No address of conflict of interest issue but I am very astonished at the reply of Surendren N's "Cowardly Conduct of Bar Council" (Aug 29). As a lawyer, the writer appears to be unable to grasp the concept of what constitutes a perceived potential conflict of interest situation and the necessity or reasons to avert it!

The writer is also unable to distinguish notions of actual bias from perceived possibility of bias. It is trite that in public positions, what is important is that a person or a body accountable to the public must not only be actually free from bias, but also be seen as not to be in conflict of interest. To be unbiased is important. Equally important is to be seen to be in a position where bias could not set in.

The writer's argument is of the personal attributes of Mr Sivarasa. My comments are based on his actions and how they appear and are not influenced by Mr Sivarasa's personal attributes of which I know nothing of nor I think is relevant.

Why is it wrong for a Chief Justice to be taking a holiday or constantly fraternizing with a particular lawyer in a pub? Does it mean a judge will be biased in the lawyer's favour against the other side in the course of a trial? Is such a judicial conduct alright because of his personal attributes of impartiality known to others like the writer? Conversely can anyone prove that such a judge will be biased for taking a holiday? Obviously not - as Blackstone said, "Even the Devil knowth not the thoughts of men"!

What is important is that the judge should not be seen to be in a position where his impartiality may be suspected of being compromised, whether it really is or not, no one knows nor could prove or disprove - nor does it matter.

A conflict of interest afflicts a judge who presides over a lawsuit to which a personal friend is a party, because, there is a reasonable suspicion based on the common knowledge that the judge's interest in seeing his friend prosper is likely to interfere with the obligation to administer the law impartially.

Why is it that the etiquette rules of the writer's profession prevent him from acting as a lawyer for both parties in one commercial or land transaction? Is it not possible that he could as a lawyer represent both sides fairly? Why is it that when a director having a private interest in a transaction has to leave the Board room when he/she is deliberating on that transaction? Isn't it to avoid conflict of interest?

I can go on and on but I think I made my point. Conflicts of interest are dependent on broad generalizations about the vulnerabilities and the weaknesses of human nature, and they are also acutely sensitive to context.

The context in issue here is that as long as Sivarasa continues to serve as a Bar Council member and the various committees in it, and yet at the same time holds an executive position of vice president in a political party like PRM, there is always a suspicion or an excuse by detractors of the Bar Council to allege that the Bar Council's policies may be influenced by the political agenda of PRM.

Whether the Bar Council may or may not be so influenced, or whether Sivarasa has or has not such an intention or capability is quite irrelevant but the Bar Council should not be placed in a position where suspicions may arise and bias be alleged against it.

Today as public life becomes increasingly more sophisticated, the following hard questions will always arise that require address.

Should we penalize officeholders for allowing the mere appearance of impropriety to arise surrounding their official activities, even if they have engaged in no actual wrongdoing?

Should we probe the officials' personal character and private life on the assumption that doing so will shed light on their public performance?

Should we curtail public financial disclosure as an affront to officials' privacy or, alternatively, rely on it as the only remedy necessary for conflict of interest?

Should we punish office holders for profiting privately from public office even if they could not possibly have compromised their official performance in the process?

Should we prohibit officials of political parties like Sivarasa from serving in the Bar Council to protect the latter from accusations of undue influence by a political party?

The crux of these contentious issues pertain to the level of transparency and governance - and the extent to which we, as a society, want to tolerate or curb any vestige of conflict of interest or possibility of conflict of interest in respect to the circumstances surrounding public officials, bodies and interest group as well as government. The questions are hard as the solutions are difficult, and each case has to be examined on its merits.

To attack and denigrate the Bar Council as cowardly for its stance against Sivarasa, for the reasons stated by the writer, demonstrates that the writer has not grasped that what is at stake is the underlying more important issue of conflict of interest of which he has evinced no understanding when he kept on saying that Sivarasa had an impeccable record of serving the Bar Council well and that he was a person of considerable attributes.

In saying that the Bar Council has not now acted consistently with the mandate of the Malaysian Bar in 1978, the other honourable member of the Bar Alex D Silva in "Is the Bar Council representing the Malaysian Bar?" (Aug 29) has raised a mere procedural issue of the Bar Council's authority and mandate rather than the substantive issues raised in the above discussion.

As elected officials, the Bar Council has taken a proactive stance to lead according to its lights. If the likes of the aforesaid writers can persuade the next EGM of the Bar that the Bar Council has taken a stance not in accord with the sentiments of the majority of those who attend the EGM, the Bar Council officials will be booted out - that's all. That does not change the issue at stake or the rightness or wrongness of the Bar Council's stand.

As I have said, the substantive issue of conflict of interest has not been satisfactorily addressed at all by those who oppose the Bar Council's stance.