Ambiga Sreenevasan was called to the Malaysian Bar in 1982 and has been an active member since.

"I have always been interested in the Bar, have always admired the way the Bar stood up for what was right, even if it was not the most popular thing to do," she said.

Ambiga had been a Bar Council office bearer since 2001, starting as secretary and serving two terms as deputy chairperson before being appointed chairperson during the last annual general meeting in March.

In a recent interview with malaysiakini, Ambiga shared her views on numerous public interest issues that the Bar Council is presently pursuing.

What are your immediate priorities as the newly elected Bar Council chairperson and Malaysian Bar president?

One of my concerns is professional development in ensuring that the standard of the Bar is maintained. We would keep a watch on the standard of the Bar. We want to bring in professional development courses. That is what I'm looking at within the profession.

I believe that we have a statutory obligation to speak up on issues that are of public interest. Our big priorities would be firstly, to step up our human rights agenda and that encompasses things like human rights abuses of any kind. Secondly, it would be trying to influence public opinion on constitutional rights because I think it's time to remind ourselves - especially since it has been 50 years since independence - that the constitution is the supreme document and contains many safeguards that we ought to know of.

The other would be the jurisdiction issue between the Syariah Court and the civil courts. That is of concern to us. We await the Federal Court's decisions - like for example on the Subashini case - we believe that the answer lies in the Federal Constitution. And if anything is not clear it must be made clear. We would like to see some basic concept things that we have believed for so many years to be the case, that needs restating.

For so many years it was clear that non-Muslims would not be subject to Syariah law. But we believe that it appears to be a shifting from that. We would like to see a restating of what the constitution promised.

The next issue on the agenda would be the (proposal to form the) IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission) which we would like to move forward. We have a campaign going and we would keep up the pressure on that.

We also think the Judicial Commission is something that is very important. We are having a debate soon. It is going to be very interesting. I hope we can witness an exchange of ideas there. For us, it is a question of making the (judges) appointment procedure transparent.

Your predecessor (Yeo Yang Poh) had detractors or enemies that made themselves very public during his two terms. You were his vice-president during those two terms. Do you think you are starting on a clean slate or do you think you would be judged on your past associations?

I think every president is judged on what they do as president. What I can say is this - nothing can prepare you for this position. I think one would be judged every step of the way - by council members, the public or lawyers - each president has his/her own style and I believe each president would be judged by what he/she says and does in the office as the president.

Opinions on unity of the Bar?

I think we have an united Bar. Differences of opinion doesn't mean we are not united. Differences of opinion is actually healthy. As lawyers, we should be very open to differences of opinion. That's what democracy is about. Unity doesn't mean everyone agrees on every issue. You can see (from the annual general meeting in March), many of the resolutions that were passed were unanimous or near unanimous - we are united in major and important issues.

The resolution about election, that was potentially the most divisive, but it was overwhelmingly carried. Even the motion of no-confidence against the attorney-general was a good example of unity. There was an overwhelming majority (which supported the amended resolution).

Would having double the quorum at the recent AGM indicate unity as well?
The numbers could have been better. More members should be coming. I suppose after two EGMs (emergency general meetings) and then an AGM, I believe there was a bit of fatigue there. I'm hoping to see a good turnout at the next AGM. I hoping members would get more involved in the issues of the Bar.

Talking about unity, I'm not at all worried about unity of the Bar. I'm so confident that if tomorrow there is an issue of public interest - of human rights, transparency and integrity - the Bar would be there speaking with one voice. To me those are the issues which matter the most.

Much of the Bar Council's work involves advocacy of public interest issues. Where do you draw the line between being a body for lawyers and being somewhat of an NGO?

There has to be a balance. There will be some people in the profession who feel that we are spending too much time on public interest issues. The focus for me is to ensure that there is a balance. I think we have been quite balanced in the past. We have a secretariat here of nearly a 100 staff to serve our members and look after their needs. We are trying to improve the efficiency and scope of our secretariat to further serve our members. We are also trying to go online more and provide various (new) facilities.

One of the objectives of the Bar (under Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act) is to speak without fear or favour on public interest issues. Of course as lawyers, we have a role in the administration of justice, in ensuring that processes are properly run. So if you ask me if we have an interest in ensuring a transparent judicial appointment process, I would say of course. We are stakeholders in the administration of justice. We would have an interest in how the judiciary operates. We should work together. The judiciary and lawyers ought to be working together.

Some say the Bar Council has slowed down on the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission) campaign?

(Lawyer) Edmund Bon is the chair of the human rights committee and this campaign would come under his scope. Certainly, I would also be driving it. I would have to say that my predecessor did a wonderful job in raising the awareness on the need for the IPCMC. He got other professional bodies together (to support the formation of the IPCMC).

I don't want all our efforts to die out. We will have to make the necessary approaches again. I believe there is something in the pipeline. I'm not sure of the nature of the body they have in mind. So we will keep agitating the government and pushing for the IPCMC. I think that's the best we can do at this point.

Previously, the Bar Council called for a review of the sacking of former Lord President (Tun Salleh Abas). Is this on your agenda as well?

Absolutely. I'm chairing a committee on the matter and we are bringing in the 1988 judicial crisis (under our scope) as well. The committee includes several past (Bar Council) presidents who have lived through that era. Work has already started. We are gathering information such as old documents.

I promise you one thing - this would not be left alone. We are pursuing this. Our first aim is to get the authorities to review the matter. Failing that, we have to look at other alternatives by which we can bring to the fore what we consider as injustices of that time.

We had a committee formed immediately after Yeo called for the review last year. That committee has now come under the Judicial Commission committee which I head. Among the past presidents are RR Chelverajah, Hendon Mohamed and Mah Weng Kwai.

We will not sweep this under the carpet. It's on the front burner.

What are your views on the Emergency Ordinance 1969, which is used to detain suspects in the absence of insufficient evidence?

It is absolutely an abuse and it gives rise to abuses. One of our resolutions (during the AGM) was to call for the revoking of all such legislation, some of which Rela (the volunteer corp) operates under.

We are very concerned about the abuses that take place when there is no need to charge or bring someone to court. We don't need these legislation.

Why do you think the public has not protested such provisions?

Well, unless it happens to someone close to them, the public won't react. It's public apathy. Organisations in the know, like us, have to speak about these issues because we can see the violations.

Please elaborate on the motion of no-confidence against the attorney-general during the AGM.

The concern of the members was that not enough steps were taken quickly enough to prosecute (police) officers where there are evidence of abuse of detainees or in cases where there are deaths during custody. The prosecutions are not happening for such cases. It was carried with amendments. We are asking the AG to move quickly on such prosecutions.

How would you describe the relationship between the A-G chambers and the Bar Council?

I'm very pleased to say with this A-G, we have a very good working relationship. He has consulted us on many bills - such as the ones concerning legal profession, law reforms, proposed industrial relations act - He carries out confidential consultations with us while we bring in the experts in these areas.

Really, we have no issues where consultation is concerned. We have asked to be consulted on the foreign workers bills. We are waiting to see that. Whenever we hear of any bills, we do ask for copies and that we be consulted. In many cases, we are called in to be consulted.

So we do have meetings with him and we do discuss issues about the profession. He is also on the qualifying board. We do have a lot of interaction with him. It shows that when all the stakeholders in the administration of justice work together, we achieve a lot for the common good.

It doesn't mean we agree on everything, but this AG appreciates that even if we may not agree on every issue, our views are taken into account.

The government has shot down the idea of forming a Constitutional Court. Your views?

We don't need a Constitutional Court. All our courts are well capable of interpreting the Federal Constitution. We don't need another court to do it.

There are provisions that constitutional issues can be referred directly to the Federal Court, which is perfectly capable of dealing with all constitutional issues, as with all other courts. These are what the courts are there for. They have to decide on these issues.

The reason (why certain parties) are urging for a Constitutional Court is because of the recent spate of religious conversion cases. There is a growing concern that the way the cases have been going, what is coming out is not the correct interpretation of the constitution - just like the case of R Subashini and suggestions that she seek redress through the Syariah court.

To me, (the setting up of a constitutional court) is like a quick fix solution - it's like fine, set up another body. You don't need it if you interpret the constitution correctly. Errors in judgement can be corrected on appeal.

In 1994 for example, we had a five member panel of the Supreme Court deciding very clearly how these cases (religious conversion) should be handled. There were no problems. These cases did not happen three years ago, it has been happening for years and the courts have been handling it without a problem. And it is not a problem of Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution. The law was there even before the Supreme Court case was decided.

[In the case of Tan Sung Mooi vs Too Miew Kim (1994), the five member panel of judges which included then Lord President Abdul Hamid Omar, unanimously held that:

"It would result in grave injustice to non-Muslim spouses and children whose only remedy would be in the civil courts if the High Court no longer has jurisdiction, since the syariah courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Muslims"]

There has been a shift since then. To me, (the Supreme Court decision) is the correct approach. They took a very clear cut approach - that if you are non-Muslims, you cannot be subject to Syariah law, even if one spouse has converted to Islam.

So what I'm saying is... why do we need a special Constitutional Court? Our courts have actually interpreted the constitution in this respect in 1994. We just have to follow that approach. The problem arises because recently the courts are not following that approach.

Your predecessor was very consistent in his support for the position of the Article 11 coalition. How would you approach the subject?

Totally in support of Article 11. We are a member of the coalition. Basically what they are talking about is one's right under the Federal Constitution and that is all. They are a very misunderstood group.

What we would like to see is people who disagree with what Article 11 is saying to attend the sessions they conduct and argue their point of view, instead of just labelling Article 11. The easiest thing in the world is to label someone and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they have to say.

I think Article 11 is about dialogue, and understanding the real problems on the ground. It is also about understanding the freedom that the constitution has given us.

Q&A: Follow precedent on conversion cases