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.

Stock Taking

I was doing some calculations when it unintentionally led to the calculation my years of practice. I was surprised to know that this year would be my tenth year of practice. A whole damn decade. Yet I still feel like it was not too long ago I was called to the Bar. I ought to make myself a cup of tea in celebration.

But really, was there anything to celebrate?

I still dare not associate myself with the title lawyer. I do not think that i have earned that distinction yet. I have a practicing certificate and i am a competent brawler in court. That much is true. But i am not yet a master swordsman. No rapier thrust to the heart kind of argument from me. Perhaps some jaw breaking blow would connect occasionally. But that was it. There is a long way to go before I attain the level of finesse worthy of the title Lawyer. I still feel that impostor syndrome in everything that I do. So much that whenever i see pieces about the intricacies of the Law written by people younger than me, i am amazed with their confidence in themselves and in their writing. Maybe one day I’ll pluck up the courage to actually write about the Law. For now, I am content to write about my observations about Life and some other matter and let the Impostor Syndrome to remind me of the need to leave no stone unturned and to give my very best in everything that I do in service of the Law though she be a jealous bitch.

After a decade i am now back where I once started out. Doing the same things I once did years earlier. I had my share of fun out there on the streets on my own. Learned things. Explored new areas of practice. I do not regret those days when I would wander from one friend’s office to another, helping out with their trials and whatnot. I was a mendicant practitioner, but for a good cause. Besides, it was fun, educational and most importantly I was free. Though that freedom comes with the freedom to starve if things turn south. However, from where I am right now I am learning to pepper the routine with the exciting. Balancing the need for gold and the need to enrich my soul. Always, I am eager to recapture that Thumos that I once had, not wanting to remain boxed in the four corners of my office, tethered to my desk. I am meant to be roaming about. Always on the move like the nomads of the Chang Tang Plateau.

Gold? I have no gold to show. No expensive cars to drive around. No blings, No material wealth to be throw around and to show off on social media. Accumulation of gold and fun rarely intersected. At least for me. But then again what is money but a medium of exchange. I chose to look at it as having exchanged whatever gold I may have for experiences and fun. What I lack in gold, I make up in few trusted friends. The kind of friend who would laugh the loudest and longest and yet extend a helping hand should i fall face down on a busy street for whatever reason. The kind of people whose conversation would enrich you and would range from the mundane to the esoteric, from talking smack to serious consideration of life, history and philosophy. The kind who you know you could depend on.

Responsibilities sure I have them. Heavy and big now. Sometimes it feels as if I am propping one corner of the roof in a thunderstorm with my two hands and all the while Fate is repeatedly socking me in the nether regions just for the heck of it. Yet I still stand. A tad bruised maybe in the said regions. There are moments of weakness, sure. Moments when hanging up my robe and bands for good seemed like a great idea and that stability and security seems paramount for my family. That I am but a ship trying to shelter from a storm-tossed seas in a safe harbour. But that is not what ships are built for. Security and growth are never meant to be in the same bed. I hope to have the courage and resilience to stay the course until I reach where ever it is I am meant to be, storms and shipwrecks be damned.

As for area of specialization, I have none. I hold the words of Robert A. Heinlein to be the guiding compass of mine: Specialization is for insects. I do all and sundry so long as there is a fight to be had, No matter the cause of action and subject, no matter the court or tribunal. It is the thrill of dissecting a problem for a possible solution, the rush of adrenaline you get from a trial no matter how trivial the subject matter may seem and the relief of resolution that I am after. The fees are welcome too but that is secondary. Okay, fees are important but not as important as the aforementioned rush.

What have I gained or realized after a decade in practice?

I would say the humility to admit that I need help from time to time and that no one can sail the unpredictable waters of the Law alone. That good friends like good opponents are hard to find. That the Law is as fallible and flawed as the people who made them and it is the job practitioners to point out the flaws. That while it can be hard, it is possible to remain honourable and to have integrity in a profession that is viewed sorely lacking in both. That gold while important is not the end all and be all. That i derive a certain kind of rush for trials. The kind petrolheads get from testing out a particularly sweet ride, or the kind thrill junkies get from jumping off buildings. I think lah. 

So, if there is a good fight going on, doesn’t matter in which court from the highest to the lowest, tribunals and what not and you need someone by your side or in your corner, find me.

I am always game for a good, civilized fight in court. I live for it.

Remembering Mr Rajesh

On Monday i received a WhatsApp informing that Mr Rajeshwaran or Mr Rajesh as he is commonly known amongst his students had passed away. He was my Civil Trial and Advocacy (CTA) lecturer back during my LLB days. He was 87 years of age.

Even then he was a gentleman of advanced age. Slight of build and soft in his speech. He’d have all the classes at the Moot Court on the account that the Moot Court was at the ground floor of the shared Business and Law Faculty Building. Less stairs to climb you see. The Civil Trials video he would have us watch as I recall dates back from the 1970’s, replete with the statics and lines from the VHS conversion. Before joining the academia he was with one of the old established firms in KL. He told us no old war stories though I think he’s had his fair share of it. He taught us the correct and the stylish way to put on one’s suit and how to hold a folded one in arm.

I remembered that during our mock trials he was no docile judge dozing on the bench. Comments and questions came in steady barrages for both Plaintiff and Defendant counsels. That is, until the day a classmate brought a digital camera to document the sessions for his own edification and to our surprise Mr Rajesh clammed up and sat there on the bench looking very dignified. Comments are reserved for after the end of each session. From then on, we struck a deal with the camera guy to be present, camera in hand and pictures every 10 seconds for all sessions. And Mr Rajesh sat there, the very face of Justice, calm and dignified leaving us, little shits that we were then, rejoicing for the uninterrupted sessions.

Once while calling out attendance he caught me sitting behind one of the mock Grecian pillars they had in the Moot Court. Well, to be fair, the silly pillars were blocking the view from some of the long comfy benches they had for the public gallery. I just happened to be seating behind one of the pillars typing up some assignment or other like crazy on my laptop. Ok fine, I chose to sit there to do my work. I did not want to be seen not paying attention in his class. When he called up my name only an arm and my voice shot out from behind the pillar. So he asked me in his gentle voice: Why are you sitting behind that pillar? I thought of some witty reply but decided against it so I grinned sheepishly as i slid away from the pillar, slightly and still typing like crazy.

One little nugget of wisdom he shared with us was that no sane lawyer ever worked without a precedent and he is right. Drafting from scratch is an exercise in insanity. Sane people crack open their copy of Bullen & Leake or begged for precedents from friends or colleagues. There is bound to be one or something similar, which just serves to show that nothing is really new under the sun. Just like our lot in life; to live and to die. Leaving only memories both good and bad until that too is swallowed by passage of time.

Goodbye now Sir. It has been a privilege.

It’s Not For You

Hari dah lewat petang bila aku baru balik dari berjalan keliling kawasan taman. Teringat pada dua orang hero yang ada di tingkat bawah rumah. Aku turun ke tingkat bawah dan sapa dengan suara yang kuat; tanya ada sesiapa nak ikut pegi Petronas tak? Aku tanya kerana mereka seperti kanak-kanak lain nampak lebih mudah untuk pick up idea seperti consumerism dan ownership dari konsep seperti berkongsi. Kebiasaannya kalau ke Petronas nak beli itu ini, selalunya jajan. Di dalam bilik TV si Sulung sedang memicit-micit remote control memilih filem Ultraman mana pula dia nak tonton. Salah satu pilihan adalah Ultraman X. Jadi Si Sulung pun mula bercakap tentang filem Ultraman X.

-Abah, I’ve seen Ultraman X, it’s not for you kata si Sulung dengan muka serius merenung skrin TV.

-It’s not for me? Tanya aku kehairanan.

-Ya, its not for you. It’s violent.

Tiba-tiba si Bongsu yang tengah bermain dengan set Lego menyahut dari luar bilik TV, is it for me?

Aku sengih je dengar dan lihat gelagat dua beradik ni.

It’s not for you adalah ayat yang biasa aku gunakan bila dua beradik ni nak tengok cerita-cerita yang aku anggap mempunyai aksi-aksi belasah-membelasah yang melampau atau ada guna bahasa kesat (ironinya, Mak pernah cakap dengan aku dulu kalau nak belajar satu bahasa ni cara paling mudah adalah belajar menyumpah dalam bahasa yang hendak dipelajari tu). Jadi bila kena balik pada aku memang kelakar lah. Selalunya aku yang jadi LPF (Lembaga Penapisan Filem) untuk dua beradik ni. Si Sulung mungkin betul. Ultraman pun bukan macam waktu aku kecik-kecik dulu. Dulu straight forward, raksasa datang jahanamkan sebahagian dari bandar Tokyo, Ultraman datang, bergaduh sekejap dan jahanamkan sebahagian lagi bandar Tokyo (seronok la pemaju-pemaju Jepun). Kalau kuat sangat raksasa lampu di dada Ultraman pun blinking dan Ultraman pun kena belasah dan terus dibelasah sampailah abangnya datang menyelamatkan keadaan. Plot lebih kurang sama setiap episod, cuma raksasa yang berubah. Sekarang Ultraman pun dah ada subplot fallen hero (Ultraman Belial).

Aku tak suka jadi LPF. Sebab dua tiga kali kena balik batang hidung sendiri. Pernah satu ketika aku sedang memandu dengan si Sulung dalam kereta bila ada satu pemandu mangkuk tiba-tiba masuk jalan aku tanpa memberikan isyarat jadi aku secara automatik terkeluar perkataan Idiot. Tiba-tiba terdengar si Sulung menyampuk dari seat belakang: Abahhh, language!. Jadi aku pun minta maaf sambil dalam hati nak tergelak. Sebagai bapak memang tanggungjawab aku untuk membentuk akhlak si dua beradik ni tapi banyak kali juga terfikir, siapa la aku nak jadi polis moral bila aku sendiri pun bukan selalu beradab, bukan semua betul. Bapak ketam mengajar anak-anaknya berjalan lurus.

Kalau aku pun tak selalu betul apatah lagi badan yang bernama LPF yang bertugas seperti makpak yang kata pada kita rakyat yang masih lagi dianggap kanak-kanak tanpa mengira peringkat umur: This is not for you. Ada masanya memang perlu kawalan ada tapisan. Terutamanya bila melibatkan kanak-kanak yang mindanya macam span, senang terikut-ikut. Tapi kena ikut situasi jugak la. Dulu ada satu masa lagu intro Power Rangers tu bila tang Morphin’ tu dibleepkan atau disenyapkan sebab katanya ada aduan, mangkuk mana tulis surat kata takut anak dia terinspirasi untuk guna dadah Morphine bila dengar lagu intro Power Rangers. Aku sekolah rendah lagi rasanya masa tu. Ingat lagi Abah bising pasal benda ni, cakap bukan boleh beli Morphine dekat kedai runcit pun. Aku masa tu pegi kedai Pak Cik Alias pun paling merapu pun beli gula-gula uncang yang meletup-letup dalam mulut tu. Tak ingat apa nama dia. Tak ada pulak terfikir nak tanya dengan Pak Cik Alias tu ada jual Morphine ke tak.

Cerita tapis menapis dah ada dari zaman dulu lagi. Plato dalam The Republic cukup jaki dengan Homer (Bukan bapak Bart) dan para penyair. Kata Plato penyair seperti Homer dan tulisan-tulisan dia tak ada tempat dalam republik utopian yang Plato mahu bina kerana bagi dia, penyair ni memberi pengaruh buruk kepada masyarakat. Kalau pun ada syair dan penyair dalam republik Plato tu, mereka akan ditapis dan dikawal dengan ketat supaya hanya syair-syair yang membina dan mengukuhkan moral sahaja yang akan dibenarkan. Itu ikut Plato la. Aku terasa nak kata Plato ni missing the point, yang dia lupa bahawa art imitates life tapi masa yang sama, betul jugak dia cakap. Menurut Plato, penyair melalui cerita dan syair-syair meletakkan batu asas moral sesebuah masyarakat. Bila ada dewa-dewi, hero dan heroin (bukan...nevermind) yang penuh dengan emosi dan perangai tak semenggah dalam cerita/ syair kau, sebagai contoh: Achilles yang barai, jantan berlagak diva. Kalau semua pemuda Yunani ikut perangai dia, naya Pak Karim ooi..

Jadi, bila kau ni penglipurlara, apa kau cakap orang akan dengar, akan ikut. Jadi sebagai penyair kau ada peranan untuk membina atau memusnah sesebuah masyarakat melalui syair kau. Besar peranan. Kalau tak masakan Jose Marti penyair, penulis, filusuh dan lain-lain di angkat jadi hero kebangsaan Cuba atau Vaclav Havel si penulis boleh jadi president pertama Czechoslovakia pasca Kesatuan Soviet. Dulu syair dan penulisan lah, sekarang boleh jadi video di Youtube, Tik-tok, IG. Itupun kalau kau ramai subscriber/follower la.

Perlu tapisan? Ya. Terutamanya penggunaan internet dan media sosial tapi untuk kanak-kanak hingga ke umur 18 tahun (sebenarnya, budak budak tak perlu ada media sosial. Nak bersosial pegi main kat luar rumah. Asal jangan pegi tempat tak elok). Sebab pada tempoh ni minda masih lagi macam span, senang terikut-ikut apa yang didengar dan dilihat dan dibaca. Senang digula-gulakan. Tetapi, apa-apa tapisan bagi peringkat selepas dari umur 18 itu boleh dipersoalkan; kau nak bina moral ke kau nak kawal pemikiran? Garis pembahagi sangat nipis tapi kedua-duanya memang ada perbezaan. Tak boleh lah selama-lamanya kau layan anak kau sebagai budak-budak sepertimana kau tak boleh selama-lamanya layan rakyat jelata ni umpama budak yang tak pernah membesar. Kau bukan Peter Pan dan ini bukan Neverland.

Kena bagi asas yang kukuh, ajar baik buruk, punca dan kesan. Lepas tu bagi juga peluang untuk berfikir sendiri tanpa disuruh kerana akan tiba masa dan ketikanya bila mereka akan perlu menilai apa yang mereka lihat, dengar dan alami sendiri dan konklusi mereka dapat mungkin tak sama dengan konklusi kau tapi, selagi mereka berfikir dan boleh berhujah menyokong pendapat mereka, aku rasa tugas kau dah selesai. Kau dah membesarkan manusia/rakyat yang boleh berfikir, bukan bebiri menanti sembelihan. Selebihnya bergantung pada mereka.

Kalau semua cerita tentang manusia baik-baik belaka sahaja kebarangkalian terbitnya anak-anak dan rakyat yang baik tu tinggi tapi kita tidak hidup dalam vacuum. Ada pelbagai jenis manusia. Ada yang baik, ada yang jahat. Ada pelbagai perangai dan gelagat dan paling penting ada seribu satu cerita di luar sana, kerana kita tidak hidup di dunia yang ideal. Kita yang kena bina dunia ideal. Kita tak boleh buat tembok tinggi bagi mengepung minda kita atau tembok api teragung ala PRC bagi mengurung Internet. Apa yang boleh kita buat adalah membuat persediaan kepada anak-anak/rakyat untuk mereka menghadapi realiti bahawa dunia ideal itu masih under construction. Bagi mereka peluang untuk menilai sama ada sesuatu idea atau benda itu untuk mereka atau tidak tanpa perlu kita kata: It’s not for you.

Schrodinger’s Car

I’m sure it happens on the regular basis. Your are late for court. It can be any court, KL or Shah Alam or even Kuala Kubu Bahru Court. Because you are late, you had to park quite a distance away from the court. So you parked your car, put on your nice court shoes, tied a simple knot for your necktie, grabbed your stuff and walk in tearing hurry towards the court entrance. Then as you put one foot on the step of the main lobby stairs it occurred to you; Did i lock my car?

The moment is pregnant with potential. At precisely this moment you car is both locked and unlocked. You are both with car and without car (if you are unlucky). You are torn between wanting to check just to be sure and to leave it all to Fate. So there you stood in that very second trying to remember whether or not the car is locked, all the while one thing clear is that you are late for court.

Nate Kucey!

Talking With the Dead

Zeno, si bapa Stoicism pernah ke Delphi untuk berjumpa si Oracle untuk menilik masa depannya. Si Oracle ini bukan si nenek berbangsa Afrika baik hati yang menawarkan biskut cip cokelat panas kepada insan terpilih dan melatih kanak-kanak psikik yang boleh membengkok sudu umpama Uri Geller. Bukan yang itu. Ini Oracle, the OG, yang tulen dari zaman klasikal Yunani.

Menurut ceritanya jalan menuju masuk ke tempat si Oracle pun makin lama makin rasa umpama ke alam lain, kuilnya pun di lereng gunung tinggi lengkap asap-asap sulfurik yang berkepul-kepul. Boleh jadi itu sebab kenapa si Oracle ini boleh meramal masa depan. Kepala penuh asap. Anyway, Zeno tanya pada si Oracle macam mana nak hidup bahagia. Si Oracle kata pada Zeno; Hidup kau akan bahagia bila kau mula bercakap dengan orang yang sudah mati. Ini, sudah tentu satu rendisi tanpa segala drama. Boleh jadi sebelum bercakap ni si Oracle sedut asap apa yang patut, makan dulu analog kepada pulut kuning dan ayam panggang di Yunani purba, guna tandas terlebih dahulu, mungkin menari-nari sikit nak tunjuk dapat inspirasi dari Apollo, mandi bersihkan peluh kemudian barulah menurun bagi ramalan. Aku rasa lah. Aku mana tau.

Adat ramalan memang boleh ditakrifkan dari pelbagai sudut, samar. Tapi nak dijadikan cerita satu hari kapal dagang si Zeno karam di lautan dengan segala kekayaannya. Zeno terselamat tapi jatuh miskin. Zeno mengembara hingga sampai ke Athens dan tempat pertama yang dia sampai di Athens adalah sebuah kedai buku. Dia tergerak hati untuk ambil dan baca sebuah buku yang menceritakan pasal Socrates. Baca punya baca, Zeno kagum dengan pembacaannya mengenai Socrates yang pada waktu itu dah lama mati. Dia tanya tuan punya kedai, kat mana boleh jumpa orang macam Socrates? Tuan kedai tunding jari ke luar kedai pada seorang mamat yang tengah berjalan. Tu ada sorang kata tuan punya kedai. Mamat tersebut adalah Crates, anak murid Diogenes si filusuf gelandangan. The rest is history or should I say, the rest is philosophy.

Aku bayangkan ada Oooo panjang dari Zeno bila dia fikirkan balik ramalan si Oracle. Cakap jelah suruh membaca. Kan lagi senang.

Tugas aku memang memerlukan aku untuk membaca untuk terus relevan. Baca kes, baca buku, rujuk peruntukkan undang-undang. Memang kena buat. Kalau mengamal undang-undang tapi malas membaca umpama peninju malas melatih dengan skipping rope, askar tak ke lapang sasar. Pendek cerita, mengamal undang-undang pastu tak membaca adalah satu kegilaan yang mengundang saman cuai. Undang-undang sentiasa berubah, akan sentiasa ada kes baru atau perkembangan baru yang mengubah satu prinsip perundangan atau undang-undang itu sendiri. Macam semalam, kawan-kawan pengamal ada kongsi di WhatsApp yang Solicitor’s Remuneration Order 2023 (SRO 2023) dah keluar, akan berkuatkuasa hari Sabtu ni. Para peguam hartanah boleh senyum sikit kerana fee guaman dah naik sikit sebab memang diperuntukkan dalam SRO 2023 ni.

Membaca ini adalah satu perkara yang ada sesetengah orang pandang enteng. Bukan asal boleh menulis dan membaca dah lengkap pembangunan insaniah kau. Boleh membaca dan mengamalkan tabiat membaca adalah dua perkara yang berbeza. Ada seorang jeneral Amerika bernama Jim Mattis tulis dalam buku dia Call Sign Chaos; kalau kau tak membaca ratusan buku kau sebenarnya adalah buta huruf, dan kau tak cekap dalam bidang kau kerana pengalaman kau seorang sendiri tidak mencukupi. Bak kata si Oracle, kau kena bercakap dengan orang mati. Mendalami pengalaman jatuh bangun mereka, elak kesalahan mereka, amal kan amalan baik mereka. Ambil pengajaran. Tak perlu kau pelajari dari kesalahan/ kesilapan kau sendiri sebab kau dah belajar dari kesilapan orang lain. Pilih satu bidang, kebarangkalian ada buku ditulis oleh mengenainya atau oleh pengamalnya sangat tinggi. Kalau kau membaca, minda insan-insan ini boleh kau dalami. Banyak kau boleh pelajari. Lagi banyak kau membaca, lagi banyak kehidupan mereka yang dah mati atau masih lagi hidup yang boleh kau dalami. Tapi bila kau boleh membaca tapi pilih untuk tidak membaca, pintu kepada minda-minda ini tertutup rapat buat kau.

Kembali kepada mengamal undang-undang. Tanggungjawab seorang pengamal ni memerlukan kau untuk mewakili orang awam dengan kompeten. Jadi kalau kau tak membaca, macam mana kau nak kata kau pengamal yang kompeten bila kedudukkan undang-undang itu sentiasa berubah-ubah dan kau malas membaca, malas ambil tahu?

Kalau kau seorang Muslim, Surah Al Alaq, Ayat pertama yang diturunkan pada Nabi Muhammad S.A.W suruh kita membaca. Persoalannya kau membaca ke tak?

Sepanjang hidup aku setakat ni aku tak pernah ada passport. Paling kuat pun passport berkumpulan masa pegi percutian firma waktu latihan dalam kamar dulu. Tapi dalam minda aku, aku dah mengembara ke serata Middle Earth, Bas-Lag, Benua Eropah waktu zaman Napoleonik, bandar Chicago, perdalaman Papua New Guinea dan lain-lain tempat dan berjumpa pelbagai jenis manusia dan bangsa sentien. Cuma passport je tak di chop. Memang merata kau akan berjalan dalam minda bila membaca dan kau takkan keseorangan bila ada buku. Bab kosa kata kau makin bertambah tak payah ceritalah. Memang akan berlaku bila kau mengamalkan tabiat membaca. Nanti lama-kelamaan akan datang rasa seronok membaca tu.

Pada dasarnya setiap buku adalah satu bentuk penceritaan. Cuma isi kandungan je berbeza. Buku manual teknikal, buku cerita, buku biografi, buku bukan fiksyen. Kalau kau jenis yang membaca Beautiful Nara untuk gosip artis sahaja tak mengapa. Yang penting jangan kekal baca Beautiful Nara sahaja, upgrade kepada baca biografi artis-artis. Anggap biografi artis tu gosip versi panjang artis tersebut. Setakat ni aku tak tau kalau ada artis Malaysia yang dah tulis biografi. Mungkin ada. Jadi yang banyaknya biografi artis-artis barat. Kalau bukan biografi artis ada juga biografi ahli sukan. Bersepah di Bookxcess. Yang penting kena upgrade, jangan kekal di takuk yang sama. Bangsa yang membaca bangsa perkasa.

Membaca ni tak semestinya membaca buku fizikal (walaupun sebenarnya buku fizikal ni lagi syiok) kat Shopee pun ada jual buku-buku dalam format digital. Kalau tak di Shopee ada je banyak laman web yang mana kau boleh beli atau pinjam buku-buku versi digital macam Internet Archives. Buku-buku lama pun ada di sana. Kalau kau poyo, boleh beli Kindle untuk baca buku. Tapi tak perlu pun. Telefon pintar dengan skrin bersaiz besar pun dah cukup. Sememangnya tak ada alasan langsung di waktu dan zaman ini untuk kau tidak membaca. Semuanya di hujung jari. Nak atau tak sahaja.

Jangan di risau mereka yang kutuk kau jadi nerd ke apa sebab membaca. Tak mati pun kena kutuk. Lagipun, itu semua kutukan orang yang nak kau kekal ditempat yang sama, yang tak nak kau lagi maju dari mereka. Pedulikan. Kalau banyak mulut sangat kau boleh kata:

Aku bukan membaca, aku bercakap dengan orang mati.

Scales

At a job interview a long time ago I was asked if work-life balance is important to me. The interviewer was a Malay man in his 40’s. I answered yes, work-life balance is important. The interviewer looked at me thoughtfully before moving on to something else and cracked a joke or two. I did not get the job. As I remembered it was an in house legal position. I am glad I did not get the job. I would probably die out of sheer boredom. After all at that point of time I used to mock 9 to 5 existence and office work as mundane and mediocre. Now, 9 to 5 workday looks like the sweetest dream ever to me.

After the interview i had put the question out of my mind as I lived my life operating my then micro-sized lawfirm doing what needed doing. Generally, having fun thinking this is what life is going to be 20-30 years down the road. How foolish I was. It was after the arrival of my eldest the question came back to taunt me. As the youngest came into the picture the question was further expanded to; is an 8 hour work day possible when you do contested cases on regular basis?

Slowly, I began to understand the importance of 8 hour workday for a family man. After all, people have died for it. I should not let them die in vain. Slowly but surely I became a committed believer of the 8 hour workday, even if it is not a reality for me, yet.

Back when they were too young for kindergarten the boys would do whatever it takes to stop me from leaving the house for work. On days I had court matters to attend to the usual run of things in the morning would be for one of them to quiz me where I intend to go when I had put on my white work shirt despite knowing full well that white shirt meant work. Then the I-don’t-want-you-to-go-to-work whines of protest would start before the blocking of the door (sometimes bodily). Depending on the mood the youngest might join in. Sometimes there were tears involved. Then the negotiations would begin and boy they were tough negotiators. At that point of time their protests seemed cute. Not so much nowadays. After a while I learned to tip toe around the house and to make as little noise as possible as to not wake them up early in the morning. That felt dirty. Whomever called the Law a demanding mistress had that down pat. It feels as if I am cheating on my family when I am actually just doing my job to provide for my family.

In the mean time I began looking for the answer to my question. All I heard were horror stories from fellow lawyers doing litigation of being called at 2-3 am by insane bosses asking for them to show up to deliver this and that or prepare this and that. Let us not even talk about weekends or what a crime it is to not have your mobile phone with you at all times. Work and life became one and the same, indivisible and indistinguishable. And I used to think my pupillage was tough (sleeping bag and lots of coffee). One story I heard from my then colleague was of his former boss who was a hardcore litigator in a niche area of the Law. Her family would come with packed dinner and would sat down for dinner with her at the office as a family. After dinner her husband and children would go home and she would be back to work drafting cause papers and preparing for trial. What a life. No, wait. Is that even life when the scales are overwhelmingly tilted in favour of work?

Now that they are older, the eldest and the youngest had stopped with the morning protests. Instead, a new weapon in their arsenal was to call me every now and then and to ask why I was still at work after 7pm and to instruct me to come home. I kept thinking I must have been ill-disciplined with my time or truly suck at delegating tasks as to have my work bleed into the time for my family. I am still trying to even the scales, though it looks like an uphill battle. Someone once told me that as you go higher up the hierarchy the more time you have. I’d slap him or her if I could remember who it was who said it.

On Friday the rest of the office was on leave on account of the Hari Raya Haji the day before and the prospect of a long weekend. It was only me and the accounts lady at work. As the clock nears 5 pm I was already thinking of the things I could do with my family instead of vegging out (though vegging out sounds good too. It has been a very demanding past few weeks for me) At the back of my head there was the nagging suspicion that something was not right. An email came in just before 5pm requiring an urgent major work to be done the very same day. I was right to be suspicious for unexpected free time. They almost always never exist. Might as well melt the damned scales for scrap metal.

Only late last year I realize that the reason I get no clear answer for my question is because no one has an answer for it. Everyone is trying to balance work and life. Everyone is busy running on that hamster wheel of Life that they do not even have the time to think about balancing anything. They just hope things are balanced. Looking back, maybe that thoughtful look the interviewer gave was actually an expectant look. Maybe he was also looking for that answer, for validation that work-life balance is necessary. But then again it could be he thought me to be an impudent whelp to have such unrealistic expectations.

Time moves so fast that often i have to remind myself that my children will not remain children forever. They grow up fast. One common complaint of my parent’s generation I have often heard was that they did not manage to see their children grow up. They were too busy working. I’d like to think that with technology and stuff my generation can do better but that remains to be seen. Technology seemed to have created this unreasonable expectation that legal work can be done in relatively short time. What nonsense. Somethings maybe lah, but not everything. Coming up with a legal solution could take time, its not like making yourself a Maggi mee.

I still dream of the day where 8 hour work day is a reality even for people who do contested matters regularly, even as the world is slowly moving towards 4 hour workday. Even if it is not my reality, now at least I am in the position to make it so for my colleagues. As for my imbalanced scales, it is up to me to balance it the best I can because at the end of the day, all that I have done is for my family. What is the point of it all if my legal work is top notch but my family life is in shambles? How can I even look them in the eyes to say that I had fought for the time with them as much as I had fought for my clients.