It is rather strange for the Bar Council to state that statutory interpretations should not be literal, but purposive to protect the public from incompetent appointments to the industrial court.

One of the canons of statutory interpretation is that courts will advert to the purposive approach only when a literal interpretation of the law leads to absurdity and brings about public inconvenience.

Section 23A (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 states: "A person is qualified for appointment as chairman under section 23(2) if, for the seven years preceding his appointment, he has been an advocate and solicitor within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 1976..."

There is no ambiguity. One cannot be an advocate and solicitor if he/she does not practice the law and for one to be appointed as Industrial Court chairperson, the criterion is to be in practice as an advocate and solicitor for seven years. Practice must certainly be opposed to theorising the law.

In the case of the appointment of N Rajasegaran as chairperson of the Industrial Court, it seems rather odd given that since his admission to the Bar he has has not practiced as an advocate and solicitor. Rather, he has been the Taiko Plantations Group human resources director, espousing the cause of employers. How is this new chairperson expected to act with impartiality in respect of trade disputes involving trade unions and dismissal of employees?

The Human Resources Minister Dr Fong Chan Onn is purported to have stated, in support of the appointment, that "the law does not specify that he has to be in practice. We have looked into his background and we are satisfied that the conditions have been met". But the minister has failed to appreciate the fact that one cannot be an advocate and solicitor if he is not in practice within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

Both the minister and Roy Rajasingham, the Bar Council's Industrial Court Practice chairperson, should desist from engaging in intellectual gymnastics that strain and adulterate the language contained in section 23A of the Industrial Relations Act. Working in the corporate sector for seven years is not the same as practising law as an advocate and solicitor.

The human resources minister should revoke the appointment of N Rajasegaran - as a pro employer advocate, he will not be seen to be impartial when adjudicating cases involving workers