The Bar Council's EGM of May 15 passed several resolutions condemning the police for their high-handed actions in Brickfields on May 7. The New Straits Times and The Star even reported that the council intends to sue the IGP and other relevant parties.

Brave words indeed but can it walk the talk?

The judiciary has never recovered from the assault launched by Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1988, no thanks to the resolve of the Bar Council which seems to weaken with every change of office bearers.

The assault was political in its objective, yet sad to say the decay had manifested itself in the commercial sector. I wonder how many of their members can still hold their heads high after perusing the review by NH Chan of the land case in Penang.

I also wonder if by their silence they are not an accomplice to the injustice? Isn't ‘the upholding of cause of justice without fear or favour' one of their objectives?

NH Chan in his articles on the Perak debacle has consistently included Lord Denning's caution that judges are not above the law and that actions can taken for any abuses. Yet, the Bar Council has not even released a whisper in regards to the hints.

The latest article by NH Chan clearly sets out the grounds for action. What now, Mr Chairperson?

It is sad to read that Karpal Singh seems to be the only one bent on removing the current chief justice. I would have thought that simply being the ex-lawyer for Umno itself would be grounds for serious objection, let alone the reasons put forward by Karpal.

The Bar Council may well remember the removal of a prosecutor on the eve of the trial of a well- publicised murder trial for purportedly playing badminton with the presiding judge.

The Bar Council must realise that unless the judiciary is truly independent, the police, the Attorney-General's Chambers and all other government agencies are not going to give two hoots about your resolutions or suits.

Not even in your wildest dream would the Home Minister's and Inspector-General of Police's heads roll just because of your strong words nor would you win any suits. You are not only barking up the wrong tree but wasting your energy.

If the council continues to be hesitant in confronting the real issue, I dread that the day might come when legal cases are decided not on their merit but rather on the ‘connections' of the lawyers.

If it should happen to me, I pray I would at least meet a decent and honest lawyer who would advise me to discontinue because of the opposing lawyer's ‘cable' rather than to be taken for a long and expensive ride.

The council must realise that conditions to press for a truly independent judiciary have never better. It must take advantage of the mood currently prevailing at the ground.

At the same time, the council must take cognisance of the diverse interests of its members. Those who are beholden to the government or are pro-government/businesses, would relish the opportunity to throw a spanner into their works for the sake of additional brownie points.

To succeed, the Bar Council, therefore, needs to gets out of its cocoon and enlist the support of NGOs and the general public. Only then can it create a momentum so strong that even members with vested interests can't stop.

To me, this is the central issue, the mother of all problems that must be resolved. Period.

Unless and until the Bar Council commits itself vigorously to the cause, rule of the law would continue to be only selectively applied.

No compromise if the council wishes regain our respect and confidence. Otherwise, the MBC (Member of the Bar Council) badge is nothing but a badge of dishonor.