Tuesday, June 20, 2006

WHAT HAS THE BAR DONE ABOUT LAWYER UTHAYAKUMAR’S ARREST AND DETENTION?

On 7/6/2006, 50 lawyers marched in protest to Bukit Aman over the arrest of Balasubramaniam, a lawyer harassed, arrested and detained when he was there at the Petaling Jaya District police station carrying out his duties as a lawyer for his client. To date, the others that we know who have suffered similar predicament include Cheah Kah Peng (6 years ago), P. Uthayakumar and Leonard Teoh...and in all these instances lawyers came out in protest.

The Chairman of the Bar and his delegation to the IGP also did raise concerns about the treatment of other lawyers arrested by the police.

After this meeting with the IGP, out came our leaders with smiles - happy to report that the IGP has identified a liaison officer so that in the future when a similar event happens to any lawyer - the Bar Chairman/Bar Council can immediately get to the IGP through this liaison officer - and not have to wait for weeks to raise this concern and protest with the IGP over the police behaviour when it comes to lawyers - especially lawyers carrying out their duties as a lawyer. The name and contact details of the said liaison person were given to the Bar Council...

One day later, when lawyer P. Uthayakumar was there representing his clients he was arrested when he asked for a court order from the DBKL and police officers who were there to demolish the temple of his clients. Uthayakumar was arrested and detained. He was in fact bodily carried away after he was arrested. The pictures of the way the police behaved during the arrest of this lawyer came out in Malaysiakini.

The fact of this arrest and detention of a lawyer was communicated immediately to the Bar Council Chairman(and the Bar Council) and the KLBC Chairperson(as Uthaya was a member of the KL Bar).

We had the liaison officer's contact details and all that the Bar Council needed to do was to pick up the phone and call up then and there and lodge their protest over this incident.

The Bar Chairman and/or the Bar Council should have come out immediately expressing his/its anger, protest and deep concern about the actions of the police and their treatment of a lawyer - more importantly since it happened the day after the meeting with the IGP.

Was the phone call made immediately as Uthaya was arrested and taken to the police station - detained for almost 8 hours or more? Was the phone call made after that? I think NOT - and so what is the use of the Bar Chairman and the Bar Council having this number of the liaison officer that enables the Bar Council direct and prompt access to the IGP to lodge an immediate statement of at least concern, if not protest.

The Bar surely did not come out and make a public statement about the Uthaya incident in the media (at least I have not seen it).

The KLBC also did not react - I believe there was not even a mention of concern in the e-newsletter (I may be wrong). There was also nothing expressed about the Bar's stance in the Bar website.

What then is the use of the Bar Council, the KLBC and those who sit there as "leaders" of lawyers when they repeatedly fail to come out TIMEOUSLY in defence of lawyers - especially lawyers out there harrassed, arrested and detained by the police and/or other enforcement officers.

There was hope when the Selangor and KL Bar Committee went to see the CPO of Selangor after the Bala incident. There was hope when about 25 lawyers including the Vice President turned up in Parliament over this matter. There was hope when the Chairman sent out his letter calling for "active support" that saw about 50 lawyers responding by being physically present at Bukit Aman when the Bar Council met with the IGP.

But then, was this all merely a reaction after it was reported widely in the media that 40 ordinary lawyers carrying a memorandum of protest signed by 113 other ordinary lawyers had gone and protested at the PJ District Police Station and handed over the protest memo over the Bala incident when the Bar leadership procrastinated in making a TIMEOUS response.

Was it all just a reaction in fear of the adverse reactions of members of the Bar to the failings of the present leaders of lawyers at the next AGM or EGM of the Bar? Was it all a just a "show" for fear of loss of votes this coming Bar Council elections?
I hope that I am totally wrong about this and this "repeated" failings of the Bar Council and the State Bar Committees is just me being ignorant of the fact that they did in fact lodge some strong protest and had indeed used that "liaison" officer.

The perception of the majority of lawyers is that this bunch of leaders of lawyers just do not care especially when it is just one small lawyer somewhere - I believe that had it been some "big-name" "highly respected" "acceptable" lawyer of a certain class background and good social skills, the Bar leaders would have come out promptly and strongly.

There must never be any discrimination amongst lawyers and how the Bar reacts to lawyers in a predicament. It matters not the race, the religion, the mannerism, the social standing, the gender, the socio economic background.... - the Bar must come out with equal gusto each and every time a lawyer is being persecuted especially when he was carrying out his duty as a lawyer... or when anyone is on the "face of it' is being subjected to police excessiveness.

"Let me investigate it first" or "Let us get all the facts before we respond" are not acceptable reasons - our protest or "deep concern" must be voiced out.

In any event, whenever anything like this happens, we side the lawyer first and we also always call for an "independent investigation" by the authorities. We act on the word of the lawyer - on what was reported in the media - on a police report of the lawyer - on a statement (or corroboration) by a lawyer - we ACT then - not several weeks and months later.

Remember, if the police do treat lawyers in this manner - what more the ordinary member of the public. It is, and has always been our duty to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour....and this must be done NOW TODAY...not tomorrow.

We are all keeping our fingers crossed hoping that the elected leaders of lawyers do something about the P. Uthayakumar incident.

We also hope that our leaders just do not drop the matter of Bala and Rajasingam - just because the IGP said investigations are done and the matter has been referred to the AG for further action. We must now pursue the matter with the AG to ensure that this just does not get "swept under the carpet" as it happens quite so often in Malaysia. There must be follow-up...active follow-up - we will not let this go.

Charles Hector

20 June 2006

No comments: