Malaysian Bar president Mah Weng Kwai's position has become untenable due to his failure to distinguish between public duties and private views, said a past president today.

R R Chelvarajah said if he was in Mah's shoes and had made the remarks (regarding the Federal Court's dismissal of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's appeal), his position as the head of a body that represents about 10,000 lawyers, would have become untenable.

"When we hold that position (as Bar president) and the press calls us for views of the Bar, I think the question of personal view does not arise at all," he told malaysiakini .

Several other former Bar leaders also took Mah to task for contradicting the Bar's stand over the July 10 decision to dismiss Anwar's appeal against his corruption conviction.

In an immediate reaction to the decision, Mah had told malaysiakini that the court "would have set aside Anwar's conviction if it had found any improprieties in the proceedings of the lower courts".

He believed that Anwar's trial had gone through the "due process of law" and the decision should be respected by all. He suggested that those who disagreed with the decision should use the ballot box to show their discontent.

His remarks evoked strong criticism from various quarters, including several politicians and members of the Bar.

Six days later, Mah made an about-turn and issued a second statement which reflected the Bar's 1999 stand over its dissatisfaction on the "unusual manner in which the trial itself was conducted".

He also explained in a letter later that his remarks were his personal views and not intended to convey the position of the Bar.

'Very unhappy'

Meanwhile, former Bar president Zainur Zakaria said as president, Mah should know that he represents the entire Bar and its stance on issues, and not express his own views.

He said the Bar Council, which is the decision-making body of the Malaysian Bar, was "very unhappy" that Mah made the statement without discussing with them.

Zainur added that in the past, presidents were expected to get the Council's views first, especially on important matters.

"He must understand that when journalists call him, it is because he is the Bar president and not just anyone. They won't call him for his personal views. They want the views of the Bar," said Zainur.

Another former president, Dr Cyrus V Das said it was "never prudent" for a Bar president to express any personal opinion on a controversial matter that may come before the Bar Council or on an issue which it has already expressed a view.

He said the only opinion Mah can convey to the media is that of the Bar Council.

"In this case, the Bar Council issued its official statement reiterating its stand on the matter within a week. That clarifies the position of the Bar Council and leaves no room for doubt as to its stand."

'Totally unbefitting'

Former Bar vice-president Peter Mooney, who has been in practice for 50 years, said Mah's comments were "totally unbefitting".

"He has no business to air his views, whichever way one looked at it. The fact that he explained the remarks as personal is still wrong," said the 79-year-old veteran lawyer.

A senior member of the Bar, who wished to remain anonymous, said the general understanding was that Bar presidents cannot have personal views.

"A president's duty is to articulate the Bar's views. Most of the time, he has to go on past practices and what he feels as the Bar's stand because he can't be running back to the Bar Council to check on everything all the time.

"That is why he has to think carefully before saying anything because whatever is said, it becomes the Bar's views."

In cases where immediate reactions are required from the Bar, the senior lawyer said the president has the option of declining to do so on the spot or commenting after consulting other Council members or commenting at a later date.

"The president must bear in mind that the media will not call him if he were an ordinary person."

Corrective stands

Mah's flip-flop manouvre is one in a series of controversial stands taken by him, but always followed by a 'corrective' statement by the Bar Council as a damage control measure soon after.

His handling of last year's Certificate in Legal Practice fiasco, where he sits on the Legal Profession Qualifying Board, was seen as below par given his position as Bar president.

Then, he publicly contradicted the Bar's support for Christopher Fernando's contempt proceedings against High Court judge S Augustine Paul for uttering disparaging remarks against Fernando during Anwar's trial.

This was followed by his congratulatory message to former Attorney-General Abu Talib Othman when he was appointed the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia chairperson in April.

The Bar Council reached an understanding among its members in the early 90s where it was decided that any statement made by the president will reflect the official stand.

Only the KL Bar has thus far voiced out its strong objection to Mah's recent remarks by demanding for his resignation.

Meanwhile, it is reliably learnt that KL lawyers, displeased over the whole incident, are canvassing support for an extraordinary general meeting to remove Mah, but nothing could be confirmed.