budget legal advice

Laws and litigation go hand in hand. It is hope that developments in the year ahead will give Malaysians a better quality of life.

ONCE again we are at the beginning of a new year. For many, if not most people, it looks like it was a short time ago that we welcomed 2011. In the same way, 2012 will pass. What is in store in the months ahead?

The legal arena is made up of Parliament which enacts the laws, the courts which decide on disputes and complaints, and the police who manage law and order in the country.

Much has been said about laws relating to civil liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for the citizens. Into this also comes the consideration involving issues relating to freedom of the press.

Announcements made in the course of the past year have created great expectations with regard to changes in the law which touches on restraint of liberty, detention without trial, and the like. Will Malaysians really enjoy the freedom of speech and assembly they aspire for, and if so, to what extent?

Usually it is quite difficult to secure changes in the laws of the country. This is because it involves, for laws covering the whole country, formulating a Bill and tabling it in Parliament. Thereafter there are various stages to go through.

To start with, any change in the law must have the support of the ruling party. A Bill that is not initiated or for that matter supported by the ruling party is not likely to see the light of day. Why this should be so, even though the proposal may be regarded by many as being for the public good, is another matter.

The only explanation is that the ruling party which is undoubtedly the voice of the majority, does not think that it is good for the people. This may be in absolute terms or in terms of timing.

Expectations are created on the basis of announcements made by leaders of the country who are also politicians. However, the real changes will depend on the actual words of the law that is passed, whether to amend an existing law or replace it, or for that matter create a totally new law.

Whilst the announcement of a law being changed or repealed may cause great excitement, the real issue lies in the contents of the law that is passed. And once it is passed, it will be difficult to change for a long time.

Would it not be better to get public input on the proposed law? This could be done by holding public hearings on the proposed law so that different interested parties could give their suggestions.

Benefit

Groups and individuals who respond in such a context would be sacrificing their time and incurring expenses for the general good. After all, it is Parliament that is going to pass the law eventually. This would give those involved in drafting the law as well as Parliament, the benefit of hearing diverse views and matters that were brought up for discussion.

Such input is even more relevant when it comes to the subject of freedom of speech and assembly. This is not to say that it has not been done before. However, it would be ideal and will serve the national interest if it is done more frequently.

Of course, some people may well say that there is no necessity for such public hearings because there is adequate opportunity for different views to be brought up during the parliamentary sessions and hence such input is not really necessary.

Parliamentary sessions do provide an opportunity to debate the proposed law. However, whether the opportunity is used and to what extent is another matter. Where government backbenchers are concerned, many apart from congratulating the Government, proceed to talk about matters totally unrelated to the Bill.

Members of Parliament in the Opposition, sometimes criticise or congratulate the Government for introducing the law. However, they also talk about matters unrelated to the law before them. And their criticism is viewed as coming from the Opposition.

On this note, a reading of the reports comprising the parliamentary debates provides interesting fodder. This is because apart from the Members of Parliament spending time on unrelated matters, considerable time is spent attacking each other. It is in this context that views which are expressed during public hearings may have the benefit of coming from parties which are not politically aligned. Hence those drafting the law as well as the ruling party may be more receptive.

Opportunity

It is hoped that in the year ahead, members of the public will get a greater opportunity to put forward their views on proposed laws in a more organised and systematic manner. At the same time, it is also hoped that parliamentarians will focus more on the Bills that are before them.

In my previous article, I discussed the changes that had taken place in the courts. Whatever the criticism with regard to speeding up hearings, the fact is that the backlog that existed has been cleared depending, of course, on what is meant by “backlog”.

Present indications are that cases that are now filed in the courts will be cleared up within the year, if not sooner. This will increase the pace at which litigation takes place and matters proceed. Those who intend to embark on litigation must now be adequately prepared even before they file an action. The earlier practice of filing an action first and looking for the documents to prove the case, will have to be a thing of the past.

People who intend to embark upon the process must familiarise themselves with what their lawyers need so that everyone is ready when the time comes. If this is not done, a claim may be prejudiced or those involved may be subjected to a greater degree of stress. It will also help those who have a claim, to commence proceedings early rather than take their time. This is because by delaying, documents may become unavailable or ready and enthusiastic witnesses may change their minds about giving evidence.

Thus it is hoped that in the years ahead, the laws that will be passed will give the present and future generation a better quality of life, and the efficient administration of justice can be upheld.