The Bar Council has been slapped with a suit by one of its own members who claimed that his motions were 'unjustly' defeated by the council in the 60th annual general meeting (AGM) in March 2006.

In his suit, W E Balasingam has asked for the Bar Council to convene an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to table his resolutions and a declaration that the AGM was not conducted in a fair and just manner as per Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA).

The Ipoh-based lawyer claimed that the council had not heeded his request to send via post his four motions tabled for the AGM to the 12,000 members of the Bar.

The council had only placed 2,500 copies at the entrance of the hall where the AGM was held on March 18 in Kuala Lumpur, he alleged.

The four motions raised by Balasingam are:

  • that the annual subscription of RM350.00 be reduced to RM150.00;

  • to abolish Legal Aid saying it's the responsibility of the state;

  • that no further sums be paid to the LawCare fund and whatever sums collected to date be managed centrally by the Bar Council without a need to open offices in each state; and

  • to abolish the election of the 12 Bar Council Members by postal ballot under the Legal Profession Act as it is 'the most undemocratic election in the whole world'

    • He further alleged that the council ensured that his motions were defeated by tabling them last for discussion in the AGM, when most members of the Bar had already left the hall and only about 200 remained.

    However, voting on Balasingam's motions still took place and each motion was voted against by a huge margin.

    Common practice

    Counsel for the Bar Council, Ranjit Singh clarified that the various motions for the AGM were compiled and sent out to members by March 6 and Balasingam had only made his motions available for distribution on March 8.

    "This is common practice that when the resolutions are sent in late, we will photocopy them and leave them for members to pick it up at the entrance of the AGM," he told malaysiakini .

    He asserted that the responsibility of promoting any motion tabled was with Balasingam and there is no requirement under the LPA to send motions through post to members of the Bar.

    Ranjit pointed out that Balasingam also failed to bring to the attention of the chairperson that he wished for his motions to be tabled earlier nor did he gain the support of the members of the Bar to table his motion at an earlier time.

    He also stands by the council's claim that it had no control over the departure of members prior to Balasingam's motions being tabled during the AGM.