motives (we all know that legal opinions can and in fact has been drafted to support any positions). Again, why was this not made known and up till today, we do not know which esteem legal firm and/or lawyers were the ones who drafted this opinion.
• What was the content of this opinion? We all want to know why the previous Bar Councils have for 28 years been interpreting the law wrongly!
  

I personally have read and re-read the provisions of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) (in particular, section 67) and in my humble view, it would take some really good legal gymnastics to interpret section 67 in the way that the new Bar Council has. But then again, I’m just a former advocate and solicitor – even the views of present lawyers and former Bar Council’s presidents have been ignored if they do not correspond with the views of the Bar Council.

I understand the problems which arises with the (for want of better description) old interpretation of section 67 of the LPA. But if that is the law, then we must uphold it no matter how much inconvenience it gives us, no matter how much cost we have to incur by postponing the AGM if the quorum is not met. As lawyers, we know there are other better avenues to overcome this problem – seek for a Court’s declaration or move to amend section 67.

But no. The Bar Council decided instead to choose the easy way out. Why, one wonders… I shall not go into the conspiracy theories – interesting, tho it may be!

In moments like these, I’m glad I left the legal profession… :-(