Bar Council set EGM too soon
Soon Li TsinPublished: Aug 8, 2006 6:52 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Lawyers are crying foul that the date set by the Bar Council for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) is "too soon".
Lawyers are crying foul that the date set by the Bar Council for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) is "too soon".
The council picked Aug 18 after a three-and-a-half-hour forum on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill last Saturday, held in response to a requisition signed by 130 lawyers and which was handed to the council last week.
GK Ganesan, 45, who has been pushing for the EGM, said that a quorum of 2,500 lawyers would be needed before the EGM can be convened.
"The Bar Council is keeping this EGM quiet, hoping that we will not be able to get a quorum. It is difficult to get a quorum of 2,500 lawyers." he said when contacted.
"To give us 10 days' notice to gather this number of people is not enough. I thought they would give us more time but instead they're going, 'you wanted a resolution, there you have it'."
Ganesan said there was clear dissatisfaction among lawyers over the amended bill, saying that the forum was "heated, emotional and people got carried away".
"Lawyers are angry because they didn't know about this, as the act of passing the bill was a secret to begin with. These amendments slipped by everybody."
Procedures involved
Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh, when contacted, clarified why the date was selected.
"The EGM must be held 30 days from when the requisition was submitted. We announced (the date) during the forum itself. Nobody raised reservations to have it later or anything," he said, noting that the council agreed that the matter was urgent.
When asked if this issue is dividing members, Yeo explained that differing approaches are "only natural" when lawyers interpret legislation.
"We see these difference of opinions stemming from the fact that laws can be interpreted in many ways. Therefore, they may not agree with parts of the amendments in the bill but some others do."
The EGM will be held at 3pm in Dewan Lee San Choon, Wisma MCA, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
Among the clauses being disputed are the amended Sections 76(2) and (3), which state that secrecy can be maintained by the members of the examining board, the Bar Council, the disciplinary board and committee and its staff.
In effect, they are exempted from disclosing any information relating to such proceedings or matters in court.
Another amendment relates to Section 103E(2) which states that "there shall be no judicial review against any decision or order made by the disciplinary board".
This effectively limits the appeals mechanism which lawyers can now access should they appear before the disciplinary board.
Other contested amendments include the curtailment of lawyers' right to be heard; breach of lawyers' right against self-incrimination; and powers given to the board to make restitution orders against lawyers.
The council picked Aug 18 after a three-and-a-half-hour forum on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill last Saturday, held in response to a requisition signed by 130 lawyers and which was handed to the council last week.
GK Ganesan, 45, who has been pushing for the EGM, said that a quorum of 2,500 lawyers would be needed before the EGM can be convened. "The Bar Council is keeping this EGM quiet, hoping that we will not be able to get a quorum. It is difficult to get a quorum of 2,500 lawyers." he said when contacted.
"To give us 10 days' notice to gather this number of people is not enough. I thought they would give us more time but instead they're going, 'you wanted a resolution, there you have it'."
Ganesan said there was clear dissatisfaction among lawyers over the amended bill, saying that the forum was "heated, emotional and people got carried away".
"Lawyers are angry because they didn't know about this, as the act of passing the bill was a secret to begin with. These amendments slipped by everybody."
Procedures involved
Bar Council president Yeo Yang Poh, when contacted, clarified why the date was selected.
"The EGM must be held 30 days from when the requisition was submitted. We announced (the date) during the forum itself. Nobody raised reservations to have it later or anything," he said, noting that the council agreed that the matter was urgent.
When asked if this issue is dividing members, Yeo explained that differing approaches are "only natural" when lawyers interpret legislation. "We see these difference of opinions stemming from the fact that laws can be interpreted in many ways. Therefore, they may not agree with parts of the amendments in the bill but some others do."
The EGM will be held at 3pm in Dewan Lee San Choon, Wisma MCA, Jalan Ampang, Kuala Lumpur.
Among the clauses being disputed are the amended Sections 76(2) and (3), which state that secrecy can be maintained by the members of the examining board, the Bar Council, the disciplinary board and committee and its staff.
In effect, they are exempted from disclosing any information relating to such proceedings or matters in court.
Another amendment relates to Section 103E(2) which states that "there shall be no judicial review against any decision or order made by the disciplinary board".
This effectively limits the appeals mechanism which lawyers can now access should they appear before the disciplinary board.
Other contested amendments include the curtailment of lawyers' right to be heard; breach of lawyers' right against self-incrimination; and powers given to the board to make restitution orders against lawyers.
View Comments0