The Dewan Rakyat withdrew the controversial Law Academy Bill which was scheduled for a second reading in the current parliamentary meeting yesterday for amendments.

The government requested its withdrawal to consider the counter-proposals made by the Bar Council in June.

The draft of the bill courted controversy and criticism when it was tabled for first reading. The government had remained silent on this.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department and de facto Law Minister Dr Rais Yatim said he had already instructed for the proposed law to be withdrawn. He expects to table the amended draft law early next year.

"I will examine the Bill with Attorney-General (Abdul Gani Patail) on what the legal fraternity is not happy about," he said when contacted.

He also indicated that the new format will be "purely a government format with judges as members", but added that "we are looking at the membership aspect part of it in greater detail because lawyers were unhappy with the compulsory requirement".

"On the other hand, if that is not so, then the academy will be a dead duck."

Views and proposals considered

Apart from the Bar Council's counter-proposals, Rais said the views of lawyers in Sabah and Sarawak will also be included.

More than 2,000 of the 10,000-strong Malaysian Bar voted unanimously at an extraordinary general meeting last May to challenge the constitutionality of the bill when tabled in the Dewan Rakyat.

The bar is up in arms against the government's bid to impose compulsory membership and control the conduct of the legal profession. It wants to be allowed self-governance and regulation, elect its own senate members, provision for general meetings and accountability.

Although the Bar has taken issue with compulsory membership, Rais had conceded in late June that the Bar Council's request for the chairperson's post to be on a rotation basis was justified.

Other grouses include the potential conflict of interest if judges were given automatic membership, fear of Bar Council's role and powers of self-regulation being usurped, authoritarian tendencies pertaining to the academy's administration and the ultimate power resting with the minister.

The Bar Council was unavailable for comments.