I find Rohani Ariffin's letter echoing Joseph P which such consistency in its articulation and presentation that it would not surprise me should they be one and the same person; probably protecting a self-interest.

To the writers, the mere act of discussing the recent appointments of judges to the Bench by the Bar constitutes an act of contempt. This I find hard to reconcile with the fact that the appointment and promotion of judges is a matter of public concern. Discussions have been on-going everywhere, especially since 1988.

The writers used the doctrine of separation of powers to justify their objection. I agree that to preclude the executive from discussing the issue makes sense due to the doctrine. The same way judges are not allowed to discuss politics or who they would like to have as prime minister.

However, no citizen, group or body should be prevented from discussing such issues, be it PAS, Sisters in Islam, Suaram, Hakam or the Bar Council. Especially the Bar Council, because it is the main stakeholder in our administration of justice.

What is more important to the cause of justice than ensuring the proper people be appointed to the position of judges?

The preamble to the Basic Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary adopted by the seventh UN Congress on the Prevention Of Crime and the Treatment of Offences clearly states the importance of the role of a judge in the following manner:

"Whereas judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedom, rights and duties and property of citizens."

That being the case, the position of a judge is very important in our society and to the cause of justice. Therefore, it stands to reason that the process in which he/she is put in such a position of trust and power must stand public scrutiny.

Both writers question whether the Bar Council has the legal right to even hold such a discussion, urging the Bar to rethink its position in view of the Legal Professional Act.

A cursory perusal of section 42(1)(a), (d), (e), (g) and section 57(c) of the Legal Profession Act could perhaps assist in clearing this doubt.

These provisions of the Act clearly calls on the Malaysian Bar to express its views on matters affecting the administration and practice of law in Malaysia. In so doing, the Malaysian Bar is urged to uphold the cause of justice and take any action deemed necessary without fear or favour.

Who can bring this matter into public scrutiny? In fact who can scrutinise this process?

If not the Bar, who else, may I ask, has the ability or even the duty to scrutinise and discuss this issue? The Bar Council has a mandatory duty to maintain the standards of the legal profession and of the administration of justice.

A layperson, who may not understand the importance of having a transparent selection process of judges, would naturally rely on the members of the legal profession to address the issue. They are best suited to comment and propose changes in the manner in which judges are appointed and promoted. What is sought to be done is good and healthy for a democratic society to flourish.

The writers are derisive and scathing of the Bar Council by asking whether the Bar want to have a say in the promotion of the very judges before whom they appear?

Clearly, the Bar Council's intent is to promote transparency in the selection process of judges, not to actually appoint the judges. Upon enquiring into the basis in which one judge is chosen over another say, more senior judge, and finding the justification reasonable, the matter would come to a rest. Pre-empting any discussion of selection process would not speak well of those appointed and the selection process itself.

Joseph P said: "These sort of attacks guised in the form of the statement made, destroys the confidence of people in the courts, seriously impairs judicial administration and brings administration of justice itself into disrepute".

Can he really say in all confidence that this has not happened already?

In fact the state of affairs of the judiciary had deteriorated to such an extent that even an article in the News Straits Times on April 9, 2003, called for an independent body to monitor the conduct of the judiciary.

How does one characterise 'independence' when the very personification of it, ie the judiciary, is in need of 'independent regulation'?

To address these subtle but very real concerns about the judiciary, an open discussion seems to be a start. What is wrong with wanting to formulate a better way in which to address the situation when the present manner has come up wanting?

The tried and true legal adage, "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done", insists on transparency, both in the appointment and the promotion of judges.

The writers scraped the bottom of the barrel when they relies on 17th century case 'Almon', to try and draw support for their view.

More recently in 1968 however, Lord Denning in the Case of R v Commissioner Exp Blackburn said:

"Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on sure foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than that of freedom of speech itself.."

This was cited and adopted in a Supreme case of Lim Kit Siang v Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1987. Why would it be contempt today? Criticism is the way to progress. The freedom of speech is fundamental to it.

I am a chambering student and am proud of the Bar Council and the courage displayed by my future colleagues. My well wishes to them.