I refer to the letter by R Sivarasa 'A sad day for the Malaysian Bar' (Aug 25) and the several letters which ensued relating to the obligation of the present council to observe a resolution made in 1978 on section 46A of the Legal Profession Act.

After reading these letters, I get the impression that most of the writers are mainly concerned about whether the present council is tied to the earlier resolution of 1978.

The letters, to me, have skirted the main issue i.e. section 46A should not have been there in the first place. Sivarasa's removal from council has provided a rare opportunity to raise this point.

Some of the letters on this controversy and even the resolution of 1978 did not point to the fact that section 46A has no rightful place in the Legal Profession Act. The 1978 resolution for instance merely expressed regret at the amendment.

After struggling for two years against Escar (1975 to 1977), the Bar to my mind, came up with a rather feeble resolution in February 1978! I would think that the Bar's independence as one of the institutions of democracy is compromised by the very existence of section 46A remaining as law.

Perhaps lawyers should seriously consider if they have not done so already, to actively work towards repealing section 46A and all other amendments that came at that period. How can lawyers even think anything less would suffice?

If lawyers cannot be independent from the overarching arm of the executive and its henchman the Attorney General, then lawyers would not be in a position to act without fear or favour.

That simple point would demolish the current council's grievances that Sivarasa's application in the High Court allegedly affects the Bar's independence. Perhaps the Bar Council has other reasons not yet apparent to us all.

I would hasten to add that lawyers should also refrain from isolating themselves from human rights groups (the 'lay persons') and viewing these matters as solely as the concern of the Bar and 'professional' lawyers.

Civil society groups as we understand them today have a vested interest in the independence of the Bar. Lawyers do not have a monopoly on human rights matters.

The Bar has to learn to break these artificial bonds which can be a yoke on its freedoms and begin seeking fresh alliances with civil society groups in democracy building.

There might be a day in the near future when a private member's Bill to repeal section 46A may be the required course of action.