Zaid Ibrahim, a member of the Bar, has - in his commentary (' Appointment of judges: Bar should act rationally ', Sept 28, NST ) - expressed his displeasure over the Bar Council's decision to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to discuss the recent promotion of judges

(The Bar Council has viewed with concern the fact many senior judges have been bypassed in the recent promotion exercise and is unhappy over the lack of clear criteria for judicial appointments.)

Although Zaid's commentary is a diffuse, tautologous and tendentious essay, I have endeavoured to isolate the main planks of his argument, which are as follows:

1) That council members must be non-confrontational and polite in trying to bring changes, and that they have no common sense or not rational;

2) That the Bar Council shouldn't criticise the government or judiciary because its own affairs are in a mess;

3) That even if the council is right and the appointments are improper, they shouldn't say so because the government has been elected by the people and has brought progress.

On the first argument above, I do not at all blame the writer for saying so, because he is merely displaying that quotidian confusion of thought that has become the hallmark of all pseudo-intellects in this country. Thus he confuses submissiveness for politeness, timidity for being non-confrontational and arrant toadying for rationality.

I am certain that the council, which has thankfully never shown any inclination to be submissive, timid or toadying, will decline to take his advice on this point. But we are all, as ever, grateful for advice freely given, however fatuous it may be.

As for the second argument against the council, the reasoning used represents a category of arguments called the argumentum ad hominem . Put simply, if the argument of the critic appears too strong to be comfortably assailed, abandon all attempts to do so. Attack the critic instead! Tell him he has no business criticising anyone unless he can prove himself a saintly person capable of beatification.

In other words, the council is enjoined by the writer to keep silent in the face of the gravest injustice because he thinks they are not virtuous enough to speak out. I do not think that anyone who really counts will pay the slightest attention to this stale type of argumentation, so I'll say no more on this subject.

The third argument against the council is so plainly absurd, that I can only assume that the writer was running out of points to take up against them. Taken to its logical conclusion, it means that once a government is duly elected and has brought some progress, it is then free to commit any excess or perpetrate any outrage. It cannot be rebuked or questioned because it has submitted to the democratic process.

Rarely have I come across such a fine recipe for disaster. I can only marvel at the unerring instinct with which the writer lights upon strictures and methods liable to produce the most catastrophic effect upon our national life.

Zaid then lashes out at the Bar for holding on to their practicing certificates "for a few ringgit more", but lamenting that the EGM will cost RM50,000. He values the Bar's grave public duties in terms of dollars and cents; clearly a case of knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Despite of the writer's flatulent reasoning, I do not think the EGM will result in "a lot of hot air". On the contrary, it is a very necessary discussion on a matter of the gravest public importance.