I read with some surprise that former Bar Council chairperson Sulaiman Abdullah lost to Mah Weng Kai by a very close margin at 19-17 ([#1]Sulaiman out, Mah is new Bar chief[/#], March 17). The vote on the next chair is decided by the council and not the AGM. This council ruling was debated several years ago when Dr Cyrus Das was chairman but the ruling stayed by a slim vote count at the AGM.

Sulaiman is a very commendable chairperson. He was given a standing ovation at the AGM for the flak he has taken in RK Nathan's court. There he stood in the line of the judge's ire when he argued the case for the Bar's proposed resolution to discuss judicial misconduct. The judge had taken exception to Sulaiman's argument and cited him for contempt, insinuating that Sulaiman was not fit to lead the Bar as he was ignorant of the law as the judge saw it.

Sulaiman had shared his views on freedom of religion with members of the Bar at the AGM as a result of an open letter of the Human Rights Sub-committee of the Bar alleging that the council had stalled the vote on the freedom of religion statement proposed by the sub-committee. This open letter had circulated for about a week before the AGM.

Members of the Bar had rightly insisted that the discussion at council be shared at the AGM and this was acceded to by Sulaiman who was chairing the AGM. Whatever may be the grievances of the Human Rights Sub-committee, Sulaiman must be commended for his honesty and transparency on this even if some members had alluded to the sensitive nature of religious issues. Despite a council ruling that matters discussed at council are private to members, Sulaiman opted for freedom of speech and expression even if that discussion might have cost him the vote.

There were grievances expressed against the sub-committee for not tabling a motion or a resolution on the matter, instead of issuing an open letter. A motion or a resolution would have alerted members of the importance of the issue and they would be put on notice and would engage in a more inclusive and more serious discussion.

It was unfortunate that the opportunity was not given for a wider selection of the members to give their views. This was in fact one of the reasons why certain council members did not vote on the issue at council meeting because they required a proper mandate from the body.

Whether that mandate was given at the AGM is in doubt but that apparently did not stop council members in their vote for the next chairperson.

Sulaiman of course remains in the council and the body has a year to make the necessary reflection on the situation.