I have regained my wings or rather, my wheels. As such I am again a wheelborne creature. Free again, subject only to the whims of traffic and parking space.
I read with heavy heart on the Proposed Motion for Dry Bar Event which was tabled and defeated during the recent Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar last Saturday. Heavy heart because it was misconceived. Not well thought out. It was doomed to fail. It smells like preaching to the converted and feels like of a piece of performative piety. The motion itself reads like a dry sermon and I think it had the same effect on the attendees. It was reported that quite a number from the floor spoke on the matter. It was however not stated how many spoke for and how many spoke against the Motion. Oh, I should have been there. If there were a smidgen of regret in my life thus far, this would count as one. To be there at the tumultuous (so I think) hall.
I
have nothing against drinking save perhaps for my religious convictions that
prohibits them. But then, I also believed in personal choices and being
responsible for whatever that choice led to. This is a nation of many no matter
what label you want to stick on it. Secular, serbanistas or whatever. Islam is
about fairness not only for Muslims but for all. For its adherents in the Bar now to
impose their religious convictions against non-believers is unfair, un-Islamic
and oppressive, just as much as it is unfair and oppressive to expect
non-drinking Muslim members of the Bar to attend events where alcoholic
beverages are served. Are they not also members of the Bar with a role to play even
if they chose water over wine?
No,
I do not think the intention was the problem, that is, if the intention was what I think it was. It was how the message was
delivered. Malique wrote in his song Mantera Beradu the line: masuk tempat
orang bawa otak bukan pisau. The proposer certainly had this line backwards.
You do not dump religious arguments on a secular body. Yes, the proposers had a
research paper (or rather the abstract) attached to the motion to prove the evils of drinking but to
push it on a body that styled itself Malaysian Bar is well, I don’t really know
how to react there.
In any event, not only the motion failed, but it could also drive a bigger wedge between two groups of practitioners. The secular and the religious one. One believing the other trying to force the other into submission. I do not expect both to hold hands and gaze soulfully into each other’s eyes at the end of it. I do however expect a mutual, even if grudging, respect. It would have been better if the motion argued on the practicalities and the economics of drinking at Bar events and how the phasing out of alcohol in Bar events can contribute to saving of expenditure which in turn can be utilized for matters and initiatives like that almost free counselling thing they have, or maybe it can bankroll initiatives like getting expert witnesses to testify for legal aid files or maybe a detailed map on the territorial jurisdiction of each district courts instead of having it in circulars that people almost always misses or ended up in spam (unintentionally) or maybe work out a system with the courts in which if a case is postponed a lawyer would notified by email or Whatsapp or SMS so that there would not be wasted time and cost on part of lawyers. In short, spend it on things that can really help all members of the Bar regards of whether they enjoy a tipple or teh tarik after Bar events. That, I think would be a better argument.
Perhaps it would be great in the name of saving ringgits and sens whenever possible for all future Bar events to only serve plain, unadulterated water (ok, maybe with some ice). They say water is neutral. Whatever you add to it next, is on you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment