Congratulations

RWY wish to congratulate our Richard Wee, who was recently elected by the 36 members of the Bar Council, as the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar for the term of 2013/2014.

Press Release: Bar Council Surveys Explore Employability of New Law Graduates and Working Conditions of Young Lawyers

The standards of lawyers at the Malaysian Bar, and their welfare, are of paramount importance to the Bar. 

The Bar Council therefore conducted two major surveys recently.  The first survey was aimed at obtaining the feedback of employer-law firms as to the attributes, skills and abilities that they deem important, and look for, when seeking to employ new law graduates, and to what extent such requirements or expectations have been met.  This employability survey was conducted with a sampling of 393 employer-law firms throughout Peninsular Malaysia who had volunteered to participate.

The second survey was conducted by the Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”), to gather data on the working conditions of the younger Members of the Bar, particularly those within the first three years of employment.  227 lawyers (predominantly in their first year of practice) and pupils in chambers participated in the survey, which yielded useful statistics on, inter alia, the work relationship between young lawyers and their employers, and the nature of remuneration received by  young lawyers.

On 20 October 2012, the NYLC held a public forum to discuss the results of the two surveys.  Based on the results of the second survey, the NYLC made the following recommendations: 

(a) Young lawyers ought to continue and strive to improve themselves, particularly by attending the Bar Council’s Continuing Professional Development seminars and courses;

(b) As a guide for employers, the proposed allowance for pupils in chambers should be a minimum of RM2,000 and RM1,000 per month, within, and outside, the  Klang Valley, respectively;

(c) As a guide for employers, the proposed remuneration for first-year lawyers should be a minimum of RM4,000 and RM2,500 per month, within, and outside, the Klang Valley, respectively; and

(d) Employers should consider including both cash and in-kind benefits in a young lawyer’s remuneration package.  For example, if a firm is unable to offer the recommended monthly amount of RM4,000 to a first-year lawyer in Kuala Lumpur, that firm could consider offering medical and dental benefits, or a telecommunication allowance, so that the value of the remuneration package would approximate the proposed figure.  This proposal represents a short-term measure in the hope that employers will eventually offer the recommended minimum salary amount in cash.

The NYLC also noted concerns expressed regarding the perceived exploitation by some employers, who offer very low amounts of remuneration.  However, while NYLC is aware that market forces ultimately dictate the level of compensation for young lawyers, NYLC hopes to persuade all employers to offer better remuneration packages, to take into account the high rate of inflation and steep cost of living.

The Bar Council’s employability survey revealed that there is divergence between the expectations and requirements of employers, and the attributes and skill sets of some of the new entrants to the Bar.  Law firms that responded identified these four skill sets and attributes as priorities: proficiency in spoken and written English; communication skills; knowledge of the law; and commitment to the firm.  The survey responses indicated that lawyers with foreign law degrees generally fare better in these areas than those with local qualifications, except where “commitment to firm” is concerned.  Within the former category of graduates, those who need not undertake the Certificate of Legal Practice (“CLP”) generally fare better than those with the CLP qualification.¹

The expectations and requirements of the legal profession are dictated very much by the market, and the demands placed upon lawyers by the public, who are the consumers of legal services.  Employer-law firms were also concerned over the disparate and multiple routes of entry into the legal profession, which has led to differing standards of learning and training amongst the new entrants.  This appears to be a cause for the disparity in the skill sets and attributes detected by the survey.

An overwhelming majority of employer-law firms felt that a single entry system into the legal profession, as is the case in other jurisdictions, is desirable and viable.  To this end, they agreed that a Malaysian Common Bar Course, with a vocational training component, is needed to enhance the employability of new entrants to the Bar.

The NYLC’s forum was a useful platform for a discourse on the requisite training of young lawyers, and their work conditions.  We are therefore disappointed that The Star, in its article “Lawyers not up to par” (published on Sunday, 21 October 2012), misquoted and did not accurately represent what the speakers had said at the forum.  The Star’s generalisation about the quality of all young lawyers who have been in practice for less than seven years was an unfair and skewed portrayal that placed all the Bar’s young lawyers in a poor light.

We have strongly protested to The Star, and placed on record our unequivocal position that the employability survey covered new entrants to the Bar (and not all young lawyers), and that it is not our stand that all our young lawyers are below par.²

As a whole, the two surveys provide valuable insight on the future of the legal profession.  The Malaysian Bar aims to train, and retain, our young talents by making efforts to improve working conditions, and putting in place a comprehensive and uniform system of training, in order to be regarded as a top-notch, 21st-century legal profession.

Christopher Leong

Vice-President

Malaysian Bar

30 October 2012

____________________________________________

¹ The survey reflects the views and experiences of the employer-law firms in seeking to employ new law graduates, and was not a survey to determine the quality of such law graduates per se.

² Click here for the full version of our Letter to the Editor of The Star.

Kualiti peguam muda harus ditingkatkan

http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Kota/20121021/wk_02/Kualiti-peguam-muda-harus-ditingkatkan





KUALA LUMPUR 20 Okt. - Majlis Peguam hari ini mendedahkan peguam muda di negara ini belum mencapai taraf kualiti antarabangsa bagi memenuhi kehendak majikan dalam pasaran kerja.

Bendaharinya, Steven Thiru berkata, kebanyakan peguam muda gagal menepati kelayakan asas seperti penguasaan bahasa Inggeris dalam penulisan dan kemahiran berkomunikasi serta pemikiran kritikal.

"Berdasarkan kaji selidik dilakukan ke atas 400 firma undang-undang di seluruh negara mendapati peguam muda termasuk pelatih tidak mempunyai asas kelayakan dan latihan yang diperlukan majikan.

"Situasi ini menyebabkan majikan terpaksa melatih golongan tersebut dari mula walaupun kemahiran itu adalah perkara harus dipelajari sejak awal lagi," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian selepas forum tentang hasil tinjauan keadaan kerja dan pembayaran gaji bagi peguam muda negara anjuran Jawatankuasa Peguam Muda Kebangsaan (NYLC), Majlis Peguam.

Jelas beliau, kaji selidik itu juga menyatakan graduan berkelulusan undang-undang tidak kira dari universiti tempatan atau luar negara turut mengalami masalah yang sama.

"Mereka boleh menulis dan bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu, namun gagal menguasai bahasa Inggeris. Oleh sebab itu, majikan berasa sukar kerana banyak dokumen berkaitan menggunakan bahasa Inggeris," katanya.

Sehubungan itu, Steven mencadangkan kursus asas peguam diwajibkan kepada semua pengamal muda agar prestasi mereka meningkat.

Katanya, cadangan kursus tersebut masih dalam proses perbincangan setakat ini.

Dalam pada itu, Pengerusi NYLC, Richard Wee berkata, kira-kira 2,070 peguam muda yang berusia 25 hingga 30 tahun menerima gaji bulanan purata daripada RM3,001 hingga RM4,500 di sekitar Lembah Klang.

Katanya, perbezaan itu mengikut tahun perkhidmatan dari tahun pertama kepada ketiga.

Tambahnya, NYLC mencadangkan satu skim gaji iaitu RM4,000 sebulan kepada peguam muda di sekitar Lembah Klang bagi tahun pertama perkhidmatan.

Artikel Penuh: http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/Kota/20121021/wk_02/Kualiti-peguam-muda-harus-ditingkatkan#ixzz2AmL9gbLG
© Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd 

Bar Council Objects to Untrue Statements in The Star’s Article Concerning Young Lawyers

Circular No 230/2012

Dated 23 Oct 2012

To Members of the Malaysian Bar 

Bar Council Objects to Untrue Statements in The Star’s Article Concerning Young Lawyers

On 21 Oct 2012 (Sunday), The Star published an article titled “Lawyers not up to par”, concerning the Bar Council National Young Lawyers Committee’s Working Conditions Forum, held at the Bar Council on 20 Oct 2012.

The article in The Star contained sweeping and untrue statements about the quality of the Malaysian Bar’s young lawyers, which were not made by any of the speakers at the forum.  These statements are a gross misrepresentation of what the speakers had said at the forum.

We have expressed our strong protest to The Star.  We have also sent a “Letter to the Editor” to The Star setting out our unequivocal position on the matter, and have asked that the letter be published in full as soon as possible.  The Star has assured us that it will do so.

Our “Letter to the Editor” is reproduced below, along with the text of the original article that appeared in The Star.   Please click here to view the article as it appeared in The Star's e-paper.

Steven Thiru

Treasurer

Malaysian Bar

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22 Oct 2012 

Dear Editor,

Article in The Star on 21 Oct 2012 titled “Lawyers not up to par”

We refer to the article in The Star on 21 Oct 2012 (Nation, page 6) under the title “Lawyers not up to par” regarding the Bar Council’s National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”) Working Conditions Forum (“Forum”), held at the Bar Council on 20 Oct 2012.  The same article appeared in the online version of The Star, titled “Young ones do not meet benchmark set by employers, says Bar”, at [this link][1] .

Paragraph 1: “All young Malaysian lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey.”

This sweeping and untrue statement was not made by any of the speakers at all at the Forum.  Paragraph 1 is also not borne out by the Bar Council’s Employability Survey (“Survey”) and is therefore a grave distortion of it.  

While the Bar Council intends for the proposed Common Bar Course to be benchmarked against international standards (to ensure that lawyers entering into the profession will have the requisite quality), it is certainly not our position that all our young lawyers are below par.  The Star has made a very unfair generalisation that is a stain on the many good young lawyers at the Malaysian Bar. 

Paragraph 3: “It found that young lawyers practising for less than seven years do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills . . .”

This paragraph misquotes what was said.  In his presentation, Treasurer of the Malaysian Bar, Steven Thiru, emphasised that the Survey targeted a sampling of “new entrants to the legal profession”, and he explained that this group consisted of law graduates, pupils in chambers, and lawyers in their first year of practice. The survey therefore did not cover “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”. 

The Treasurer’s statement on the decline in quality was in respect of the results from the sampling of the new entrants to the legal profession covered by the Survey, and was not directed at all “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.  The confusion on The Star’s part could have been due to NYLC being a committee that focuses on the welfare of, and issues affecting, representing lawyers of seven years’ standing and below.  However, even NYLC’s survey on working conditions was directed at first-year lawyers and not “young lawyers practising for less than seven years”.  

It is also not the position of the Bar Council that all young lawyers practising for less than seven years lack the basic attributes and skills.  The Star’s article paints a skewed and damaging picture of the Malaysian Bar’s young lawyers. 

Paragraph 14: “Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said young lawyers did not deserve the raise.”

This paragraph also misquotes what was said, as Wong Fook Meng and Steven Thiru repeatedly stressed at the Forum that employers (who are able to give the raise) would be willing to give the raise for young lawyers of quality, as it would be in the employers’ interest to do so, to retain talent.  It was also not the position of any of the speakers that a first-year lawyer, notwithstanding quality, did not deserve a raise in salary. 

In all, it was emphasised the recommendations contained in the NYLC’s survey are to serve as a non-binding guide for employer-law firms.

Across the board, The Star’s article also failed to highlight the call by the NYLC’s Chairperson, Richard Wee Thiam Seng, that young lawyers must equip themselves with better knowledge of the law and constantly improve standards.  At the same time, he also said that employers ought not exploit young lawyers by offering sub-standard salaries.  

In its entirety, the article gave the impression that all young lawyers are incapable, and that NYLC’s recommendations for better remuneration are baseless.  This was not the position taken by any of the speakers at the Forum.  To the contrary, it was the common view that the Forum was the first step towards reform in the working conditions of young lawyers, in tandem with the drive to push young lawyers to improve themselves.

We trust the above clarifies matters, and ask that The Star print this letter in full as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Rajen Devaraj

Chief Executive Officer

Bar Council 

Malaysian young lawyers not up to par

Malaysian young lawyers not up to par

KUALA LUMPUR: All young Malaysian lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey. Bar Council treasurer Steven Thiru said the survey, conducted on 400 law firms, also found that employer satisfaction of new working lawyers was “shockingly low”.

“It found that young lawyers practising for less than seven years do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills and commitment to the profession, which is vital for the career,” said Thiru at a forum between the Bar Council and the National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC).

He said the problem was prevalent among both local and foreign university law graduates. Thiru placed the blame on the failure of several tertiary education institutes, which did not include practical skills with academic learning. “So, what we get is law firm employers having to retrain young lawyers in basic practical skills that they should have learned in university,” he said.

 The findings come in the wake of the NYLC's recommendations to the Bar to increase the wages of young lawyers and provide more flexible working hours. The young lawyers have been complaining that they are being paid “too little” for the amount of work they do.

The NYLC, citing its own survey, said 28.2% of young lawyers in the Klang Valley wanted to leave the profession in the next five years while another 38.7% were considering leaving. Outside the Klang Valley, 15.3% said they would leave and another 48.2% were considering.

“Most cite low salaries and no work-life balance as the main reasons for opting out,” said NYLC chairman Richard Wee. He said most young lawyers were attracted to overseas firms offering better benefits. He said NYLC had suggested a starting pay of RM3,000 to RM4,000 a month for young lawyers in Klang Valley and RM2,500 for young lawyers elsewhere. The current salary is RM2,000.

He said that of the 14,500 lawyers in the country, 2,070 were considered as young.

Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said young lawyers did not deserve the raise.

Chee Siah Le Kee & Partners' Wong Fook Meng said young lawyers should earn the raise they were demanding for. “They fail to realise that they should be working to learn and better themselves as lawyers, rather than focus on the cash. “There are no shortcuts, young lawyers must create value and contribute meaningfully to their firms to justify higher compensation,” said Wong, who is a member of the Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee and former NYLC deputy chairman.

 By NICHOLAS CHENG The Star/Asia News Network


============

Kindly take note that this was the pre-amended version which appeared in The Star on 21st OCtober 2012. Since then it has been amended to the version below:-

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/10/21/nation/12205345&sec=nation

All new entrant lawyers do not meet employers' benchmark, says Bar

KUALA LUMPUR: All new entrant lawyers do not meet the standard international quality benchmark set by their employers, according to a Bar Council survey.

Bar Council treasurer Steven Thiru said the survey, conducted on 400 law firms, also found that employer satisfaction of new working lawyers was “shockingly low”.

“It found that new entrants to the legal profession do not have basic attributes like English proficiency, communication and critical thinking skills and commitment to the profession, which is vital for the career,” said Thiru at a forum between the Bar Council and the National Young Lawyers Committee (NYLC),

He said the problem was prevalent among both local and foreign university law graduates.

Thiru placed the blame on the failure of several tertiary education institutes, which did not include practical skills with academic learning.

“So, what we get is law firm employers having to retrain young lawyers in basic practical skills that they should have learned in university,” he said.

The findings come in the wake of the NYLC's recommendations to the Bar to increase the wages of young lawyers and provide more flexible working hours.

The young lawyers have been complaining that they are being paid “too little” for the amount of work they do.

The NYLC, citing its own survey, said 28.2% of young lawyers in the Klang Valley wanted to leave the profession in the next five years while another 38.7% were considering leaving.

Outside the Klang Valley, 15.3% said they would leave and another 48.2% were considering.

“Most cite low salaries and no work-life balance as the main reasons for opting out,” said NYLC chairman Richard Wee.

He said most young lawyers were attracted to overseas firms offering better benefits.

He said NYLC had suggested a starting pay of RM3,000 to RM4,000 a month for young lawyers in Klang Valley and RM2,500 for young lawyers elsewhere. The current salary is RM2,000.

He said that of the 14,500 lawyers in the country, 2,070 were considered as young lawyers, having worked in the profession from one to seven years.

Thiru and other senior lawyers however, said that most did not deserve the raise, which should be reserved in retaining quality lawyers that perform.

Chee Siah Le Kee & Partners' Wong Fook Meng said young lawyers should earn the raise they were demanding for.

“They fail to realise that they should be working to learn and better themselves as lawyers, rather than focus on the cash.

“There are no shortcuts, young lawyers must create value and contribute meaningfully to their firms to justify higher compensation,” said Wong, who is a member of the Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee and former NYLC deputy chairman.

NYLC Forum on Young Lawyers Work Condition

Working Condition Survey by NYLC

Circular No 215/2012
Dated 4 Oct 2012

To Members of the Malaysian Bar and pupils in chambers

The National Working Conditions Survey Report and Working Conditions Forum:

The Bigger Better Deal for Everyone? (20 Oct 2012)

We refer to Circular No 225/2011 dated 5 Oct 2011 and Circular No 276/2011 dated 23 Nov 2011, wherein we had disseminated the National Young Lawyers Committee (“NYLC”)’s National Working Conditions Survey (“NWCS”). 

NWCS

At the 4th Young Lawyers Convention (“Convention”), held from 1 to 3 July 2011 at Malacca, the delegates of the Convention issued the Malacca Statement which mandated the NYLC to conduct a national working conditions survey to review the working conditions of younger Members of the Bar and the remuneration schemes received by them. 

NWCS was disseminated to Members and pupils in chambers all over Malaysia over a course of three months, from October to December 2011.  The NYLC then spent a total of five months thereafter collating, collecting, extracting and preparing the data to be presented as the National Working Conditions Survey Report (“Report”).  Attached please find the Executive Summary of the Report.  Alternatively, click here to download the Executive Summary and 111-page Report.

The NYLC urges Members to read the Executive Summary together with “A Short Review on the Findings, Comparisons and Conclusions”, which can be found at page 93 of the Report highlighting the NYLC’s international and national comparative studies, tables, reports and recommendations. 

NYLC’s Findings: A Summary

From the Report, the current generation of young lawyers in Malaysia are earning the following:

Average Pupils in Chambers’ Allowance

Klang Valley : RM 1,501 to RM 2,000

Outside Klang Valley : RM    500 to RM 1,000

Average First-Year Lawyers’ Salaries

Klang Valley : RM 3,001 to RM 3,500

Outside Klang Valley : RM 2,001 to RM 2,500

The NYLC further discovered that the current generation of young lawyers leans towards the following benefits from their employers: extra technological items (including laptops, tablets and other gadgets except smartphones), dental benefits, weekend allowances, gym benefits, wardrobe allowances, medical benefits and especially for young lawyers outside the Klang Valley, parking and travelling allowances. 

Working Conditions Forum: The Bigger Better Deal for Everyone? (20 Oct 2012)

The NYLC is conducting a forum focusing on the findings of the Report, and to propose recommendations on the ideal working conditions and remuneration packages that the current generation of young lawyers is seeking for. 

The details of the forum are as follows:

Date         : 20 Oct 2012 (Saturday)

Time : 11:00 am to 2:00 pm

Venue :  Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, First Floor, Bar Council

The NYLC would like to invite all Members and pupils in chambers, including employers of law firms and in particular, younger members of the Bar to join us at the forum. 

To maximise broadcast and reach out to more Members, the forum will be streamed live at http://www.livestream.com/nationalylc or on our backup channelhttp://www.ustream.tv/channel/nylc.

Please be informed that although this event is open to the public, pre-registration is required, as places are limited.  Kindly complete and return the attached registration form by fax to 03-2031 6640, or by e-mail to ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my, by 19 Oct 2012 (Friday).

For enquiries, kindly contact Marianna Laureen Tan, Officer, Bar Council, by telephone at 03-2050 2086 or by email at ml.tan@malaysianbar.org.my.

Thank you.

Fallacies Spun by Critics of the Bar : by Loyarburok

Taken from Loyarburok.com :-

http://www.loyarburok.com/2012/05/22/fallacies-bar/

----------------------------------------------------------

This response is jointly endorsed by Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga,Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.

The Bar Council and the Malaysian Bar (“the Bar”) have been criticised recently as being pro-Opposition. This is because of the Bar’s press statements and its Extraordinary General Meeting resolution regarding the police brutality shown at the Bersih 3.0 sit-down rally. The common theme adopted by critics of the Bar is that the Bar was not fair, or even-handed, as the Bar were more critical of the police than it was of the other parties involved.

Some of the more popular criticisms were summarised in Roger Tan’s article “Unswayed by fear or favour” which was also published in The Sunday Star on 20 May 2012. In summary, he says the following:

1. The Bar in condemning the police brutality must be equally aggressive in its condemnation against the protestors who “behaved like rioters and anarchists”.
2. The Bar had prejudged the issues by passing the resolution because by doing so “the Bar had already come to a conclusion that all those acts listed therein had been committed by the police”.
3. The Bar should have demanded an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim because “it was his men who were reportedly the ones who removed the barrier” which was “the trigger point”.

This statement is written immediately in response to Roger Tan’s article, but also addresses others who have been critical of the Bar on this issue. We intend to address the second criticism first, then the third and first criticisms. Our reason for this will become apparent as our reply develops.

The Bar did not prejudge the issues

In his second criticism, Roger says that the Bar should only pass the resolution condemning police brutality after a finding has been made by an independent body such as SUHAKAM. However, SUHAKAM relies on the evidence of witnesses, and often conducts a hearing several months after the event. The Bar based its stance and resolution on the observations of 80 lawyers who formed a team of observers of events during Bersih 3.0. The purpose of assembling and mobilising this monitoring team was precisely so that the Bar would be able to rely on their eyewitness accounts, and not those of friends, media, the police, or post-event photos or videos. The observations of the monitoring team were recorded and compiled within hours on the day itself, and thereafter fine-tuned and completed. We have no reason to doubt the credibility and observations of the team, and neither have we heard of substantiated allegations about them.

Aside from the Bar monitoring team and its report, since that day many other eyewitness accounts have emerged, including photos and videos that speak for themselves. Significantly, on this occasion, even media members were not spared. We even had the embarrassing incident where Al-Jazeera’s reporter Harry Fawcett had to report via Skype from his iPad as his team’s video camera was smashed by police while they were recording police brutality against protestors.

Most importantly, many previous SUHAKAM inquiries – the 5 November 2001 Kesas Highway Incident, the 17 June 2003 Kundasang Incident, the 28 May 2006 KLCC Incident, the 27 May 2008 Persiaran Bandar Mahkota Cheras 1 Incident, the 9 July 2011 Bersih 2.0 Incident – found that there was excessive use of force by the police, and evidence of police brutality. Numerous complaints by victims led to the said inquiries, the findings of which thereafter vindicated the complaints leading to damning conclusions about police conduct. These many reports do not just show isolated instances of police brutality: Bersih 3.0 was not a one-off. There is a pattern of regular use of excessive force and brutality in violation of human rights by the Royal Malaysian Police Force. Despite these many reports by SUHAKAM, and despite the findings of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police, the police have not made any serious attempts to school themselves in the prevention of human rights violations.

Regrettably, Roger is sceptical of the 80 monitors appointed by the Bar Council because they are not named, as he “would certainly like to know their political inclinations” to satisfy himself that they “were independent-minded in their conclusions”. Firstly, five widely-respected senior members of the Bar, who were a part of a “roving” team of monitors, were named and had their observations separately documented: Christopher Leong (Vice President of the Malaysian Bar), Steven Thiru (Treasurer of the Bar Council), Dato’ Ramachelvam Manimuthu, Ramdas Tikamdas, and Roger Chan Weng Keng. Apparently it is not enough that lawyers of this calibre verify and endorse the report.

More importantly, what does one’s political inclination have to do with stating a fact about whether Malaysian citizens were assaulted and battered by the police, and whether there was excessive use of force in accordance with international human rights standards?

Whilst Roger Tan has left the Bar Council, it is unfair to assume that the Bar Council would not have trained these monitors properly bearing in mind this is not the first assembly monitoring mission dispatched by the Council. His flippant remarks greatly disparage those members of the Bar who volunteered to serve on the monitoring team, implying as it does that they would allow their personal prejudice to influence their professional duties. It is part of our job as lawyers to put aside our personal prejudice in order to advance the cause of justice.

Rather conveniently, whilst casting these aspersions on others, Roger himself does not reveal his strong affiliations to a particular political party. Employing Roger’s logic, one wonders, perhaps, whether commentators in The Star for example should also be required to divulge their political affiliations and leanings before their opinion pieces are published. But we will not venture into the realm of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem to discredit the views of others, as Roger disappointingly has.

Roger’s comments suggest that we should not immediately make conclusions even if we see a group of uniformed policemen beating up an unarmed citizen who lies helpless on the ground because there were extenuating circumstances. And even if numerous members of the Bar, members of the public and journalists documented such incidents of brutality. The fact is, the police are supposed to treat each person they arrest as if they are innocent until proven guilty. The police should only use reasonable force in arresting someone. If they have to resort to force, they should only use force that is proportionate to the threat faced, and only enough to ensure the person’s arrest.

Roger cites the example of the Bar postponing its EGM with regards to the VK Lingam video clip scandal while it waited for the Royal Commission of Inquiry to complete its task. Roger however seems to overlook the fact that the video clip sparked the groundbreaking Walk for Justice in September 2007 which saw about 2,000 lawyers marching to the PM’s office. The other difference with that example is that with Bersih 3.0, the Bar monitoring team saw police brutality with their own eyes, and not through a video clip. It is obvious that this is not a comparable precedent.

What is this obsession with Anwar Ibrahim?

In his third criticism, Roger insists that the Bar should similarly demand an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar because he was reported to have instigated the removal of the barrier. But Roger must understand that one must distinguish between credible first-hand reports by Bar monitors, and accusations by obviously partisan members of Barisan Nasional and its media.

This is where Roger shows an obvious inconsistency – whilst saying that the eyewitness accounts of the Bar’s monitoring team is insufficient to be relied upon, he says that the Bar should demand an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar for an incident that no one on the Bar’s monitoring team witnessed. Despite the many eye witness blog entries, photos and videos, there has been no compelling evidence either way to show who removed the barriers, or whether their removal was facilitated by the police, public, or Opposition members. On what basis is Roger suggesting that the Bar demand an apology from Dato’ Seri Anwar?

Let us for one moment set aside the question whether the Court order prohibiting entry into Dataran Merdeka was unnecessary, wrong in law and unconstitutional. Let us also assume the barriers in question were covered by the Court order. Even assuming that the order was validly executed by the police, did it necessitate the extreme use of non-lethal force to arrest and disperse the small group of people who breached the barrier? Bearing in mind that the Bar’s resolution was on police misconduct, and not about who removed the barrier, it is even more disconcerting that Roger implies that the police may excessively and disproportionally tear-gas and beat the innocent just to get at those who did breach the barrier.

The Bar need not have condemned the protestors

Finally, Roger develops the basis of the criticism that the Bar is not “independent” by stating the Bar failed to condemn with equal vigour lay members of the public who he says acted “like rioters and anarchists”. Many labour under the misapprehension that to be “independent” an organisation must always be even handed and restrained in one’s remarks. But that is a fallacy. And it is an even greater fallacy when it concerns injustice.

Police brutality is a violation of a human right. A violation of any human right is manifest injustice. Police brutality per se is an injustice. The presence of police brutality has tainted the Royal Malaysian Police as surely as a drop of blood stains a uniform. An injustice perpetrated by even one from an institution set up to serve the cause of justice deserves the harshest condemnation. There cannot be any restraint in condemning abuse of power. As a police force meant to be independent and professional, the Royal Malaysian Police are kept to higher standards than lay members of the public. So the Bar cannot be swayed by fear or favour; it cannot be hesitant or even handed in condemning an injustice that is police brutality. Here is an Executive institution that is well-funded and well-staffed with wide powers taking action against unarmed people. It is State against the individual person, and the Bar stands – must stand – for the latter.

What Roger and many who adopt this line of criticism fail to explain is how the condemnation of police brutality amounts to an endorsement of the Opposition. This criticism reveals more of their own political prejudice than that of the Bar. Their criticism strongly suggests a belief that criticism of the police is the equivalent of criticism against the political party in government. Their criticism also reveals that they are the sort who think that perception is reality.

It is only those who are so immersed and drenched in politics that adopt such a worldview. The Bar’s criticism and the facts it relies on are an inconvenience to their perception. Ultimately these popular criticisms against the Bar are not borne of logic or facts, but a need to feel good.

There is one further reason why we would not have voted for a resolution that condemned those members of the public who turned violent. The fact is that most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media – and therefore do not rely solely on the bare faced propaganda of our mainstream print and broadcast media – are not convinced that these so called “rioters” are as blameworthy as the police.

The police put razor wire across our City roads turning Kuala Lumpur into a war zone before any violence had ensued. The police obtained a totally unnecessary Court order prohibiting entry for four days into Dataran Merdeka, without any notice or opportunity to the organisers of Bersih 3.0 to present their case despite ample time for them to do this. Then, when the disturbance started, it was the police who shot tear gas behind and in front of retreating protestors so that they were boxed in rather than allowed to disperse. Who ordered the closure of the nearby LRT stations so as to prevent people from dispersing? Who ordered the destruction of cameras belonging to journalists, and the reported censorship of Al Jazeera and the BBC? What justified the four hours of continued attacks on people who were already dispersing or having dinner? All this done against fellow Malaysians, who until the very end had taken part in an almost perfect rally.

As pointed out by Roger, the Bar’s resolution did expressly state that the Bar is concerned with and does not countenance acts of violence by rally participants, and are concerned by reports that police barriers were breached. In our view, that says enough. We did not hear any suggestions made at the EGM to amend the resolution. All the dissenters at the EGM agreed in principle that they were against police brutality. What more needs to be said really, seeing as the police were already actively identifying and hunting down those whom they say committed offences during the rally? The police had even stated that they would conduct a house-to-house search for these individuals. Compare this with the lack of action in identifying, let alone condemning and punishing, the police officers who committed violations of duty and human rights.

The Bar’s resolution was proper

The Bar was entitled and correct to issue the statements it did, and to pass the resolution it did. The resolution is fair in all the circumstances and was carefully worded throughout. The facts that it had gathered itself through the Bar’s own members were set forth frankly and properly, and the urgent action that was needed due to the unprecedented police brutality seen on that day was set out in an appropriate and immediate manner.

We are proud to have supported the Bar’s resolution and have no qualms about the Bar’s continued independence. We believe the vast majority of the Bar are totally in support of the resolution, and the comments against the resolution are the isolated voices of a few in the wilderness given undue prominence by propaganda organisations posing as the mass media.

It is telling that Roger states that “removing the barrier was the trigger point” and adds that it is “common sense” that “whoever first raises his hand against the other is the most blameworthy”. Words do not suffice to describe the disingenuous nature of the suggestion that the removal of the barrier is even remotely comparable to the brutal actions of the police. In any case, there have been no reports of barriers being “breached” in front of the Bar Council, on Leboh Pasar Besar – yet even then, water cannons and tear gas were fired there. Roger fails to acknowledge the clear reality that police reaction was not localised to Dataran Merdeka or to the participants there, and that other than at the Jalan Raja / Tun Perak junction, it was the police who struck first.

The actions of some members of the police force on that day were incidences of injustice that were so blatant that it should be impossible for anyone who purports to stand up for justice to remain silent. We have already seen concerted efforts – by the ruling coalition, the police, and those who are too politically-partisan to distinguish clear acts of injustice from their political posturing – to distract from the injustice highlighted by the Bar’s resolution by attacking the Bar and casting aspersions on those who are doing no more than reporting what they saw with their own eyes.

The Bar must continue to fight for those who cannot speak up for themselves, and whose rights are oppressed by the might of the State. That is our duty, and one that we hope members of the Bar will continue to discharge without fear or favour.

Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar, and Sharmila Sekaran.