Oleh/By		:	DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD 
Tempat/Venue 	: 	MERLIN HOTEL, KUALA LUMPUR 
Tarikh/Date 	: 	14/11/85 
Tajuk/Title  	: 	THE 8TH MALAYSIAN LAW CONFERENCE 




The President of The Bar Council, Mr. Ronald Khoo; Distinguished
Participants; Ladies and Gentlemen; 

At the outset let me congratulate you on the holding of this conference. A
law conference is a place where the legal profession can focus its
attention on the state of the laws and the legal system. Laws are not
static and do not exist in a vacuum. They are created to serve and
accommodate the wide and differing needs of society. Discussion and
deliberation on these laws and their application is essential not only to
ensure that the purposes for which these laws were passed would be served
but also the functions for which they were created could be carried
out. Your law conferences also provide an opportunity for the exchange of
ideas which would be useful in formulating new laws to meet the changing
needs of our society and the dynamic demands of the nation.

2. I note that one of the themes of your conference is the structure of
the legal system. I am sure this will attract much debate. I am sure too
that like me, you will wish that more light than heat would be generated.

3. Justice and the Rule of Law are meaningless unless there exists a legal
system which can efficiently and effectively transform philosophy into
action, which can take social intent and make it social reality. We are
very fortunate that our judiciary is straight and honest. We are fortunate
that it is independent of the executive. In most courts in too many
countries, a man is considered guilty until he is proven - INFLUENTIAL. We
are fortunate in having, on the Bench, men of high professional competence
and high moral integrity.

4. On the other hand, we have some obvious though by no means unique
flaws. Our 'due process of law' is so slow at times that one might refer
to it as the 'overdue process of law'. Justice delayed is justice denied
and justice overly delayed is injustice perpetrated. It is no excuse to
say that the law's delay is a universal phenomenon. We should seek to do
better. The delay cannot be attributed exclusively to the Bench. The blame
has to be shared by both sides. Dilatoriness is a crime. Deliberate
frustration of the law by whatever means can only lead to injustice in the
long run.

5. Every legal system can work effectively and efficiently only if all the
players play according to both the written and the unspoken rules of the
game. Cooperation, not collusion of course, amongst all the practitioners
of our system of justice, certainly between those in the legal and
judicial service and the Bar, is of clear importance. It goes without
saying that the principal players in the system must respect one another
and understand each other's problems. In law as in other segments of
society, there is no place for arrogance. Arrogance is a sign of weakness,
not strength. It is the hallmark of insecurity, not of character. Let me
add that arrogance is by no means the monopoly of those in positions of
authority. Very often an imagined power or influence manifests itself in
arrogance.

6. To be engaged in public recrimination, to go into public combat armed
to the teeth with intemperate language, is not to show sobriety, or to be
fair, or to be mature or to be constructive. In Malaysian society one does
not spit in the eye of a man and then expect him to change his mind or to
yield to your "superior" wisdom. This is Malaysia. The philosophy and the
values are not the same as those of the countries we borrow our systems
from. If we observe carefully those countries, we cannot but observe that
they are very liberal only when others have to pay. The moment they have
to pay the price then suddenly other arguments super-cede.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

7. Allow me to turn to another theme: professionalism, exploitation and
honesty. I notice that one of the topics for this conference is the
question of contingency fees. Some may prefer that lawyers talk of service
first and fees second. Be that as it may, the startling fact is that there
has yet to be a public conference on the quality of legal service provided
by this country's lawyers or questions related to competence amongst
lawyers. Some day you might be interested to hold a discussion on whether
lawyers discharge their functions fully as prescribed under the Legal
Profession Act 1976.

8. A lawyer is a professional man. The implication of being a
'professional man' is that he is highly skilled, has a strong sense of
social responsibility and an exceptional commitment to the interest of his
client. Whereas Parliament has deemed it necessary to legislate on a wide
range of matters to protect the consumer from the tradesman, professionals
are still left to regulate themselves. It is said that it is better that
they regulate themselves because lay persons cannot understand fully what
professionals do and cannot evaluate the judgements that professionals
make. If ordinary members of society truly cannot fully understand the
practices of professionals, then perhaps the professionals themselves
should set the standards that will serve and measure up to the public
interest.

9. The premise of self-regulation is that professionals can be relied upon
to set standards of excellence, to monitor levels of competence, to
establish fair prices for professional service, to spread and enforce the
appropriate ethical and moral rules and to form an effective disciplinary
body. They are expected to set up review programmes to make sure that the
public is not exploited. In short, professionals regulate themselves with
two objectives: to ensure all is well within the profession and that the
profession does advance the public interest. It is up to you to ask of
yourselves what has happened to professional self-regulation -- before
others do so. It is upto you to ask whether the objectives have been met
-- before others do so.

10. I am afraid that in general, Malaysian professionals have not quite
succeeded in maintaining the high standards expected of them. The
professional bodies have had much greater success with ensuring a
close-shop union, a monopoly. As such the members interests are superior
to the interest of the public and indeed the nation. A situation of
short-supply is maintained so that demands will always exceed supply. Any
monopoly in such a situation is able to dictate terms. So it is not
surprising that professional bodies have been able to ensure the highest
standards of living for their members. Almost without exception,
Malaysia's professionals are the rich of Malaysian society, so much so
that every newly arrived practitioner expects to shoot to the top of the
income ladder and every Malaysian assumes that this should naturally be
so. In many many countries this is not so at all.

11. To be fair, I think we should discount the more creative epithets the
members of those angry and probably envious members of the public resort
to. Nevertheless there are genuine grievances arising out of shoddy and
poor service, unprofessional soliciting, the commercialisation of law,
lack of competence. We are all aware that ignorance of the law is no
excuse. Some lawyers obviously believe that ignorance of the law should be
no excuse for refraining from practicing it.

12. I believe that in any discussion on professionalism mention must be
made of the importance of honesty and trustworthiness. At its most
innocuous, shortchanging a client, not giving off your best, is a form of
dishonesty.

It is a moral if not a legal crime. In the practise of law, dishonesty is
the more pernicious, the more vicious, because very often lives are
involved and futures are at risk. I know that your task is made no easier
by the presence of less than honest clients. Many simply want a lawyer to
tell him HOW to do what he wants to do, not someone who can advise on what
he can or cannot do. Professionals cannot stand aloof, completely
unsullied by the dirt of societal corruption, untouched by the tide of
social dishonesty that surrounds them. But they must try. And because of
their position and their work in society, I believe that the penalty for
less than honest lawyers must be more severe than for their businessman
counterpart.

13. Professionals are supposed to be objective and impartial. Both will be
lost when a professional becomes emotionally involved. As a doctor, I know
that we normally excuse ourselves from treating our children and those
most closely related to us. We must assume that our judgement will be
affected.

14. The same applies to lawyers. They should not be emotionally involved
with their clients. Their own beliefs and feelings must be held in check
and must be divorced from those of their clients. Otherwise the clients
will only be come subjects for the propagation or establishment of their
lawyer's own beliefs. When that happens the clients interest becomes
secondary and chances are that he will pay the price for the fame or
notoriety of his lawyer. I might add that of late we are seeing quite a
few of this.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

15. A democracy may simply be defined as government of the people, by the
people and for the people. But simplicity of definition does not lead to
simplicity of implementation. Indeed except for very tiny states, direct
government by the people is quite impossible. So not only must there be a
system of representation, but there must also be specialisation of
function and dispersal of power. Even then democracy cannot be expected to
work properly. The tendency towards anarchy arising from a multiplicity of
democratic forces must be countered by sufficient authority being vested
in the organ called Government. Clearly a democracy is anything but
simple.

16. Of late new centres of power have erupted. Pressure groups of one kind
or another have emerged which not only challenge the existing authorities
but arrogate to them selves powers that are not legitimately theirs. If
nothing else the disruptive capacities of these pressure groups are quite
considerable.

17. The reaction of the legitimate authorities to the disruptive
challenges to their authority is either to become progressively repressive
or to retreat from their responsibility. The latter will result in anarchy
which in turn will attract forces keen on a seizure of power. Once this
happens the usurper will discard democracy and resort to repression in
order to stay in power. Either way disruptve challenges to authority in a
democracy will lead to re pression and the death of democracy.

18. We have seen this happen in too many countries to be ignorant of this
course of events. It behoves us to think of these dangers. If a democracy
is to survive, the limits of the freedoms granted must be observed
judiciously. The division and the balance of power between the
legislative, the executive and the judiciary must be observed. Free speech
and a free press do not mean unlimited licence. Minorities too do not have
unlimited rights. Pressure groups must know when to stop.

19. If these are understood and observed then democracy will survive. If
irresponsible challenges directed at duly constituted authority leads to
continuous and harmful disruptions, then democracy would be
endangered. Once democracy is destroyed, its restoration will be very
costly indeed for society. Indeed it may never be fully restored.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

20. There is just one more area that I feel a need to address. Laws are
enacted because a need has to be met. Because legislators and their legal
advisors are not perfect, so are the laws they enact. The spirit or the
purpose of the law are therefore more important than the letter. But
unfortunately it is the letter of the law which is given more
importance. And so it is with the provision for injunctions.

21. There is a case for injunctions when an irretrievable injustice is to
be prevented. But injunctions are not meant to frustrate the law or to
frustrate what is right and legal. Yet we see today innumerable examples
of the last minute injunction calculated to frustrate legitimate acts. On
a technicality individuals have been able to hold to ransom huge
organisations with members numbering hundreds of thousands or even a
million. And the ransom has to be paid. Which of course prompts others to
try the same. In the final analysis this application of a right results in
injustice to a great number of unsuspecting victims. Is this what the law
is meant to do? 

22. The provision for injunction is right and necessary but like all laws
it is not to be abused. To do so would put the law into disrepute and the
price to pay for that is horrendous.

Ladies and Gentlemen.

23. I wish you success in your deliberations and I have much pleasure now
in declaring this Law Conference open.