Who are you?

 

and what do you do is often the lead up question to the primary question that could be what is your name or anak/cucu sapa ni? Usually the latter is only asked during kenduris and family functions by a very senior member of the extended family. As it is, both are just the normal questions we ask to define and categorize people we meet into neat little boxes and we all just play along. One of those all too human trait I guess.

 

The lone wolf types are an anomaly. Not the general rule. We are meant to be social animals. Hence, the need to belong, the yearning to be part of a tribe to define yourself and your place in society. I guess we go through that at every stage of our lives. From kindergarten until the day we die. Oh the things we do to just to be a part of something bigger.

 

I was not spared the same. During secondary school it was the time of a heady mix of subcultures. Skaters, Hip-Hoppers, Punks and Skinheads. You name it. I was not into overly baggy pants and I was too lazy to find myself a decent skateboard and learn to skate. While I do enjoy a bit of Rancid (even today) the Mohawk hairdo was simply too outlandish for me and it would probably would give my dear old Grandmaster a heart attack. What I do have was a hand me down safety boots from me dad (Not Doc Marten), the desire to find a backbreaking work post SPM to be part of the working class and a cheap crew cut. The suspenders would only come years and years later.  But as it was then I became a half-baked skinhead, that was until I finished reading the Skinhead’s Bible. When I finally did, I could answer proudly answer yes to the question; kau ada knowledge tak?

 

Man, the things I do just to fit in. But I never did. I still stuck out like a sore thumb. I am the proverbial square peg. At least I think so. That is my lot in life. To be an outsider looking in. I don’t mind it anymore.

 

There is no reason for me to dwell on the gender aspect of identity. Suffice to say that I am comfortable with the gender I was born into. Somethings you have a say in, somethings you do not. I guess there is a reason for Men to have fragile things hanging down there. They are meant to be both a reminder of the heavy responsibilities of a Man and of how low a Man can go if he were to do his thinking with them. To be rid of them for whatever reason or to deny their existence is to reject those responsibilities the universe has entrusted to you. But if that defines you, hey. You go, you.

  

Call it a mother’s foresight or what you will but it was my mother, not me who started me on my path towards the Law. ‘’Suka membaca kan? Pi buat Law’’ she more or less said a long time ago. So I went to law school and graduated. With hopes of at most being a drafter at the Attorney General Chambers dotting the I’s and crossing the T’s of statutes. A safe role. Punch in, do my job, punch out. Repeat until retirement, or so I thought at that time. If left to myself I would rather be a brown Indiana Jones, robbing tombs and booby trapped caves for museums. Either that or do something to do with books or writing. I can be accused of lacking in ambition. I don’t mind. I’d rather be left alone in my corner of the world to do what I like to do. Then I found general litigation.

I began my first year of practice doing debt recovery work. Attending court to obtain JID’s and such at court before E-Review was implemented. All mundane work. Contested debt recovery files were rare. Even when I was a pupil my pupil master was a practitioner in the banking and debt recovery section. I used to be asked to serve Notice of Demands and take pictures of the property I had served the NOD at, for Feasibility Studies purposes I was told. After office hours I would be going through drafts of Proclamation of Sale all the while the General Litigation team would have their brain storming session in my De Jure Master’s room just across from my cubicle. I remembered thinking; that looks fun. It is.

 

Then, when I was called to the Bar and joined my current firm a walk-in client related to the boss came in asking for someone to represent him to recover some payments and if necessary, to fight in the courts for it over some storyboards and ideas for a TV show. Being a debt recovery and conveyancing firm, nobody had the time to entertain a potential general litigation file, except for the new guy with no portfolio to manage (me). With permission from my Boss, I went in, researched the hell out of it, issued an NoD and negotiated a settlement in favour of the client. Client left a happy man, bought me fancy dinner but at the end of the negotiation when the Settlement Agreement was inked, that was my Eureka moment. I went: Syiok jugak General Lit ni. I never looked back ever since.

 

I am in my tenth year of practicing the arcane arts of lawyering this year and yet still I dare not associate myself with the title lawyer (yes, this again) or litigator. I am competent brawler in court but to call myself a lawyer or litigator, maybe not yet. In my mind I have a long way to go before I can earn the title litigator.

 

I have a practicing certificate (for this year), I dabble in legal disputes in the courts, attend the Annual General Meeting of the Malaysian Bar whenever I can remember it but still I dare not call myself a lawyer. I dare not give a judge a dressing down on social media. I dare not call myself a lawyer online. For me the exalted title of lawyer meant the utmost dedication to the practice of the Law, to have the willingness to give all that you have in service of the Law, to have your every act and every word uttered in line with that end. Me? I have not reached that stage yet. Don’t know when or if I ever will. I am a practitioner of the Law but still I am an outsider looking in and that is fine.

 

Not to say that I am not dedicated to improve myself in my craft. I take every case that came my way seriously, attend to any prospective client the best I can even if I think theirs is a no-hope case (especially when it is a no-hope case. A lost cause are the only ones worth fighting for) while trying to fulfill the need for money. Maybe it is crass to talk about practicing Law and money in the same sentence but the reality is every law firm is a business and every lawyer provides a paid service unless stated otherwise. A business with higher ethical standard but a business nonetheless. Sometimes I wonder how Big Firms do it, that balancing act. No, I lie. I wonder it all the time.

 

In a conversation with a friend and fellow practitioner some time back about the nature of legal practice he said that in the olden days in merry olde England most legal practitioners came from the nobility stock. That might be the reason for calling the Law a noble profession. It means just that, a profession for the nobility whose lands and possessions would allow him to practice the Law free from worries of bills to pay and creditors to appease. Allowing him to fully immerse himself in the Law and to put the interest of the Client and not his own interest first. It’s easy if you are a nobleman I think. It is all that or the idea that the practice of Law is for the nobility might just be a harmless fib from that said friend. A consolation to our precarious existence as small time nobodies. But whatever it is, in a land of Datuks aplenty it does not matter in the end if you bleed blue or red or fluorescent green, we all have bills to pay. Hell, you might have to pay for your Datukship. It is the question of what you are willing to do to pay those bills. Will you cross that line between putting your interest before your client’s? Move the line a few feet? Or pretend the line does not exist?

 

In an ideal world where money and time is no object I would do cases for the heck of it, buy and read the whole lot of law books and attend as many trainings and courses as I can cram and consult as many senior practitioners that I can consult, all to improve my practice and myself, like a hypothetical noble. Alas, I am but a commoner and I do not live in an ideal world. The world I am in right now revolves around bills and debts to be paid and a little family all of which are clamoring for my attention and time is ever fleeting. So to hold myself to the likes of lawyers who lives on principle (I still need my nasik) and have the Law seeping out of their pores, is simply a big ask. There is always a price to pay. I have heard stories of lawyers coming home to an empty house, a shattered marriage, a family in turmoil, abuse substances. That is not a price I am willing to pay. I do however try my best to live up to the ideals of the Bar, to emulate the ones I look up to and adopt their convictions as mine whenever I can. I fail most of the time but not for lack of trying.

 

I once told my wife that she has my permission to slap me with her full might should I ever forget that I am a father to a two boys and a husband to a wife because when I first realized how much I enjoyed doing contested matters I know that work and life balance will be out of whack most of the time and I will need a constant reminder. A mighty slap will do. My wife and not the Law, is the pillar of my practice. Without my wife, I would not have the opportunity to hunt for opportunities to perform in court, to fight a fair and honest fight. Without my wife and her understanding and patient nature, I could have not done what I have done so far in my practice. I owe it to my wife and kids to be the best at what I do. It is my two boys and not the Law that kept me on the straight and narrow path (may it be so for ever). I know that despite their age, they know and they listen and they see every single thing that I say and do. They inspire me to be the best that I can be as a father, a husband and a lawyer and above all to be accountable for my actions, to extend compassion and understanding to my fellow man (and woman) so that maybe in the future they can say: if Abah can do it so can we.

I hope.

 

There is a scene in Fight Club that I really love. Tyler Durden and the unnamed narrator had a Chinese cashier named Raymond K. Hassel pulled out of the convenience store into the parking lot where he was questioned at gunpoint of what he wanted to be. In the end Raymond told Tyler and the unnamed narrator that he planned to be a veterinarian but stopped halfway because ‘It was too hard’’. With the gun pointed to his head, he had a promise extracted out of him that he will resume his studies to be a veterinarian. I like the scene because it was a crude reminder to us that we need that metaphorical gun pointed to our head to achieve or do what truly resonates with our soul. That yearning that kept us awake late at night. That thing that forms our identity. Screw all those excuses. The practice of Law should not be the end all and be all of you. Practitioner ought to be able to at least dual wield, maybe more disciplines apart from the Law, especially one or two or more that really calls to you. Peter the Great of Russia mastered 15 manual professions from blacksmithing, carpentry to stonemasonry. Okay, fine. He might be an absolute ruler with servants at his beck and call but you get the idea. Leonardo Da Vinci, that natural son of a notary. No noble bloodline, not a Tsar. Now that is another example of multidisciplinary individual. A lot of the big names in the Islamic Golden age have more than one expertise. The point is, the Law maybe a jealous mistress but I’d like to believe there are room in a practitioner’s life for a few more. Maybe a lawyer, silambam master and pro ballroom dancer combo. Or a lawyer, the next Man Kidal and a judo master. Something like that. Even when I was in the volunteer copper corp we were told that officers are expected to be an accomplished public speaker, a golfer and fully capable of belting out soulful tunes. I am working on the first two but the last one is beyond me.

 

Fahri once told me that there was one thinker (I forgot his name, I wrote it down somewhere) who said that there are no solutions to a problem, only trade offs. The said thinker was speaking about the unintended consequence of affirmative action for the African American in the US as I recall it. Be that as it may, the quote was a profound one and true on so many levels. It got me thinking in terms the identity we have constructed for ourselves. What we hold dear, our principles forms a bulk of our identity.

 

No person ever woke up one morning and decided to cast his lot with the Devil. That much is obvious. The fall from grace is never instantaneous. It is more like a gentle slide. In this age of blinding speed communication and hasty decisions, bills and debts past due, it is easy to make an exception. Cut a corner. Pad that bill, increase the disbursement, make something up ‘’Just this time. No one will know (But we will)’’ or ‘’Make a business decision’’ we tell ourselves. Before we know it exceptions became the norm, the general rule. What then remains of our principles? What is then left of our identity?

 

Everyday I have to remind myself that I am not how much money I have in my bank account, not my beat up car that I drive, the contents of my wallet or my beloved khakis. I am the sum of choices that I make every single day. It is not easy to stay the course, to stay you in this confused, hyper capitalistic world. The temptation to keep your head down, follow the herd and float in the calm waters of mundanity is all too powerful. Same goes to the temptation to take the easy way out of things, justify it all you want. What is wrong is wrong. Life is hard and it is not fair but that is not a good reason to be unfair to others and to yourself.  Face that 100 foot wave in your rickety old boat, spank the Devil and tell ‘im to get thee behind me. Be you, stay you come what may. Archimedes once said with a good fulcrum and a long lever, one can move the world. A good sense of who you are as a person is the fulcrum, our patience the lever. Apply that and we can truly move the world. 

 

    

Stars

 

It rained hard this evening. A thunder rain. A scale lower than a thunderstorm on my scale. Heavy rain with its attendant lightning but no howling wind. In any case there was raid but it was the lightning that stole the thunder. The building next door was struck by lightning twice. The glass façade of the neighbouring buildings went blinding white everytime it struck. On the radio PSAs about flood evacuation centers and flooding reminder had started coming on. This morning when I sent my youngest to his kindergarten I had to maneuver around a fallen tree limb that would have severely dent a car or cause serious injury to a motorcyclist. The wind and rain had finally caught up with the grand old tree it would seem. The monsoon is finally here. Get your raincoats out and bugout bags ready. It is not the time for swimming. 

I left office sometime after midnight after catching up on some work and with things with Man. I did not notice when rainclouds had finally done its business over Klang Valley and had finally went to bed because what greeted me when I exited my car at home was a sight so beautiful that I just had to stay out there and brave the cold wet night a few moments longer to just stare at the clear night sky where the stars are all out in force. The sky was sprinkled with stars that normally one could not see with the clouds and the artificial light coming from homes and street lights. I can see the many constellations they had taught us back in primary school. They shone bright against the black night sky. There, the big dipper and there be scorpio or something and many others whose names had escaped my sleep-addled mind. The brightest of them all; The North Star. The guiding star. My God. I might not be able to see something like it ever again for no two night sky is the same. Just like no two sunrise is the same. There will be difference and variations in hue and colour. What a glorious sight.

The stars made me think about life and how myopic I can be most of the time. Too cooped up in my all too human issues that I fail to remember that for all the ugliness and sadness we have here on earth we often forget that just overhead beauty lies. It consoles me and humbles me to be reminded that there are things that bigger than me and what ever issues I may have. I think I get it why the ancients looked to the night sky. Looking at it soothes the heart and mind like a balm over a burn. Like a sweet lullaby. Comforting and familiar. It keeps them grounded to the fact that on the grand scale of things we are but insignificant. A mere mote of dust in the almost unending expanse of universe.

I wanted to keep on staring at the sky and let waking dream slowly cover me again like a warm blanket but I had to go in after my neck started to hurt. I hope I get to see such a beautiful sight again. If I do not, I hope I will the memory of this night will stay lodged in my mind for all time. The night the stars came out to play.

On Death.

 

I am typing this while nursing a headache. Maybe not massive enough to stop me from typing but still enough for me to grit my teeth every now and then when the throbbing ache comes around.

Nothing like a spot of sickness to remind you of your mortality. That your flesh is slowly breaking down until finally it is food for worms and bones for the ground. That ours is a brief existence, our 60-70 years on earth (if we are lucky) are but mere momentary spark in the darkness of space. A blip in the steady march of Time.  

 

I read somewhere that the moment our firstborn comes into this world, after the joy of having someone bearing your surname had tapered off the next thing a man thinks of would be of his end. We ought to. The birth of a son or a daughter was a crossing of an unseen threshold in time. That part of our reason of being has been fulfilled now that we have a progeny. All there is left to do is to ensure to the best of our abilities that our family will survive and if possible, thrive. In modern context, we are to weather remainder of our time with its never ending cycles of bills and payments, building that financial foundation for our children and our family. Gathering all we can in preparation for that inevitable day when we are no longer there. In between all that, trying to find the meaning of it all or to give meaning to it all.

 

 

The long and short of it is that we are born, we find our mate, we procreate, all this while things happen to us. Then we die. At least that is the case with male praying mantis. Quaere: What does one call a mantis who had lost his or her faith? Lapsed mantis? Atheist mantis?  

 

 

The only difference between a landfill and a graveyard is that the latter is full of rituals and tears and headstones. Let us not forget the headstones. Speaking of headstones, it is said (can’t remember who) that the first steps towards civilization began the moment our ancestors developed elaborate death rituals, burials and belief (or beliefs) in the afterlife. But how come for all the advances we have made in the sciences the belief in life after death is no longer the thing? Maybe we have shifted our belief from the intangible to the tangible. From the heaven and hell to dollars and cents. The ATM is our altar, the offering is our bank cards. The afterlife is the better life promised in television advertisements or radio jingles. After all, why yearn for that pie in the sky when a real one will do? Or could it be that all this chase for bigger and better things is just our coping mechanism, our way of distracting ourselves from the inevitable.

 

A painting will crack and lose it’s luster, an iron sword will rust away. Flowers bloom and then wither and rot away. Just like me. I will die, we all will. It is the way of the world. The difference is or how we act in the face of it. I dare not say that I will be brave in the face of it for I really do not know. Come to think of it, it is like a trial or hearing that you dread and try to prepare for. At least you know the trial date in advance and trial dates can be vacated and rescheduled again. Not Death.

 

That final frontier. It can be anytime and for whatever cause. No one has ever come back from it to let us know how it was yet millions had passed through its gates. All descriptions of it are either theories or articles of faith. Disembodied intellect, atoms in the void or the sleep of the dead (if you are lucky) before the Final Accounting and onwards to Heaven or Hell, take your pick. Whatever you hold the Next Thing After Death to be, Death it is also the final lesson in growing up. That one day our fathers and our mothers will no longer be around to sooth us in our moments of pain, to impart us their wisdom when we are in doubt or to nag at us when we truly needed it. All will end. All shall end.

 

In Havamal verses 77-78 it is written thus:

"Deyr fé,

deyja frændr,

deyr sjalfr it sama,

en orðstírr

deyr aldregi,

hveim er sér góðan getr.

Deyr fé,

deyja frændr,

deyr sjalfr it sama,

ek veit einn,

at aldrei deyr:

dómr um dauðan hvern."

English translation:

Cattle die,

Friends die,

So, too, must you die.

Though one thing

Never dies;

The fair fame one has earned.

Cattle die,

Friends die,

So, too, must you die.

I know one,

That never dies;

Judgement of a dead man's life

In Death, our life will be judged by our fellow Man whether or not you believe in the Next Thing. Judged and then gradually forgotten as tears dry, compassionate leave is used up and life went on and it will go on for the living. The Dead has no business cluttering the life of the living. 

Ever since it was mandatory to interact with the Malaysian Bar website for renewal of practicing certificates, I would from time to time look at the In Memoriam section. Partly out of morbid curiosity and partly just to remind myself that some day, it would be my name in the section should I still be practicing at the moment of my demise. It would state in brief where I was practicing and whether or not I was high up in the seniority list of the members. I wonder then what would happen to the briefs I was engaged for, would the client trust my colleague to carry on or would they look for another law firm to represent them. Some days it would be a member of the Bar of some seniority. On another day, it would be someone younger than me. A mother, a father. Someone’s son or daughter. It was their time as it will surely be mine. How then would my family and loved ones fare after my passing? Will they be okay? Will the Lawcare entitlement be of some help to them? But these are worries of the living, not for the Dead. Just like worrying over whether i am making enough. 

I do not expect to make a mountain of gold out of my time practicing the Law. Just some means to provide a living for my family and maybe, just maybe give out a little light of hope or defiance to those who need it. Feeble and windblown as it may be. To give some meaning to my brief existence, to be of some use to people around me.

Immortality is an impossibility. It does not exist. Just like the perfect client. But in legal practice there is immortality of sorts. Your bouts in the courts as reported in the law journals, both good and bad. That is, if it is a case of some significance and some future use and if it is reported. But again, why do i care? I'll be dead. 

 

 

 

 

Bully

Baru-baru ini aku ada diminta untuk mewakili seorang pentadbir estet si mati berkenaan dengan keengganan satu firma guaman untuk melepaskan suratan hakmilik asal satu hartanah milik si mati. Cerita pendeknya, sekitar tahun 2002 Si Penyewa yang merupakan kenalan si Mati telah dihalau keluar dari rumahnya. Kebetulan pada waktu itu Si Mati baru sahaja berjaya membeli rumah mampu milik (hartanah dalam cerita ini) tapi sedang berhempas pulas mencari duit untuk membayar deposit rumah mampu milik tersebut. Bagai orang mengantuk disorongkan bantal, si Penyewa yang terdengar mengenai peluang ini pun mencadangkan pada Si Mati; deposit rumah biar Si Penyewa bayar dengan syarat si Penyewa boleh mendiami di rumah tersebut buat sementara waktu. Duit deposit nanti Si Mati bayar kemudian. Rumah tersebut sewaktu dibeli si Mati masih belum lagi dikeluarkan suratan hakmiliknya.

Bila Si Mati berjaya mendapat pinjaman bank, Si penyewa cepat-cepat menawarkan diri untuk membayar ansuran bulanan bank. Si Mati pun benarkan kerana menganggap bayaran tersebut berbentuk sewaan yang membenarkan Si Penyewaa terus tinggal di rumah tersebut. Si Mati dan si Penyewa ni pun kenalan jadi tiada sebarang perjanjian sewaan dibuat diantara mereka. Agak lama juga Si Penyewa tinggal di rumah tersebut. Si Mati meninggal dunia sekitar tahun 2022. Namun sebelum meninggal dunia, Si Mati ada berpesan pada pentadbir estet, kalau apa-apa terjadi pada Si Mati, pentadbir hendaklah memutuskan nasib rumah tersebut. Hendak dijual pada orang lain atau hendak dibiarkan terus disewa Si Penyewa. Masa akan menunjukkan tindakan Si Mati menolong si Penyewa ini umpama melepaskan anjing tersepit.

Bila pentadbir selesai dengan urusan permohonan surat kuasa mentadbir, EPF dan SOCSO si Mati, sampai pula giliran hartanah tersebut untuk diuruskan. Bila tanya dengan Bank, diberitahu baki pinjaman yang belum selesai dan disuruh tanya kepada pemaju berkenaan pindah milik. Pemaju pula suruh ditanyakan kepada peguam Pindah Milik yang dilantik pemaju sama ada dah dipindahmilik ke belum hartanah tersebut kepada nama Si Mati. Peguam pindahmilik lantikan pemaju pula mengelak-elak dari berjumpa. Macam-macam alasan diberikan. Peguam tak ada di pejabat. Peguam cuti tahunan lah. Jadi pentadbir pun terus ke Pejabat Tanah untuk mendapatkan penjelasan. Di sana, carian tanah dibuat mendapati geran individu rumah tersebut telah dikeluarkan sejak tahun 2007 lagi. Jadi berbekalkan dengan carian tanah itu tadi pentadbir terus ke pejabat peguam pindahmilik lantikan pemaju (kita panggil mereka sebagai Peguam Jahanam). Sampai ke sana, peguam masih tak ada di pejabat. Tak pasti alasan apa yang diberikan. Penerangan diberikan oleh kerani yang menguruskan fail tersebut. Katanya walaupun geran asal memang berada dalam milikan firma, firma memang tidak akan dan tidak mahu memindahmilik hartanah kepada Si Mati atau warisnya kerana Si Mati tidak pernah membuat bayaran ansuran bank, sebaliknya semua bayaran ansuran dibuat oleh Si Penyewa dan kononnya Si Mati ada berjanji akan menjual hartanah tersebut kepada Si Penyewa, buktinya ada satu Borang 14A yang telah ditandatangani Si Mati (Kita panggil borang tersebut Borang Pindahmilik Pelik). Kemuncaknya adalah bila si kerani beritahu pada pentadbir, kesian pada Si Mati, kalau tak pindahmilik pada Si Penyewa takut roh Si Mati tak tenang sebab dah janji.

Pentadbir bijak merakam senyap-senyap penerangan si kerani tadi. Patah balik ke Pejabat Tanah dengan hati kegeraman dan sedih berbaur-baur untuk tanya apa yang boleh dibuat, Pejabat Tanah kata lantik peguam. Pegi ke Biro Bantuan Guaman, diberitahu luar bidang kuasa. Entah macam mana pada masa yang sama pentadbir ada pembeli yang berminat dengan hartanah tersebut. Peguam pembeli yang banyak membantu. Tulis dua surat minta diberikan suratan hakmilik asal rumah tersebut, hanya satu yang dibalas. Satu balasan yang diterima bukan dari Peguam Jahanam tapi daripada peguam yang kononnya mewakili Si Penyewa. Surat balasan mengatakan bahawa Penyewa telah membeli rumah tersebut daripada Si Mati dan Si Penyewa sedang mengumpulkan segala bukti pembayaran yang telah dibuat kepada bank bagi pinjaman perumahan dan juga meminta agar pentadbir mengeluarkan rumah tersebut daripada senarai aset dan liabiliti surat kuasa mentadbir. Bila tak berkesan dengan surat meminta geran strata asal cuba dengan panggilan telefon pula. Bila tak lut juga, peguam pembeli mencadangkan cari peguam litigasi. Di sini aku mula terlibat.

Jumpa dengan pentadbir, semua diceritakan pada aku termasuklah kaveat yang dimasukkan si Penyewa dan keadaan ekonomi keluarga yang memang tak punya pendapatan selepas satu kemalangan di tempat kerja oleh pentadbir yang berniaga membuatkan beliau 3 bulan tidak dapat berniaga kerana tangan kanan ada luka dalaman membawa kepada nanah. Kereta pula ditarik oleh bank kerana tunggakan bayaran (ialah, tak ada pendapatan dari perniagaan), anak kemalangan jalan raya, bapa pula jatuh sakit tiba-tiba. Bertimpa-timpa ujian. Mata pentadbir berkaca-kaca bila tanya aku: jadi Encik ambil kes saya ke? Tentang bayaran nanti saya usahakan.

Aku yang mulanya hati keras nak mintak sekurang-kurangnya separuh dari fee guaman yang aku nak letak terus terdiam. Agaknya nampak jelas aku teragak-agak, dia bawa keluar surat dari JKM yang mengatakan dia dapat bantuan RM 300 setiap bulan. Semalam Encik ada minta saya bawa kan?

Ligat otak aku berpikir. Dengan mendengar sahaja cerita sambil selak-selak dokumen yang disediakan aku nampak Si Mati ni dibuli Si Penyewa. Peguam pindahmilik ni pulak membuli pentadbir. Panas hati dibuatnya. Aku pandang pentadbir dan aku nampak Mak. Nampak Mak seorangan bersusah payah membesarkan kami adik -beradik sambil membebel pada Takdir sampai takdir pun mengalah. Lepas tu Mak kena buli dengan peguam. Actually, takkan berlaku pada Mak. Mak will take no shit from anyone. Least of all, from bullies.

Kesudahannya aku mengangguk setuju. Senyum kelat. Rasa malu sendiri kerana terlalu sangsi dengan kesusahan orang lain. Bukan tak biasa didendang cerita sedih dari mereka yang mengelak dari nak bayar fi guaman. Terlalu biasa sampai dah jadi pesimistik. Dalam kepala masih tak pasti aku buat benda betul ke tidak. Otak rasional kata ini bukan tindakan yang menguntungkan. Janji untuk membayar bukanlah bayaran dan aku bukan dalam kedudukan selesa pada waktu ini untuk buat kerja pro bono. Hati aku pulak menjerit-jeri kalau bukan sekarang, bila lagi?. Sebelum perjumpaan tamat, aku maklumkan pada pentadbir aku takkan bekerja seorang diri, aku akan ajak kawan atau kawan-kawan untuk sama-sama mengerjakan kes ini. Pasal fee guaman, bincang kemudian. Pentadbir cuma kata, tak kisah asal buat sampai jadi. Maka lepas tamat perjumpaan terus aku call kawan aku.

Aku berterus-terang dengan kawan aku itu yang ini berkemungkinan tak dapat bayaran atau kalau dapat pun mungkin sekadar bayaran minima. Dia bilang takpa, tengok dokumen dulu. Jadi petang esoknya kami sama-sama dengan tenang menelaah salinan dokumen yang diberikan pentadbir. Dalam kepala aku seorang sami Zen sedang bertenggek atas batu besar sambil menyapu corak-corak menarik di atas batuan kerikil di taman batu Zen. 

Rumah tersebut adalah rumah pangsapuri kos rendah. Maka Jadual H Akta Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Perlesenan) 1966 (‘’HDA’’) adalah terpakai. Jadual H, HDA adalah terma-terma Perjanjian Jual-Beli bagi unit perumahan bertingkat atau akan dipecah kepada milikan strata. Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Ang Ming Lee dan PJD Regency telah memutuskan bahawa HDA dan regulasi yang dibuat dibawahnya (termasuklah Regulasi Pemajuan Perumahan (Kawalan dan Perlesenan) 1989 (’HDR 89’)) adalah satu social legislation yang bertujuan untuk melindungi pembeli rumah (Rujuk: Nota). Maka jika kontrak jual beli rumah tersebut jatuh bawah HDA maka Jadual-jadual di bawah HDR ‘89 adalah wajib terpakai sebagai statutory contract tanpa sebarang tokok-tambah dibenarkan.

Dalam Jadual H HDR 89 pada sebelum pindaan tahun 2015, Klausa 11 memperuntukkan seperti berikut:

‘’(1) Penjual hendaklah, dengan kos dan perbelanjaannya sendiri dan dengan seberapa cepat yang boleh, memohon untuk memecahbahagikan Bangunan tersebut bagi memperoleh pengeluaran dokumen hakmilik strata yang berasingan bagi Petak tersebut di bawah Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985.

(2) Apabila hakmilik strata dikeluarkan bagi Petak tersebut dan tertakluk kepada pembayaran harga beli oleh Pembeli kepada Penjual mengikut subfasal 4(1) dan pematuhan segala terma dan syarat yang diperuntukkan dalam Perjanjian ini, maka Penjual hendaklah, dalam tempoh dua puluh satu (21) hari, menyempurnakan memorandum pindah milik yang sah dan boleh daftar bagi Petak tersebut kepada Pembeli, warisnya atau penerima namaan atau penerima serah hak yang sah, mengikut mana-mana yang berkenaan.’'

Macam aku katakan tadi, Hakmilik strata dikeluarkan pada tahun 2007. Bagi aku munasabah. Perjanjian Jual Beli ditandatangani 2002, projek makan masa 3 tahun, baki 2 tahun untuk pecah geran dan pengeluaran hakmilik strata. Persoalannya kenapa pindahmilik nama kepada Si Mati hanya dibuat pada tahun 2022, lebih kurang lima belas (15) tahun selepas hakmilik strata dikeluarkan. Apa yang peguam pemaju buat? 

Kepala penyapu tertanggal secara tiba-tiba. Sami menggaru kepala dan pergi cari penyapu baru.

Ok-lah, Husnuzon. Mungkin pemaju yang lambat bagi arahan pada peguam pindahmilik. Aku tengok lagi dokumen.

Sampai ke Borang Pindahmilik Pelik. Aku tengok bertarikh tahun 2021, ada nama dan tandatangan Si Mati. Penerima pindah milik, nama anak perempuan Si Penyewa. Agaknya ini urusan jual beli yang si Penyewa katakan itu. Bila tengok alasan pindahmilik; kasih sayang.

Kekarutan jenis apakah ini?

Sami tergelincir lalu bergolek jatuh beliau dari batu besar tempat tenggekannya tadi. Bingkas bangun dan membetulkan corak dibatuan kerikil yang rosak. Makin dibetul makin lari, tak sekata dengan corak yang lain. Terkumat-kamit mulut mengulang mantra kesabaran. 

Bila ditanya pada peguam-peguam hartanah semua hairan, alasan kasih sayang untuk pindahmilik ini hanya untuk suami isteri, ibu bapa kepada anak. Semakan kepada perintah Duti setem dari tahun 2001 hingga tahun 2021 pun sama. Whatapp pantas kepada pentadbir mengesahkan Si Mati kenalan sahaja kepada Si Penyewa, tak adalah begitu rapat sampai nak ambil anak perempuannya jadi anak angkat.

Padanlah pentadbir ada cerita bila diberitahu dan ditunjuk Borang Pindahmilik Pelik oleh kakitangan peguam pindahmilik dia naik hiba. Ada nama perempuan lain tak dikenali, lepas tu alasan pindahmilik; kasih sayang. Isteri mana tak kecik hati.

Pastu aku tengok balik Borang Pindahmilik Pelik dan nampak nama firma guaman yang menyaksikan tandatangan memorandum tersebut. Nama firma guaman yang sama dengan peguam pindahmilik. Peguam jahanam. Terus buntang mata aku. Padanlah dok mengelak-elak dari jumpa pentadbir, tak nak bagi Suratcara Hakmilik Strata Asal. Fi pindahmilik ke Si Mati kau dapat lepas itu dari Si Penyewa pun kau nak jugak. Kiri kanan kau sapu. Yang jadi mangsanya pentadbir dan waris Si Mati.

Dalam minda aku penyapu sudah patah dua dan sami sedang mengulang koan-koan kesabaran dengan mata terkatup rapat.

‘’Tengok ni’’ kata kawan aku sambil tunjuk satu dokumen. Satu perjanjian sewaan, lokasi sewaan adalah alamat rumah dalam kes ni. Bila tengok nama pemilik rumah, ianya nama yang sama di dalam Memorandum Pindahmilik Pelik iaitu nama anak perempuan Si Penyewa. Kata beli rumah tu tapi alasan pindahmilik kasih sayang lepas tu peguam pemaju juga adalah peguam Si Penyewa untuk pindahmilik rumah kepada anak si Penyewa. Pastu belum tentu arah lagi dah mengaku jadi tuan rumah, sewakan rumah pada pihak ketiga. Aku bersandar ke kerusi, capai pouch tembakau dan terus gulung sebatang rokok.

Penyapu sedang terbakar bersama-sama daun kering yang dikumpul dan pakaian si sami yang dikoyak-koyak. Si sami yang hanya bercawat pula sedang menyepak-nyepak corak batuan kerikil sambil terpekik-pekik kemarahan.

‘’Celaka punya lawyer’’ kata kawan aku tadi. ‘’Okeh, onz buat file ni’’ dia sambung lagi sebelum sedut asap vape dalam-dalam.

Malam itu juga aku deraf Notis Tuntutan kepada Peguam Jahanam. Selepas itu, aku isi borang aduan pada Badan Disiplin. Kami rancang untuk terjah pejabat Peguam Jahanam, bagi masa sejam untuk dapatkan suratan hakmilik strata asal keesokan petangnya juga sebagai langkah permulaan. Kalau tak dapat, minggu depannya segala saman dan aduan akan menimpa Peguam Jahanam. Pentadbir juga diminta untuk berada di kawasan berdekatan esok untuk bersedia terima suratan hakmilik strata, kalau peguam jahanam tiba-tiba mengalah. 

Esok harinya, aku terlambat ke tempat pertemuan dengan pentadbir iaitu sebuah kedai makan berdekatan dengan pejabat peguam jahanam. Kawan aku dah sampai dulu. Dia dah perkenal diri bagai. Borak dua-tiga minit kemudian terus ke pejabat Peguam Jahanam. Di ruangan menunggu ada pasangan Melayu sedang duduk. Sesampainya di sana ada kerani dengan muka bosan tanya ada urusan apa.

Kawan aku dengan suara keras berkata, saya nak serve Notis Tuntutan.

Pada siapa ya? tanya kerani masih lagi bosan.

Pada firma ni, jawab kawan aku dengan nada kuat.

Terkedu kerani tadi, dari ekor mata aku nampak pasangan tadi terus menoleh pada kawan aku dengan muka terkejut.

Peguam yang in charge untuk file ini Puan xxxxx kan? Saya nak jumpa dia kata kawan aku.

Dia tengah solat Encik. Encik tunggu sekejap boleh? jawab kerani tadi sehabis lembut.

Jadi kami pun tunggu. Sambil tunggu nampak kerani yang terima Notis Tuntutan itu masuk ke bilik peguam dan duduk lama disitu. Bila dipanggil masuk ke bilik peguam sambil duduk kawan aku terus beritahu apa tujuan datang. Seperti dipersetujui, aku biar kawan aku yang bercakap. Aku tak percaya diri aku untuk bercakap bila banyak benda yang nak dihambur. 

Paling penting sekali, kawan aku beritahu, Puan ada masa sejam dari sekarang untuk serahkan Suratcara Hakmilik Strata kepada kami seperti dinyatakan dalam Notis Tuntutan kami ni.

Kalau tak? tanya Peguam tersebut buat-buat bijak cuba cari masa untuk berfikir.

Kalau tak, I’ll see you in court, kata kawan aku tenang. Ayat klise tapi mengancam.

Peguam telan air liur, buat-buat minta kerani carikan fail. Fail tak jumpa kononnya.

Kami dah angkat punggung nak beransur tiba tiba fail sampai. Duduk balik. Peguam cuba nak menerang, kata ada dapat surat dari peguam si Penyewa kata beliau akan mulakan tindakan Mahkamah untuk menuntut hakmilik rumah tersebut kerana beliau yang bayar ansuran bulanan pada bank jadi mereka tak berani nak menyerahkan geran asal pada pentadbir walaupun tahu pentadbir berhak pada geran asal.

Badan aku dah ke depan nak menjawab sebelum teringat janji aku untuk kunci mulut walaupun banyak boleh ditanya dan dimakikan, aku bersandar balik ke kerusi. Kawan aku tolak balik surat itu tanpa tengok, sebab kami dah tengok pun surat tu semalamnya dari dokumen yang diberikan pentadbir. Bila nampak alasan diberi tidak kami terima, peguam beri pula alasan perlu call terlebih dahulu peguam si Penyewa untuk meminta kepastian. Aku tahan keinginan untuk hambur kata-kata kesat atas alasan tak masuk akal yang diberikan.  Kawan aku cuma cakap, Puan buatlah apa Puan nak buat. Puan ada masa sejam.

Kami pun kembali ke kedai makan sambung berborak dengan pentadbir. Kurang dari sejam dapat panggilan. Geran sedia diambil. Cuma peguam jahanam minta salinan surat kuasa mentadbir. Kami buat arrangement untuk serahkan kemudian.

Pegi kembali ke pejabat peguam jahanam. Sign surat pelepasan geran dan ambil geran. Sambil-sambil kawan aku sign surat, Peguam cuba-cuba buat baik dengan kawan aku. Borak kosong. Very eager to please. Siap tawarkan ada satu kes jenayah untuk kawan aku kerjakan. Entahkan ye ke entahkan tidak. Dalam hati aku dok pikir, nampak macam biasa sangat menawar gula-gula untuk melancar kerja atau menghadang bala. Takut dengan kawan aku pun boleh jadi juga.

Peguam jahanam juga ada ulang kembali yang dia tak ada hak untuk pegang geran lama-lama sebab dia kena pindahmilik pada Si Mati. Nak sahaja aku maki; dah tu kenapa sampai lepas 15 tahun geran strata keluar baru kau nak pindahmilik pada Si Mati?

Aku tak percaya pemaju yang lambat setelkan borang pindahmilik. Fakta-fakta yang ada lebih berat menunjukkan kepada peguam jahanam memegang geran strata asal rumah tersebut dengan harapan pentadbir akan putus asa dan membenarkan pindahmilik kepada si Penyewa disempurnakan.

Kembali ke kedai makan, serah geran asal pada pentadbir. Senyum lebar pentadbir, ucap terima kasih berulang-kali. Sebelum mata berkaca (mata pentadbir, bukan mata aku), aku dengan kawan cepat-cepat beransur mencari tempat lagi selesa untuk berbual, berasap dan menyusun langkah seterusnya. Panjang lagi perjalanan kes. Banyak kausa tindakan dan banyak pihak boleh diheret sama.

Bila kami dah tenang-tenang di kedai satu lagi sambil hirup milo ais aku beritahu dia: Brader, lu memang power. Tenang all the way. Kalau aku pegi sorang tak rasa boleh settle hari ini juga. Dia senyum dan cakap rasa senang hati dapat tolong orang yang betul-betul kena tindas. Aku mengangguk setuju sambil sedut asap. Dalam hati berdoa harapnya aku tak tergelincir dari landasan bila digoda dengan wang. 

Nota:

Ang Ming Lee & Ors v. Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and other appeals [2020] 1 CLJ 162; [2020] 1 MLJ 281

PJD Regency Sdn Bhd v. Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and other appeals [2021] 2 CLJ 441; [2021] 2 MLJ 60

Hang Solo

When I did my very first trial under my own firm name I was lucky enough to be able to rope in a more experienced friend into helping me out. At that point of time my cross examination skills was rudimentary. I have the basic theories right but the execution was horrible. The said friend did criminal trials on almost weekly basis. I’ve seen him in action a few times and the way he sweet talked witnesses into ritual suicide on the stand is just exquisite.

I was for the Plaintiff. One day half way through the trial the said friend made an observation about the counsel for the 1st Defendant. ‘’I have mad respect for him.’’ said my friend. When asked why he said, ‘’because conducting a criminal trial is no cake walk. Conducting a civil trial with all the cause papers and bundles to prepare on your own and then to examine and cross examine witnesses all alone while referring to bundles of documents at trial is either an act of supreme confidence or desperation. Look, even 2nd Defendant’s counsel had a younger colleague helping him out.’’ said my friend while motioning to the senior practitioner chilling while his younger colleague was busy wrestling with our voluminous bundles of document (3 years worth of WhatsApp Conversations) into their bags. The 2nd Defendant was a commercial entity hence the senior-junior team conducting the defence for 2nd Defendant. 1st Defendant’s counsel had a crappy set of facts but he soldiered on and he soldiered on alone. I looked to 1st Defendant’s counsel with new found respect. He must have known I was looking because he struck a few heroic poses for my sake. A few weeks later he closed his branch of the firm and went on to join government service.

I agreed with my friend. I believe that at trial two or more heads are better than one. Same goes with eyes and ears. What one set misses the others will pick up. Or so how my logic went at that time.

Fast forward a few years, I had to conduct a trial solo. My cross-examination skills are better but the trial itself was a harrowing experience. It was an investment scam case. I represented the Defendant. I had a lousy set of facts and minimal documentary proof. When I took up the brief I told the client that I will do my best but best be prepared for the worst. I was poring over my trial notes a few days later when I realized that there were areas that could have been improved upon, a gap in a cross-examination answer that could be exploited and I overlooked them. In between keeping an eye on the judge’s response, thinking on my feet, parrying numerous technical objections and hurling a few of my own, cross-examining witnesses, taking down answers to cross-exam questions and taking down issues for submission and so on I came to understand why some lawyers charge big bucks for the trial alone. There are a lot of things to keep track on during trial and you have to do it all at the same time. To do that alone requires a quick mind honed out of countless of trials. But for greenhorns, best get someone to second chair for you. Most of my practicing friends of similar years in practice realized the same thing at around the same time. We began to do trials in pairs or even better, in small groups whenever possible. We get the job done, together.

Hashing out a line of argument or a cross-exam questions out on your own is okay but with a friend or two, it is more lively, less of a chore and you get the benefit of a new point of view to improve and tighten any argument or when necessary, discard an argument in favour of a new one.

Conducting trials with friends are better than doing it by your lonesome. Physical trials that is, where the pressure is amplified and there is no screen between you and the judge. Again it is the two or more heads are better than one thing. Once, I ran out of breath while cross-examining a witness and had to sit down. With the court’s leave my friend carried on cross-examining the witness, with his own style but within the agreed line of questioning. Handy to have a friend help out during trial, and fun. Just like it is fun to have a road trip for that out of town trial with friends. It is fun to see an opposing witness dig himself deeper into a hole over a line of questions that have been jointly crafted out together with friends. When the day’s session is done, it is fun to hunt for a place to eat, drink and be merry and reflect on the day. With friends it is less stressful and memorable to do trials with friends. It has something to do with the free exchanges in conversations as opposed to the stilted ones between senior-junior or boss-underling.

Once I had a trial in the East Coast during Ramadhan with the aforementioned friend. It was a hot day. Despite the air-conditioning the heat somehow affected the pace of the trial. Everything and everyone moved in slower pace. The hot weather and slow trial was more than made up by the varied fare of the extra meriah and extra huge Bazaar Ramadhan near the hotel where we were lodging. So when I got back to my room waiting for the time for me to down that air mata kucing I had bought, I realized I had some of my friend’s kueh with me. When he answered the door, he was wiping off some excess Mayonnaise off his lips no doubt from that sexy looking batch of Roti John we each had bought at the bazaar. In jest I went: Amboi, dah jalan dulu. His feeble defence was: Aku uzur lah. Can’t remember if I flipped him the bird in reply with it being Ramadhan and all. Another time the same guy almost set his mattress on fire in a non-smoking room. It is those kind of things which made doing trials with friends memorable. It is always an adventure.

But damn that Roti John was good.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not making light of a client’s plight or taking his cause for granted over some Roti John. Sure when I do trials I want to win but to win or to lose is not entirely up to me. I cannot guarantee that. I am not in the business of giving guarantees. What is up to me is to prepare for it and deliver it in court the best I possibly can. That is legal representation is after all. If I can do it all better with friends and have fun while at it, why not?

Hang Tuah had his fellow Hangs. Han Solo had Chewbacca to watch his back and to co-pilot the Millenium Falcon. Me? I say hang solo trials. Anything worth doing is worth doing with friends.

Satisfaction.

 

For the longest time I had been eyeing a book at the Curve’s Borders. It was a book about dueling entitled Pistols at Dawn. When I finally got the book I was in my fifth year in practice and the book had shifted from the normal shelf to the almost-bargain bin shelf facing the open glass walls. Years of exposure to the Sun had bleached the spine into an ugly off-green colour. I got a nice discount for that book and that was satisfying. But, whenever I look at the spine I still had that internal ‘’aiyoh, poor little book’’ going on in my mind. Luckily, I do not judge a book by its spine. Though the cover matters.

Anyway, I got the book because the subject of duels and how it evolved from medieval trial by combat fascinates me. That, and also the fact that Men used to carry their honour around like one would would carry a clutch of eggs of very brittle shell. A wrong look, a laughter at the wrong time, a misunderstood comment, a blow (not that one) and being made a cuckold could be the cause of a duel and the list of duellable grievances could range from the ‘’boleh slow talk’’ kind of thing (definitely not to cuckoldry) to the absurd.

According to the book, as the judicial system matured to court as means of settling disputes duels did not diminish in its stature as dispute resolution method. It merely went from officially sanctioned occasion to discrete, at dawn type of affair with surgeons or doctors in attendance and a hearse at ready.

Some railed against it but the people in power turned a blind eye to it. Prosecution in court mostly are halfhearted since it was all the fashion at that point of time. In the event of the duel being too widely known as to not allow the turning of blind eye (or eyes) to it, then action would have to be taken. Just like corruption in Malaysia.

The conduct of duels despite being illegal beginning had the cloak of legitimacy to it with its code duello governing its conduct and usage of seconds for parties to negotiate settlements (if any) written down and to be kept within one’s case of a matching pair of duelling pistols so that in case of dispute of the finer points of duelling code one would whip it out to for reference (to avoid a duel over the code, I hope). Take your pick of Irish or French code. Irish Code duello is the shorter of the two and mainly for pistol-duelling. The French code is more detailed. One thing both have in common is that once blood is drawn, the matter is concluded. Parties may withdraw with honour intact or restored. Most of the time.

Duels by default are not just a Western phenomenon. The written duelling codes and standing stock still to receive a bullet is. It was common to societies with honour code which is practically almost everyone. From Native Americans, the Arabs, Indians, the Japanese to Malays. The general Khalid ibn Al Walid of early Muslim period was known to challenge his opposing counterpart to a duel prior to a battle, partly as a form of psychological warfare and to avoid unnecessary fight whenever necessary. Let us not even talk about Miyamoto Musashi. Who would not know the infamous Hang Tuah and Taming Sari duel or the Tuah-Jebat duel. One wonders what the outcome would have had it been a pistol duel. Would it be a Gun Kata kind of fight instead of keris duel? Would they still be fighting on trays (talam)? Is Tuah the better gunslinger? Or Jebat is the one with the quicker trigger finger? Of what calibre would Taming Sari be? Ah, the possibilities..

In the US, despite having kicked out the British and their tea culture, they maintained the English Common Law as at 1777. So, by default trial by combat has not been abolished. Some fairly recent cases have been reported online of attempts to invoke the right for trial by combat with varying results.

In England the right for trial by combat was extinguished sometime in 1819 after one last court case in which an accused invoked his right to trial by combat. The challenged party did not show up and the accused, accused of murder no less walked out of the court a free man.

By virtue of Section 3 (1)(a) of the Civil Law Act 1956 which extends English Common Law into the country, trial by combat is not available in Malaysia which is a pity. We could be seeing a lot less of sembang kencang online and offline about your maruah and stuff and hopefully, the creation of a more dignified and polite society. Politician would cease to spout nonsense to one another. Not to mention the revival of the keris making industry and other traditional edged implements. Self-Defence classes will see an uptick in enrollment. Violent crime (with exception of duels) will decline, with everyone armed and trained, everyone will be treated with respect and courtesy. An armed society is a polite society.

Does this take away the power of life and death from the courts? Maybe. No wait. The power of life and death has been taken away from Malaysian courts with the abolishment of death penalty. But will this keep everyone on their toes? It will. Everyone will walk on eggshells and when your life is on the line it will promote amicable settlement of disputes.

Who would could deny the gravity of the act of throwing that gardening glove, or dish washing glove in lieu of a gauntlet, and when needed, to an insulter’s face to demand satisfaction. Though both or either party to the duel could be liable for manslaughter or murder or attempted murder later on, but such is the price for satisfaction. That is what honour demands out of a gentleman.

That is, if you are a gentleman lah.

I say if some buggers demand the treatment as gentlemen of quality with honour and dignity baked in, worthy of the love and votes of the common folk then let them prove it. Accused of some heinous crime? Grand thievery? Diversion of public funds? No matter. Let the people decide the champion for the prosecution, let the accused fight for his honour to the tune of that Benny Benassi track.

I say recognize duels as a way to settle disputes. The people (well, some people) demand satisfaction.

The Patriot

This is not about Mel Gibson terrorizing redcoats with his tomahawk and merry band of militias. Not about ‘Murica at all. No sir.

This is not a piece meant to tell you to love the country. Much have been written about that. You can love or hate the country. It is up to you. This piece is not meant as a virtual keris rattling for me to exhibit my faux Malayness. After all, I identify as a Mongol. Last week it was Danish. This is a piece about looking for that one Malaysian thing we can rally behind.

Some time ago in a conversation with friends the topic of what makes us Malaysian cropped up. Eventually it was agreed upon that food is the common unifying factor. Which is nothing new really. We love food and we really love our food. It is the only factor I think. Our national football team is lacklustre, our badminton post Chong Wei is meh. We are not cricket mad like Indians and Pakistanis. Take away the food what do we have? We have no Great Malaysian Novel (not yet), no national epic to speak of. Hell, we have no National Laureate that is common to all Malaysians (not yet). No Trafalgar to remember, no Alamo to rally behind. While we fended off those Maoist wannabes up until 1989, we fought no great war of national liberation. In that regard, the Bangladeshis had us beat.

 

Ours is a negotiated freedom. In return for their plantations and business interests to remain unmolested, the Brits granted us our freedom, as if it was theirs to bestow to begin with. It was all very civilized. Very chill and relaxed. Want to be free? Here you go. Have some tea, keep your Sultans. This negotiated independence of ours only spawned more questions about what makes us, us. Secular or Islamic, crown or tengkolok or serban, Peninsular or Sabahan or Sarawakian or Malaysian and what have you. 

 

We have not been thrown into a great conflagration in which the mutual distrust among the races is dissipated and in its place our common national identity is forged. We did not have that experience. It is always about one race vs another, very rarely about us. All these cases in the apex court I think is not really about whether Civil Courts vs Syariah Courts and all that. It is about trying to find the answer to the question, what makes us, us. In a way, this is our great war of national realization. For good or for bad, we will decide the kind of people we want to become for generations to come. Thank God that so far we have been fairly civil about it limiting it to the courts. Long it remain so. Even our protests are tame compared to the French. For a snail-loving, wine-quaffing people the French really do know how to riot, I mean protest.

 

The closest we came to smoking atop a powder keg was during the pandemic with the succession of governments clawing for power with almost weekly pageant of imbecility and insensitivity from the administration to the dengki ke gaffe all the while the people are confused, fearful, struggling to keep on living when death was all around with no end in sight and most importantly angry, Angry at how things were handled. Angry that those in power for choosing to play politics when lives were at stake. That was our national trauma and we ought to learn from it. That a country is only as strong as its people.

The land. What of it? The land is here and will always be here so long as the sky is blue and the sun is out in all her brilliance. We ought to let go the fixation with ownership of the land or who came here first. We all belong to the land and while we are here we ought to not take it for granted. You know, preserve trees and hills instead of clear it off for that hillside development and durian orchards and things. We also should learn to live together like decent folks. Mingle la. Don’t be cooped up in your own racial cocoon, nursing your own fears of the other races just like the politicians wanted you to. God knows the land is big enough for all of us to do all these things. 

 

In the course of typing all this up it came to me. Maybe that’s it. Our unifying feature is our laidback nature. That rilek la brader vibe. Maybe a weakness where efficiency is concerned but most of the time it is our chief strength. As long as we appeal to our inner rilek spirit (within reason lah) this country can never be a nest of extremism and hatred. Because nursing hate is a tiring thing to do and we, we like to relax. 

This land is yours as much as it is mine. I have nowhere else to go. Even if i do, i would rather be here. This in-progress, flawed place. Land of the relaxed and where the medical bills is almost free (if you go to gomen lah).

So do you part. I say let us lower that accusatory fingers and raise that glass of teh tarik up high and then sip it, savour that fatty sweetness. Have that inane conversation with your friends and strangers. Talk cock sing song and laugh. Let us just sit together at the same table of brotherhood (or sisterhood) to break that hallowed roti canai of understanding and chill. For to chill is patriotic and to lepak is Malaysian.

 

Now I gotta hang up that flag. Our flag. 

Seeing the Elephant

Semalam pendengaran pertama aku di Mahkamah Persekutuan melalui Zoom. Aku seperti biasa, jadi counsel demi keterujaan, pengalaman dan sedikit wang. Okay, sebenarnya lebih kepada keterujaan sebab dapat beraksi di Mahkamah Persekutuan. The highest court there is. Mumakil of judiciary. The Elephant. 

Persoalan yang ingin dibangkitkan pemohon adalah sama ada Seksyen 347 dan 348 Akta Syarikat 2016 mengubah prinsip asas Derivative Action (‘’DA’’). Walaubagaimanapun, Pemohon terlalu obses dengan fakta bahawa permohonan kebenaran bagi DA telah ditolak oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dan telah dikekalkan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan sehinggakan persoalan-persoalan yang ditimbulkan pemohon untuk diputuskan Mahkamah Persekutuan adalah lebih kepada cabaran kepada dapatan-dapatan fakta yang dibuat Mahkamah Tinggi dan bukannya persoalan undang-undang seperti sepatutnya bawah Seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964.

Teras utama kes Pemohon adalah berkenaan dakwaan beliau kononnya Pengarah Urusan syarikat X telah membuat Keuntungan Rahsia dengan membuka perniagaan-perniagaan yang bersaing dengan syarikat X sejak dari tahun 2008 lalu telah memungkiri Tugas Fidusiarinya sebagai seorang pengarah Syarikat X. Akan tetapi Syarikat X enggan mengambil sebarang tindakan terhadap si Pengarah Urusan kerana kononnya si Pengarah Urusan ini adalah si penjahat yang sangat berkuasa hinggakan Lembaga Pengarah pun hanya jadi tukang angguk semata-mata bagi semua tindak-tanduk Pengarah Urusan termasuklah tindak-tanduk yang memungkiri Tugas Fidusiarinya. Maka satu permohonan untuk DA telah dibuat oleh Pemohon selaku pemegang syer di dalam Syarikat X untuk memulakan satu tindakan mahkamah terhadap Pengarah Urusan itu tadi. Satu lagi fakta penting, 99% daripada ahli lembaga pengarah dan pemegang saham adalah adik beradik termasuklah si Pemohon dan Pengarah Urusan Syarikat X itu tadi yang sebelum ini pernah juga membawa pergaduhan adik-beradik ini ke Mahkamah dengan satu saman fitnah yang akhirnya didapati tidak berasas.

Oh, lagi satu, si Pengarah Urusan pun dah meletak jawatan dua hari selepas notis statutori diisu oleh Pemohon kepada Responden.

Jadi permohonan bagi kebenaran memulakan DA telah ditolak Mahkamah Tinggi kerana antaralainnya, dah tak ada si pesalah laku yang bermaharajalela menghalang Syarikat X dari memulakan tindakan, nak mulakan DA buat apa pulak. Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi juga mengambil kira kelewatan Pemohon mengambil tindakan dan ketiadaan bukti salah laku Pengarah Urusan tadi dan juga tiadanya bukti kerugian yang dialami Syarikat X akibat tindak-tanduk Pengarah Urusan tadi.

Pemohon antaralainnya mengambil kedudukan bahawa Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi  telah terkhilaf kerana menggunapakai prinsip common law dalam memutuskan permohonan statutori dibawah Seksyen 348 Akta Syarikat 2016 dengan mengambil kira isu kelewatan sebagai salah satu faktor untuk memutuskan bagi menolak permohonan kebenaran bagi memulakan DA. Ini satu cubaan untuk mengelirukan Mahkamah. Pada Pemohon Common Law DA dan Statutory DA ni dua spesies yang berlainan. Bagi aku ini tak tepat.

Aku umpamakan Common Law DA dan Statutory DA ni umpama nasik putih dan nasik kerabu. Rupa lain lain tapi dua-dua basisnya karbohidrat. Dua-dua wujud untuk bagi kau kenyang. Bezanya Nasik kerabu itu wajib biru warnanya dan ada sayuran cincang dengan lauk-lauknya sendiri.

Di bawah Seksyen 181A dan 181B Akta Syarikat 1965 ada dua jenis DA. Satu dibawah common law dan satu lagi DA statutori dibawah Seksyen 181B yang memerlukan kebenaran Mahkamah sebelum boleh dimulakan. DA dibawah Common Law (Seksyen 181A(3)) tak perlu kebenaran Mahkamah. Seksyen 181A dan 181B ini tadi sama dengan Seksyen 347 dan 348 Akta Syarikat 2016. Cuma Seksyen 347 (3) Akta Syarikat 2016 telah memansuhkan hak untuk memulakan sebarang DA melalui common law. Jadi hanya DA statutori yang memerlukan kebenaran Mahkamah sahaja yang boleh dimulakan selepas tarikh Akta Syarikat 2016 berkuatkuasa.

Seksyen 181A dan 181B Akta Syarikat 1965, Seksyen 347 dan 348 Akta Syarikat 2016 tidak mentakrifkan apa DA itu sendiri. Bagi aku sebab Akta Syarikat 1965 dan Akta Syarikat 2016 tidak mentakrif apa yang dimaksudkan dengan DA itu adalah kerana berlambak case law yang telah dengan nyata mentakrifkan apa DA itu: pemohon ambil tindakan undang-undang atas nama syarikat sebab syarikat tak nak ambil tindakan pasal ada pelaku salah yang berkuasa dalam syarikat tersebut. Bezanya cuma DA statutori perlu dapat kebenaran Mahkamah terlebih dahulu. DA Common Law tak perlu.

Mengikut pembacaan dan pemahaman aku DA adalah salah satu relif equity. Maka bila melibatkan equity, segala mak nenek maxim (kecuali Hiram Maxim) akan terpakai termasuklah delay defeats equity. Itu sebab kenapa isu kelewatan ini dipandang berat oleh Mahkamah Tinggi dan Mahkamah Rayuan walaupun tidak dinyatakan dengan terang-terang sebab memang terlalu terang dan tak perlu dicakap. Ini pemahaman aku lah.

Untuk mendapat kebenaran Mahkamah bagi memulakan DA stautori di bawah Seksyen 348 (4) Akta Syarikat 2016, pemohon harus memenuhi dua syarat iaitu:

‘’ (a) the complainant is acting in good faith; and

 (b) it appears prima facie to be in the best interest of the company that the application for leave be granted. ‘’ (penekanan ditambah)

Mahkamah Tinggi telah memutuskan bahawa kelewatan selama hampir 10 tahun memfailkan tindakan telah membuatkan beliau tidak yakin Pemohon bertindak dengan suci hati (good faith) melalui permohonan kebenaran untuk DA itu. Dalam alasan penghakiman Mahkamah Tinggi ada rujukan dibuat kepada kes England, Australia, Singapura dan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan yang merujuk kepada keperluan ‘good faith’ yang perlu dipenuhi bagi DA sebelum Seksyen 348 Akta Syarikat 2016 terpakai (yang sebijik dengan Seksyen 181B (4)(a) Akta Syarikat 1965). [Sila rujuk Nota] 

Mahkamah Tinggi juga mendapati bahawa Pemohon tidak mengemukakan bukti yang cukup bagi menyokong dakwaan-dakwaannya berkenaan kemungkiran Tugas Fidusiari yang dilakukan oleh Pengarah Urusan Syarikat X. Tiada bukti juga dikemukakan bagi menunjukkan kerugian yang telah dihadapi oleh Syarikat X berikutan kemungkiran Tugas Fidusiari Pengarah Urusan itu tadi. Bila kedua-dua ni tidak mencukupi macam mana nak melepasi aras prima facie itu sendiri. Permohonan pemohon ni serupa seperti nasik kerabu yang nasiknya tak biru, sayur pun dah layu.

Mahkamah Rayuan cakap apa? Secara pendeknya, Mahkamah Rayuan affirm keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi.

Semua ni nampak cantik atas kertas, tapi bila nombor kes dipanggil (kes pertama dalam senarai) memang rasa gemuruh lain macam walhal aku mewakili Responden je. Nasib baik melalui Zoom.

Aku ingat Yang Amat Arif Hakim Besar Sabah dan Sarawak memulakan acara dengan terus pergi ke Soalan utama ke -4. Seingat aku ada dalam 11 soalan termasuk soalan utama yang ada empat. Soalan utama ke -4 adalah:

‘’Sama ada kelewatan adalah salah satu faktor yang perlu diambil kira dalam permohonan kebenaran dibawah Seksyen 348 Akta Syarikat 2016. ’’

Peguam pemohon rancak cuba menangkis soalan-soalan dari panel. Aku rasa dekat 15 minit juga peguam Pemohon berhujah. Bila peguam pemohon memberi penerangan terus kena; but don’t you think that is a question of fact? Bila aku dengar asakan-demi asakan dari panel aku teringat Fahri pernah cakap dulu, buat question of law untuk Mahkamah Persekutuan ni satu seni, macam menu makanan yang buat kau kecur air liur cuma bezanya yang nak kena kecur air liur tu panel Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Apa yang Mahkamah Persekutuan nak adalah soalan fakta yang ditanyakan dalam bentuk persoalan undang-undang yang memenuhi kehendak Seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964. Aku rasa lah. Itu apa yang aku nampak dan perhatikan daripada kes aku semalam dan kes selepasnya yang aku pasang telinga dengar.

Hujahan aku? tak ingat verbatim apa yang aku hujahkan tapi aku ingat yang aku cuba berhujah macam Fahri syorkan. Short and sweet. No fat, no filler. Aku mulakan dengan keperluan Seksyen 96 Akta Mahkamah Kehakiman 1964 tak dipenuhi, sebab semua persoalan yang ditimbulkan adalah persoalan fakta dan bukan persoalan undang-undang.

Pastu aku hujahkan yang Seksyen 348 itu tadi membuatkan hanya statutory DA yang boleh dimulakan sekarang ni tapi dia masih lagi DA. Seksyen 348 atau mana-mana peruntukkan Akta Syarikat 2016 tak mengubah secara terus ingredients DA itu sendiri. Pastu cakap pasal DA ni masih lagi equitable remedy walaupun ada statutory requirement untuk leave, sebab tu kena penuhi good faith requirement, prima facie for best interest of company and all that. Sebab tu Mahkamah Tinggi putuskan yang kelewatan 10 tahun tu membuatkan good faith permohonan Pemohon boleh disangkal.

Takat tu je aku betul-betul ingat apa aku submit.

Ada benda lain yang aku jawab sebagai balasan kepada apa yang peguam Pemohon timbulkan, aku rasa lah. Aku ingat ada beberapa kali aku tergapai-gapai perkataan yang aku nak guna masa tengah berhujah tu. Filler noise aku sangat banyak. Boleh jadi sebab adrenalin. Boleh jadi sebab tak cukup tidur. Malam sebelumnya aku tidur lambat pasal ada di pejabat rakan pengamal buat prep sampai tengah malam.

Aku ingat panel senyum simpul tengok aku berhujah macam kucing tengok tikus tengah bersilat depan mata. Yang betul-betul aku ingat YAA Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Rahman Bin Sebli ada tanya apa requirements DA; aku bagi dia requirements. YA Dato' Sri Hasnah Bt Dato' Mohammed Hashim rujuk pada kes Re Senson Auto Supplies [1987] 1 LNS 110; [1988] 1 MLJ 326 yang dirujuk Mahkamah Rayuan bagi isu kelewatan, YA cakap ini kes oppression kan? Aku kata ya tapi dalam kes tu diputuskan bahawa kelewatan mengambil tindakan dianggap seperti satu persetujuan dengan tindak tanduk yang kini dibantah tu. Jadi same principles still apply to this case. YA  Dato' Mary Lim Thiam Suan ada tanya isu delay dengan requirements Seksyen 348 Akta Syarikat 2016 ni Mahkamah Persekutuan pernah putuskan tak, aku jawab tak sebab memang aku baru double confirmkan pagi tu jugak di CLJ dan MLJ tapi soalan itu adalah soalan yang peculiar kepada fact of this case so Mahkamah Persekutuan tak patut entertain. Itu sahaja soalan dari panel.

Aku berhujah tak sampai 10 minit. Aku cuma ikut rentak panel, serang area yang mana panel serang Pemohon. YAA tanya ada benda lain tak nak submit on, aku cakap takde. Peguam pemohon ada nak balas hujahan aku. Panel layan 2-3 minit sebelum terus potong; no no. We have heard from you. Unless there are anything else this Court will stand down for deliberation. Lepas 5 minit camtu terus dapat keputusan. Unanimous, no question of law to be deliberated upon. Leave application dismissed with costs RM 30,000.00.

Fist pump off camera, cakap terima kasih pada panel pastu tutup video dan mic. Aku kemudiannya termenung, tengah cuba proses apa yang terjadi. Memang macam satu cerita VC George dalam buku dia; menang kes tapi tak tau cemana boleh menang. Tapi ada jugak satu perasaan aku tak tau nak ungkapkan dalam kata-kata yang betul.

Paling dekat aku boleh gambarkan adalah bila kau tengah nak ke puncak gunung yang paling tinggi dikalangan gunung-gunung yang bercabang dan kau dah sampai puncak gunung jiran yang paling rendah. Rehat sebentar, kunyah roti disapu sekaya dengan tenang sambil tengok pemandangan sekejap. Pastu tenung puncak tertinggi yang nak dituju, semat dalam hati dan pemikiran bahawa itu tempat yang nak dituju.

Penat? Memang penat. Rasa boleh tido seminggu. Mungkin sebab adrenalin dah habis dicerna. Dulu selepas satu file MOB di Putrajaya aku ada tengok Kamarul Hisham beraksi. Mula di Federal Court, selesai di FC berasap sekejap di luar bangunan Mahkamah pastu pi satu lagi hearing di Court of Appeal pulak. Aku rasa dia balik dari POJ terus tido sebulan kut.

Menung punya menung instructing solicitor call, ajak pegi kedai daun pisang dan janjikan bayaran secepat mungkin (fist pump lagi). Sesampainya di kedai aku nampak gambar dewa Ganesha atas alang pintu kedai tengah senyum. Aku pun senyum balik.

I have seen the elephant.

Apa yang berlaku pagi semalam umpama gajah metaforikal yang buat false charge yang mengegar bumi tapi bila sampai depan aku, gajah tu berhenti dan kenyit mata pada aku. Pastu blah.

Aku dah buat yang terbaik pada waktu itu tapi sentiasa ada ruang untuk ditambahbaik. Banyak yang boleh perhalusi lagi terutamanya dari segi advocacy dan clarity of thought.  Pada masa yang sama aku tak sabar menanti peluang untuk berhujah di Mahkamah Persekutuan lagi.

Kali ni, full appeal pulak. Biar gajah metaforikal meluru for real, dengan mendering nyaring umpama trompet perang dan bumi bergegar kuat dan aku? 

Aku hanya senyum keterujaan.

Nota.

a)    Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Newman    Industries Ltd and others (No 2)[1980] 2 All ER 841 (Court of Appeal (England & Wales))

b)    South Johnstone Mill Ltd (ACN 101 695 575) v Dennis and Scales (ACN 004 044987 (2008) 64 ACSR 447 at [67] (Australian Federal Court )

c)    Ang Thiam Swee v Low Hian Chor [2013] 2 SLR 340 (Court of Appeal, Singapore)

d)    Celcom (M) Bhd v Mohd Shuaib Ishak [2011] 3 MLJ 636 (Court of Appeal, ours)

Jah Work

Aku teringat satu scene dari cerita Enemy at the Gates bilamana sewaktu itu Battle of Stalingrad masih lagi tengah berlangsung dan tentera Kesatuan Soviet tengah teruk dibantai tentera Nazi Jerman. Teruk tapi belum betul-betul kalah. Dalam satu bunker, pemerintah tertinggi teater tersebut (aku tak ingat nama) sedang disekolahkan oleh Nikita Kruschev untuk dapatkan penjelasan kenapa tentera Soviet yang patriotik hampir lunyai dikerjakan konco-konco si Hitler di gelanggang sendiri. Si pemerintah tertinggi itu(masih tak ingat nama dia) bagi alasan sambil meneguk vodka dengan kecewa: they have tanks, they have artillery, they have airplanes. What do we have?

The sacred duty to resist! Bentak si Nikita kegeraman.

Then of course in the best traditions of the Soviet Red Army, pemerintah tertinggi tersebut dijemput untuk memendekkan perjalanan sistem kehakiman tentera dengan Tula-Tokarev 33 beliau. Terus skip inquiry dan banyak langkah lain. Mind you ini semua sebelum bermulanya cerita dan cinta tiga segi Ralph Fiennes, Jude Law dan Rachel Weisz yang berlatarbelakangkan Battle of Stalingrad.

Sebenarnya bukan pasal filem Enemy at the Gates atau Rachel Weisz yang ingin aku ketengahkan. Line dari Nikita Khruschev tu yang interesting bagi aku. Aku berfikir dari konteks peranan seorang pengamal undang-undang dalam masyarakat. Lebih spesifik lagi adalah dari konteks sistem kehakiman jenayah. Civil side not as much impactful. You lose your financial standing, lose a house. Material things.

Aku bukan full-fledged buat kes-kes jenayah. Aku ada tolong member-member buat kes jenayah, buat kes-kes YBGK sikit. Sikit-sikit ada lah. Aku masih mencari keberanian untuk terjun head first.

Aku berdaftar dengan YBGK dah lama, sejak tahun 2014. Merata dalam negeri Selangor aku jelajah untuk buat rayuan jamin dan mitigasi. Aku berhenti bila bayaran YBGK menjadi sangat perlahan. Pada waktu itu aku hanya fikirkan tentang duit sebab aku mula berjinak dengan YBGK pun sebab ramai orang cakap boleh buat duit dengan kerja-kerja YBGK ni. Memang betul pun. Siap berebut-rebut nak buat bail and mitigation. Siap yang takda dalam jadual bertugas pun tetiba datang ke Mahkamah, petik nama contact person YBGK Selangor kata dia dah bagi keizinan. Entah ye ke tidak. Kemain nak kejar claim. Itu circa 2014. 2015 onwards aku buat kes-kes sivil dengan sikit-sikit buat MOB kes jenayah untuk kawan-kawan dan kawan kepada kawan.

Bila aku berjumpa dengan guru aku untuk minta nasihat pasal hidup mengamal, dia mula bercakap pasal kes-kes YBGK yang dia ambil untuk perbicaraan penuh. Sambil dengar tu teringat balik yang aku dah lalui 2 latihan kelolaan YBGK bagi rayuan jamin dan mitigasi hukuman. Hati tertanya-tanya apa cerita eh YBGK sekarang? Tak lama lepas tu aku terus lapor diri ke YBGK Kuala Lumpur dan entah cemana mula sertai membantah reman di Jinjang dan Dang Wangi. Bayaran masih lambat seperti dulu-dulu tapi bila dapat tu okay lah. Aku pun buat on-off. Bila betul-betul free baru aku buat. Boleh la buat beli buku sikit. The money is nice tapi aim aku pun dah mulai lain dari waktu aku bermula dulu.

Aku belum cukup lama mengamal dan belum cukup lama aku hidup di dunia ini. Tapi bila aku perhatikan apa yang berlaku dalam lokap reman, apa yang jadi di dalam Mahkamah-mahkamah Jenayah aku mulai faham bahawa banyak pilihan yang di ambil untuk meneruskan kelangsungan hidup dan hidup tak selalunya hitam-putih. Kita juga didodoikan, disuap janji-janji dari iklan tv, radio dan surat khabar yang kononnya suatu hari nanti kita semua akan kaya, berjaya, jadi cantik, jadi kurus. Mungkin ya akan berlaku, mungkin tak. Kebarangkalian itu sentiasa ada, sepertimana ada kebarangkalian yang kita mungkin akan tersilap langkah dan disumbat dalam lokap sewaktu cuba menggapai mimpi dan janji-janji itu tadi. Kadang-kadang bukan salah kita pun, its just life. Sekejap manis dan indah. Sekejap pahit tak tertelan. Satu soalan wajib interview untuk bantah Reman adalah: Family tau tak kena tangkap? Ada sekali tu aku bantah reman di Jinjang. Ada seorang OYDS (Orang Yang Di Syaki) ni bila aku tanya soalan ni dia pandang aku lama, tak cakap apa-apa. Lepas tu dia tunduk pandang lantai. Geleng kepala. Seperti soalan aku tu sangat-sangat berat untuk dia jawab. Dia punya pandang sebelum tunduk tu as if saying: Oh brother where do I even begin. Sampai sekarang aku terkesan. Muda je orangnya, dalam lingkungan awal 20-an lagi.

Aku juga tak menolak kemungkinan ada jugak yang disumbat dalam lokap pasal memang career criminal. Keluar masuk sistem kehakiman jenayah ni macam keluar masuk dapur. Tapi bukan kerja aku nak menghakimi betul salah tindakan kau tu. Itu kerja Tuhan. Kerja Hakim. Way above my pay grade.

Ada yang mengatakan bahawa tugas peguambela dalam sesebuah kes adalah untuk memastikan satu-satu undang-undang itu diaplikasikan dengan betul dan lancar. Sefaham aku pulak, dari lain aspek, tugas mereka yang buat kes-kes jenayah ni adalah untuk appeal to and to remind the humanity of all people involved. Benda macam human error yang dibuat pegawai penyiasat, kecenderungan kita semua untuk pukul rata padahal lain orang lain cerita, kewujudan kualiti seperti belas ihsan yang kita harapkan Hakim ada. Paling penting sekali, untuk ingatkan semua yang ada dalam Mahkamah yang digari dan berdiri dalam kandang pesalah ni juga manusia. Bukan nombor. Bukan KPI. Sebab bila masuk lokap tu individualiti kau pun terus hilang. Kau cuma nombor report balai, nombor seksyen kesalahan, nombor kes. Kau adalah statistik.

Jadi bila aku terbaca cerita Bang Mat lawyer Zamani yang keluar kat The Star semalam yang mana dia tolong seorang makcik India ni yang dituduh curi kotak pensel untuk hadiahkan pada anak dia yang dapat tempat pertama di dalam kelas, benda ni mengingatkan balik pada jawapan klise yang selalu kau dapat bila tanya pelajar jurusan undang-undang kenapa ambik Law: sebab nak tolong orang. Boleh jadi itu memang jawapan ikhlas tapi ungkapan seperti ini jadi klise sebab dunia kita yang makin gila dan sinikal. Kononnya the only value worth having is monetary value. Mana ada orang nak tolong orang sebab ikhlas nak tolong. Semuanya for profit. Cerita Bang Mat menafikan tanggapan itu. Berair jugak mata baca cerita Bang Mat tu. Dia buat the decent thing. Dia layan makcik tu sebagai manusia, bukan sebagai satu transaksi dan makcik tu ingat. Budak tu pun ingat. Benda yang kau rasa biasa-biasa je tapi sebenarnya besar impak dia. Legend Bang Mat ni.

Sama macam lawyer-lawyer YBGK KL dalam group WhatsApp yang aku tetiba dimasukkan. Memang kaki mengomel. Pasal payment lambat, pasal requirement baru YBGK HQ yang mengarut. Pasal tempoh reman yang mengarut. Nak mogok lah. Ada je lah. Memang banyak benda boleh dikomplen pasal YBGK ni. Tapi bila buat duty roster, nama-nama yang sama yang mengomel tadi akan sentiasa ada, without fail. Aku tak rasa diorang ni masih lagi dengan YBGK sebab duit. Kalau nak fees lagi besar lagi baik kau touting. Bela polis, bela orang court. Gadai segala ethics, jadi purely businessman, jaga bottomline, pegi mampus keadilan. Fame? Sapa je lawyer YBGK yang masuk surat khabar? Takde bai. Jadi satu-satunya kesimpulan aku boleh buat adalah diorang ni buat kes-kes YBGK sebab it is the decent thing to do. It is the human thing to do.

Aku buat sebab..err.. nak beli buku. Tapi dengan harapan melalui buku-buku rujukan/teks aku tu dapat menguatkan asas aku supaya boleh tolong siapa yang perlukan bantuan aku. I think. I cannot claim the purity of purpose. I'm not a bleeding saint. Nor can I say I am in it for the money alone.

Sebenarnya tak payah jadi lawyer YBGK pun boleh buat baik. YBGK tu satu medium je. Bang Mat adalah contoh terbaik. Nampak orang dalam kesusahan, takde pengamal mewakili, terus tolong. Tak payah banyak cerita. Ada corridor roamer yang aku kenal dulu ada personal pro bono quota sendiri. Pegi mahkamah Majistret tanya direct dengan jurubahasa takpun Polis, mana OKT takde lawyer dan takde duit, terus jalan. Mitigate as necessary. Bang Mat tu adalah contoh yang kita dapat dengar sekarang ni. A reminder.

Bila kau dah memain peranan memastikan yang tak mampu ada peguam dapat diwakili peguam, sedikit sebanyak kau dah memudahkan urusan mereka yang barangkali hanya akan berputus asa menerima takdir dikunyah-kunyah sistem kehakiman jenayah. Kau dah bagi peluang cerita versi mereka di dengar Mahkamah. Kau dah tolong lawan anggapan salah yang sebati dengan masyarakat kita: kalau kena tangkap mesti ada buat salah. Kau dah imbangkan sikit scale yang selalunya memberat pada pihak Pendakwaan. Mungkin tak banyak tapi at least there is something. Boleh jadi juga sedikit sebanyak dapat disuntik semangat pada yang ditahan, yang dituduh bahawa hidup ni tak semuanya fuck up kalau dah masuk dalam sistem kehakiman jenayah sebab ada yang sedia membantu. Ada yang akan membantu.

Because it is our sacred duty to assist.