The Bar Council today said statutory interpretations should not be literal but purposive to protect the public from incompetent appointments.

The Council's Industrial Court Practice Committee chairperson Roy Rajasingham said this in reaction to the dispute over the appointment of Taiko Plantation group human resources director N Rajasegaran as an Industrial Court chairperson.

"The proper approach to the interpretation of the Act (Section 23A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1967) as decided by our superior court is that the interpretation should be purposive.

"The courts have ruled that the purpose of the Act is to protect the public from incompetent members of the profession. A literal interpretation would defeat the intention of the Parliament," he added in a statement.

Disputed appointment

Yesterday, Human Resources Minister Dr Fong Chan Onn said Rajasegaran's appointment was valid as it satisfied the requirements under the law.

He was responding to the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) which urged the minister to review the appointment which they claimed violated the labour law as Rajasegaran had not served as an advocate or solicitor for seven years, a prerequisite of the appointment.

Fong said Rajasegaran had been an advocate and solicitor since May 21, 1996.

"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.

"He has worked in the corporate sector and understands the labour issues. There is no reason not to give him a chance," he was quoted as saying by the Malay Mail yesterday.

Other requirements

Meanwhile, Rajasingham said since Section 23A (I) of the IRA does not explicitly state that an appointee as the chairperson of the Industrial Court should be in practice or active practice for seven years, therefore a purposive interpretation is necessary.

"The fact that a person has been admitted and enrolled more than seven years ago does not automatically make him a qualified person as an advocate and solicitor as other pertinent requirements are also necessary

"The fact that a person has worked in the corporate sector and understands labour isues does not make him a 'qualified person' as an advocate or solicitor for the appointment of a chairperson under the IRA," he added.

Rajasingham stressed that the law must be read in entirety and not in isolation to know the law as intended by the Parliament and with regards to public interest so that the appointee and the courts are respected for their decisions.

'Not qualified'

Following the minister's statement yesterday, MTUC said trade unions in the country will ask for their cases to be heard by another industrial court chairperson if their cases come up for hearing before Rajasegaran.

According to the Malay Mail report, the union secretary-general G Rajasekaran said the person appointed to the post should be an impartial candidate.

"In this case, he (Rajasegaran) has been a human resources director for some time and has been advocating against companies and workers. Personally, we have nothing against him. We are just going by the law and we feel that he is not qualified to hold the position," he added.

MTUC aslo questioned the need for the law, if it did not specify whether the candidate has to be a practising lawyer.

"Why does the law specifically state seven years if it does not mean that the candidate has to be a practising lawyer?

"Why talk about the number of years he has been an advocate and solicitor if it does not matter whether he has been in practice?" asked its secretary-general.