If the reasoning that a Queen's Counsel (QC) cannot appear in Malaysian superior courts because they cannot communicate in the 'language of the court', then such reasoning is clearly defective.

First and foremost, the Federal Court is the highest court in the country and it invariably hears submissions from counsel or conducts its proceedings in English. It's plain that their lordships too whisper to each other on the bench in English, mind you.

So what is the 'language of the court'? We are mindful that the law had been amended some years ago to make Bahasa Malaysia as the official language of the court, but there is ample provision for the court (more so Federal Court being the highest court in Malaysia) to give latitude both to itself and to parties to conduct the proceedings in English in order that the requirements of justice are met. In short, this is simply to ensure that the justice of the case requires such course of action.

I think everyone knows that most if not the entire QC regiment in the United Kingdom cannot speak Bahasa. If Bahasa Malaysia (BM) is the sole and only criteria, then we might as well abolish the provision allowing the court to admit a QC in the first place to argue difficult cases. It would render the operation of such ad hoc admission completely nugatory. The test then would not be one of legal skill and expertise not locally available, but BM proficiency. I do not think that was the intention of the legislature.

Secondly, it's not true that simply because defamation cases had been handled by local lawyers (in the thousands) in the past, means that 'there is local expertise'.

We have had difficult negotiable instrument cases, bills of exchange, not to mention corporate income tax cases before our courts - which are based almost entirely on the British and Australian models. Our lawyers at times were at pains to assimilate precedents in those countries with the facts in issue plus the interpretations to be given to the local Acts (mostly copied in their entirety) from UK or Australia.

In such situation, does it mean we have local expertise? Does it mean that since "we have heard that type of case before", it means that the courts have adjudicated the case after having heard the best of legal submissions money can buy?

Queen's Counsel is more than just that. They helped to develop the legal arguments in the light of their global and extensive legal experience (K-economy, anyone?) they have marshaled over many years and that will in turn help develop the beauty and quality of grounds of judgment.

In 2001, we need not go back and look at defamation laws (the vague part of it) as if we were in the 1970s. We need to look at the reality of the K-economy, globalisation of legal precedents in the 21st century, the reality of publications of statements in the Internet era and all that. In short, it's the approach.

It is the approach to tackling these sort of cases. The approach needs changing and a QC can tell us and the courts one or two things about how to 'approach' some defamation or libel issues, that hitherto are unheard of.

We know this well. Look at the ancient records of the Federal Court. Or perhaps, just look at the QC questioning and strategy in the Lorraine Osman case.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in allowing the admission of QC to handle a defamation case is most commendable. It adds up to the list of transformational judgments that we have been witnessing of late.