I refer to Wan Sou Hai's letter . He appears to have a good understanding of the English political history but fails to appreciate the significance and relevance of the principle in Almon. If one were to examine the historical background of each case then no one case will ever be relevant.

Each case is important for the principle that it establishes. Many decisions are made against the backdrop of events prevailing at that time but these events are not part of the decision making process, for what matters most to a decision maker are the facts and applicable law before him. He is not concerned with any other extraneous consideration.

I marvel at Wong's ability to read what went on in Wilmont J's mind in 1765. What Wong had also overlooked in giving us the historical perspective of English Law is the fact that the case of Almon was adopted and cited with approval in the High Court decision of Rajasegaran's case.

The learned High Court judge must surely have his reasons for adopting and approving that decision. This will be the law of the land until it is overruled by an Appellate Court. And everyone including Wong must respect this decision.

If anyone is unhappy or disagrees with the decision then that person can seek redress by appealing against the said decision. One should allow the due process of law to take its course. What good is it to hold a discussion on such a fundamental issue as the promotion of judges in a forum comprising of merely members of the legal profession.

The appropriate forum to ventilate your disagreement with the principle in Almon as adopted in Rajasegaran's case are the courts and not at some hotel.

First and foremost the Bar must examine whether it has the power within the confines of the Legal Profession Act to discuss such a significant and fundamental matter. This they clearly don't have.

The next question is whether they have the political mandate to decide what is and is not good for the public. Wong seems to be harping on the good intentions of the Bar i.e. that in initiating the EGM the Bar is seeking to "protect and preserve the image and integrity of the judiciary as a public institution in the public eye".

I find this reasoning preposterous and completely illogical. Wong has clearly overlooked the provisions in the Federal Constitution. The constitution envisages a clear separation of powers between the three organs of the government. The independence of the judiciary is encapsulated and entrenched in the Federal Constitution. That is a realm where even the executive commanding a majority mandate of the electorate cannot tread save as per the procedure laid down in the Federal Constitution. No one organ is allowed to encroach into the others realm.

If the executive commanding a majority mandate of the electorate is precluded by the Federal Constitution from treading into matters relating to the judiciary, what about a small organisation like the Bar which depends for its very own existence on an Act of Parliament. The Bar does not have the mandate to speak for the masses. They are not elected by the public and so on that score cannot project itself to champion the people's cause.

The champion of the people is the government of the day. This is where the line must be drawn as one who fails to recognise this fundamental distinction is clearly suffering from an identity crisis. The Bar cannot and should not in the name of championing the public's cause tread into areas which is not its business.

The business of the Bar is circumscribed in Section 42(1) of the Legal Profession Act. The Bar must confine its activities within that section and if the Bar feels strongly on an issue such as this then it should make a written representation to the executive and it is up to the executive whether the matter should be pursued or not.

The Bar must educate itself on fundamental aspects of the constitution before embarking on a misguided mission. What equally surprises me is that the Bar in recent years has conducted discussions about everyone else except themselves.

Recently, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Dr Rais Yatim remarked that the complaints lodged by the public against lawyers are on the rise. I wonder whether the Bar is willing to hold an EGM to discuss this issue as it is a matter of real concern and affects the public's confidence in the integrity of the legal profession as a whole.

What about holding an EGM on the declining standards of practice and advocacy amongst the members of the Bar ? What about holding an EGM on the allegation of mishandling of funds by the council as made by its former treasurer ? The list can go on.

All these matters are very grave and will seriously impair and affect the public's confidence. Who is to check on the Bar ? The Bar has misplaced priorities and probably it is of the view that it is above the law and all others are subservient to it.