To call wilfully ignoring a resolution of the Malaysian Bar a "mere procedural issue" shows that Mr Wan Sou Hai's '"Conflict of interest" issue not satisfactorily addressed' (Aug 30) does not understand nor grasp principles of governance by the Bar Council that he attempts to preach by his letter 'Court and Bar right to object to Sivarasa's application' (Aug 27).

The Bar Council is a body created and governed by the Legal Profession Act. It was established to manage the affairs of the Malaysian Bar. By section 56 of the Act, the Bar Council is vested with the power to govern subject to, inter alia , "resolution passed from time to time by the Malaysian Bar in general meeting".

Therefore, in governing the affairs of the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council must heed resolutions passed by the Malaysian Bar at its general meetings. It is expressly provided for in the Act. To ignore resolutions passed by the Malaysian Bar is to make a mockery of the Malaysian Bar and demean the value of its own members' decisions, let alone breach the provisions of the law.

It is akin to directors of a company ignoring decisions taken at general meetings by its shareholders and running the company as it pleases. It demeans its shareholders and is against the law.

If the present Bar Council is unhappy about this constrain and feels that this provision of the Legal Profession Act is 'muzzling' its ability to govern the Malaysian Bar and is therefore void, vis-a-vis the Constitution for whatever reason, then it ought to apply to court for the appropriate relief as done by lawyer R Sivarasa. Until then it is obliged to not only consider the wishes of the Malaysian Bar but heed those views expressed in resolution.

A great flaw in the writer's argument pertaining to 'conflict of interest' is that he elevates and then equates the position of a member of the Bar Council to that of a judge. This is simply misconceived and naive.

One compares apples with apples. One cannot compare the position or role of a body that is expressly governed by law with that of a person who is appointed under the Constitution to dispense justice for all.

That the role and responsibilities of a judge greatly differ from a member of the Bar Council is trite and needs no thesis for comprehension. Wherefore, to discuss 'conflict of interest' by comparing judges and members of the Bar Council is wholly misconceived. The role and responsibilities of the Bar Council is expressly provided in the Act not that of a judge.

For example, nobody would bat an eyelid if the present chairperson of the Bar Council while on holiday is photographed with the prime minister. Even if questioned (which is highly unlikely as there would be no reason to), we would all probably accept the chairperson's explanation of not missing out on a great Kodak moment.

The argument advanced in 1977/1978 by the Bar Council and then endorsed by the Malaysian Bar in opposing the amendments to the Legal Profession Act concerning limitations being imposed on the composition of the Bar Council was that it was done with the intention of stifling the Malaysian Bar. The rationale was that the government ought not impose restrictions on or dictate whom we ought to elect as our leaders. The Malaysian Bar ought to be free to elect whomsoever it pleases as its leaders from within our ranks.

To now say that the limitations imposed by the government is justified because it protects our 'independence' is contradictory. One of the principal objects and powers of the Malaysian Bar is to "uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour" [section 42(1)(a) Legal Profession Act].

If the Malaysian Bar is of the view that one of its elected members in the Bar Council is acting in a manner contrary to that espoused by the Bar or contrary to the principles of justice, the Malaysian Bar would take that person to task. There is no need to protect us from perceived 'influence'. We can take care of our own affairs.

To say that not having an office-bearer of a political party would protect the Bar Council from unfair criticism of bias is misconceived. Suhakam, another statutory body, has recently been accused by various persons and bodies of, inter alia , being opposition biased and "western influenced". Some of these accusations emanate from the very persons who were responsible for the appointments of its members. Whether the criticism is justified or not, the fact remains that it has been made.

To renege on a position of principle merely on the ground of protecting oneself from criticism is cowardly. To fall into the trap of trying to appear to be 'independent' at all cost without considering the implications on its members, who it is duty bound to protect, is just plain silly.

The present Bar Council has done just that in opposing Sivarasa's application in its quest to 'appear' to be 'independent' and avoid criticism. The Bar Council would be judged on what it says and stands for and not on who makes up its composition.