Why Malaysia's lawyers march in sun or rain, and what to expect today
This afternoon at 2pm, that is exactly what lawyers will be doing in Putrajaya, with plans to peacefully march for 2.6 kilometres from the country's highest courts at the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister's office.
This is a rare moment in the Malaysian Bar's 78 years of history, as there has been only a handful of these marches since it was founded in 1947.
Here's a quick look of the times when lawyers here walked for a cause (Note: the first one was 44 years ago and the rest were within the last 18 years) :
1981 — Walking to protest against proposed law changes
On April 7, 1981, lawyers (about 100 or 200 according to different reports) walked from the Lake Club to Parliament in Kuala Lumpur to protest against proposed amendments to both the Societies Act and to the Federal Constitution.
They reportedly stood outside Parliament under a heavy drizzle to hand over the Malaysian Bar's memorandum, which was addressed to the prime minister, the Cabinet, and MPs.
The memorandum warned the amendments would limit the Constitutional right to freedom of association and enable the government to make laws during an Emergency without going through Parliament.
2007 — 'Walk for Justice'
On September 26, 2007, lawyers (estimated to be at least over 1,000) marched from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister's Office.
This was sparked by the release a week earlier of a video clip of senior lawyer VK Lingam's 2002 phone conversation with a senior judge, featuring the alleged brokering of the appointment and promotion of judges.
Before the walk started, Malaysian Bar president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan told the lawyers gathered there: 'Lawyers don't walk every day, they don't walk every month, they don't even walk every year. This is the third time lawyers are walking, when lawyers walk, something is wrong. When lawyers walk, it means that we would like to see change.'
It rained as lawyers waited while the Malaysian Bar's office-bearers went in to the PM's Office to hand over two memoranda to the prime minister's aide:
These were about the latest crisis in the judiciary (call for Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the Lingam video clip and a call to introduce Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC).
The government later formed an RCI in December 2007 and also set up a JAC in early 2009.
2011 — 'Walk for Freedom'
On November 29, 2011, over 1,000 people including lawyers walked from the Royal Lake Club to Parliament to object to the government's Peaceful Assembly Bill, saying that this proposed new law would put unreasonable limits on the Constitutional right to the freedom to assemble.
At Parliament, the Malaysian Bar delivered its memorandum and its proposed alternative Bill to then deputy minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong.
2014 — 'Walk for Peace and Freedom'
On October 16, 2014, between 1,000 to 2,000 lawyers marched from Padang Merbok to Parliament to call for the repeal of the Sedition Act 1948.
At Parliament, 10 Malaysian Bar representatives delivered a memorandum to then Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Mah Siew Keong, who received it on behalf of the prime minister.
The memorandum urged the government to promote building a 'fair, just, harmonious, unified, moderate and progressive Malaysia', to reject racist and religious extremism, to fulfill the promise to abolish the Sedition Act.
2022 — 'Walk for Judicial Independence'
On June 17, 2022, hundreds of lawyers planned to march from Padang Merbok to Parliament, which would be the fifth 'walk' in the Malaysian Bar's history.
But the police did not allow them to march to Parliament, and then Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mas Ermieyati Samsudin instead made her way to Padang Merbok to accept the Malaysian Bar's memorandum on behalf of the prime minister.
The memorandum urged the government to protect the judiciary's independence and preserve public confidence in the judiciary.
In March this year, the High Court ruled that the police had acted beyond its powers when it prohibited the Malaysian Bar from walking to Parliament.
Hundreds of lawyers marched from Padang Merbok to Parliament on June 17, 2022, which would be the fifth 'walk' in the Malaysian Bar's history. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa
Back to the question of why lawyers walk: It is one of their duties under the law.
Under the Legal Profession Act 1976's Section 42(1)(a), the Malaysian Bar's purpose is to 'uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.'
Today, the Malaysian Bar — which now represents 23,645 lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia — aims to end its 'Walk to Safeguard Judicial Independence' with the handing over of a memorandum at the Prime Minister's office.
Its memorandum will contain four points, including to have the judiciary's leadership positions filled by judges of integrity and unblemished reputation with a proven track record of quality and clear judgments; and to have multiple vacancies in the judiciary filled up quickly to prevent delays to the hearing of court cases.
It will also call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate if there has been any interference with the judiciary.
What's next
Currently, the JAC vets and recommends candidates for judges to the prime minister, with the prime minister then providing advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
Under the Federal Constitution, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the one who appoints judges in Malaysia's top courts, based on the prime minister's advice and after consulting the Conference of Rulers.
The Conference of Rulers is expected to meet from July 15 to July 17 (tomorrow to Thursday).
In about two weeks' time, the Malaysian Bar will hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on July 26 to discuss and possibly pass resolutions on matters such as the judiciary's independence and continuity in the judiciary's leadership, as well as vacancies and the process to appoint judges.
Last week, minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said said the Cabinet assures that the vacancies for the two highest-ranked posts in the judiciary will be filled according to the Federal Constitution and the relevant laws.
The Prime Minister's Department's Legal Affairs Division (BHEUU) last week announced that Malaysia will be carrying out preliminary research on how judges are appointed in the UK, Australia, India and Singapore, to identify suitable reforms for the country's own judicial appointments system.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
35 minutes ago
- The Sun
Parliamentary Services Act 2025 gets royal assent in Malaysia
SEREMBAN: The Parliamentary Services Act 2025 (PSA) has officially received royal assent from His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim, King of Malaysia. This landmark approval allows Parliament to function as an independent institution, marking a significant step in institutional reform. Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Dr Johari Abdul confirmed the development, stating that the effective date of implementation will be announced by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said. 'Alhamdulillah, this morning I was informed by the Dewan Rakyat secretary that His Majesty Sultan Ibrahim has signed the PSA. This means Parliament will now exist as an independent entity,' Johari said. He added that discussions with Azalina will determine the official enforcement date, coinciding with Parliament's next session on July 21. The PSA, passed by the Dewan Rakyat on March 5, restores Parliament's autonomy in policy and governance after 33 years. The original Act, introduced in 1963, was repealed in 1992. Johari highlighted the bipartisan support behind the legislation, calling it the result of strong collaboration between the government and opposition. Meanwhile, the Malaysia Youth Parliament (PBMy) 2025 is set for implementation in June next year. The secretariat is finalising policies, including ICT system development and leadership programmes. - Bernama
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Govt to decide on Sabah's 40% revenue entitlement on Sept 12, says Fadillah
Deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof said the proposal, submitted by the Sabah government, is based on Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : The federal government will decide on Sabah's proposal to reclaim a 40% net revenue entitlement at the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) meeting scheduled for Sept 12, says deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof. He said the proposal, submitted by the state government, is based on Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution and will be brought to the prime minister's attention at the meeting, Sabah Media reported. Fadillah, who chaired a special MA63 technical committee meeting in Kota Kinabalu today, said the session was focussed on Sabah's constitutional revenue claims and possible interim solutions. 'We've heard the presentations and proposed solutions from the Sabah government. These proposals have also received feedback from the finance ministry and the Attorney-General's Chambers at the federal level,' he was quoted as saying. Fadillah also acknowledged the ongoing challenge by the Sabah Law Society, which may have legal implications. 'Therefore, we must proceed cautiously, but our goal is to reach a mutually agreed solution outside of court,' he said. Asked whether a final decision could be expected before Malaysia Day, he did not give any confirmation but reiterated that the federal-level meeting was already fixed for Sept 12. The revenue sharing formula has been a contentious issue for decades. Sabah politicians have called for the federal government to honour the state's entitlement to 40% of the amount which exceeds the net revenue derived in 1963. Use of the formula has been suspended since 1974, with the federal government paying increased special grants to Sabah and Sarawak.
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory
From Apandi Ali It is laughable, if not deeply ironic, that a group of MPs, the Malaysian Bar, and civil society figures are now calling for a royal commission of inquiry, petitioning the prime minister and organising walks for justice and public forums all because they fear the prime minister may appoint senior judges without strictly following the names recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Even more amusing is their insistence that the top judicial vacancies must be urgently filled despite the fact that no legal or constitutional deadline mandates immediate appointment. Let's be clear: this hysteria is entirely based on a hypothetical scenario, one that has not even materialised. According to Section 27 of the JAC Act, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to request two more names for any judicial vacancy, including the offices of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, and other top positions. The law allows room for executive discretion in such appointments. Section 27, titled 'Request for further selection by the prime minister', says the 'prime minister may, after receiving the report under Section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration'. Even former Court of Appeal judges – the late Gopal Sri Ram, Hishamudin Yunus, and Mah Weng Kwai – publicly stated that the prime minister is not bound to accept the JAC's recommendations. In 2018, they noted that the Federal Constitution, being the supreme law, overrides the JAC Act. Mah, for example, plainly said: 'The JAC makes recommendations to the prime minister, who may decide not to agree with the proposals.' Where are these same voices now, when the media circus rages over a potential decision that has not even been made? The deafening silence over real violations What makes this sudden outrage even more disingenuous is the utter silence over actual, proven breaches of the JAC Act and the Federal Constitution. These are not speculative concerns, but documented in the government-declassified special task force (STF) report on allegations made by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in his book 'My Story: Justice in the Wilderness'. This STF was approved by the Cabinet on Dec 22, 2021 and comprised respected legal experts, including Fong Joo Chung as the chair besides members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh, Shaharudin Ali, Balaguru Karuppiah, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip. The report uncovered staggering facts. In July 2018, the names appointed to the highest judicial offices – Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop and Zaharah Ibrahim as Court of Appeal president and David Wong Dak Wah as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak — were not those selected by the JAC in its meeting on May 24, 2018. Instead, they were names privately agreed upon between then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and attorney-general Tommy Thomas, bypassing the mandatory processes. The JAC's recommended names on May 24, 2018 were Azahar Mohamed for chief justice, Rohana Yusuf for Court of Appeal president, and Abdul Rahman Sebli for chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, these names were discarded, and there was no evidence that Mahathir ever requested additional names under Section 27 of the JAC Act as required. According to the STF report: 'If the prime minister disagreed with the above selection and recommendation of the JAC, pursuant to Section 27 of the JAC Act, he should have requested for more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the STF that he had made such a request. 'Instead, from the report of Bahagian Kabinet, Perlembagaan dan Perhubungan Antara Kerajaan, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between the prime minister and attorney-general.' Worse, the STF found that no consultation was held with the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak before appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak – a direct violation of Article 122B(3) of the Federal Constitution. This wasn't merely an administrative oversight, but a constitutional breach. The same pattern emerged in 2019, when the JAC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2019 initially selected Ahmad for chief justice, Wong for Court of Appeal president and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya. After the prime minister requested two additional names, the JAC in its meeting on April 5, 2019 revised its list and put forward these names: Tengku Maimun and Azahar for chief justice Azahar and Rohana for Court of Appeal president Rohana and Azahar for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya The final names eventually accepted were Tengku Maimun as chief justice (despite being junior), Rohana as Court of Appeal president, and Azahar as chief judge of Malaya. Again, the irony is thick. Those who now cry foul over possible junior appointments were silent – if not supportive – when Tengku Maimun, a comparatively junior judge at the time, was appointed chief justice. Where was the outrage then? A convenient crusade for 'judicial integrity'? It is even more comical that Mahathir – the very person who subverted the JAC process in 2018 and 2019 – is now positioning himself and his allies as the guardians of judicial independence. Even some lawyers today are openly rooting for a specific candidate to be appointed chief justice, undermining their own calls for neutrality and due process. This hypocrisy recalls the cautionary words of former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who once criticised proposals by Zaid Ibrahim in 2008 (then minister in the Prime Minister's Department) to create a JAC dominated by practising lawyers. He warned that it would 'give these lawyers an unfair advantage besides damaging the integrity of the court. Judges will kneel to the lawyers!' And now, that prophecy seems to be unfolding before our eyes with segments of the legal fraternity actively lobbying for appointments while masquerading as defenders of institutional integrity. Enough with the double standards The selective outrage over potential breaches, while real violations are ignored, exposes a deeper rot in Malaysia's legal-political culture. This isn't about upholding the law. It's about political convenience, power struggles and self-interest, all disguised under the banner of judicial independence. If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with the past violations which they so conveniently ignored. Until then, their cries ring hollow. Let the law be applied consistently, not only when it suits political narratives. Apandi Ali is a former attorney-general and Federal Court judge. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
