年轻律师的辛酸

俗语曰：“女怕嫁错郎，男怕入错行”。但我们却说：“行行皆能出状元”。那到底有没有入错行这一回事？还是其实你只要有恒心与决心，任何一个行业都有出头地的一天。

许多人（父母）提倡专业资格，金钱观念为上，难听一点就是利字当头。其实他们并没有错，活在这世界里没有钱真的是寸步难行，更别说娶妻养家。因此，父母们都尽量发掘孩子的各方潜能，以在将来成龙成凤，考上一个专业资格课程，晋身律师，工程师，医生等职场，光宗耀祖。

我无法为其他行业点评，但法律界方面确实能以一个年轻人的观点发表一些意见。

（以下所提及的数据皆取自一篇命名为：“Unattractive Legal Profession”的文章，刊登于2012年10月27日的星报专栏内）

隶属于律师公会的全国年轻律师委员会（National Young Lawyers Committee）于2011年末进行了一项调查，主要针对国内年轻律师的福利，工作薪水与就业环境等作出了解。

根据调查显示，一名刚宣誓（called to the Bar）的年轻律师，他在巴生谷（Klang Valley）（“他”在这里没男女之分）的薪水介于RM3,000至RM3,500；那些在巴生谷以外的薪金水平则介于RM2,000至RM2,500，谨能足够一般的生活消费。

再深入了解，一名浦入行的年轻律师，他的工作时间平均一星期介于51至60小时，平均一天须工作12小时（朝九晚九）。数据也显示，被接受访问的年轻律师们皆必须在周末上班，无可幸免。

以上数据也意味着：

巴生谷：以平均年薪RM39,000（月薪平均RM3,250）除以一年2860小时（一星期平均55小时）的工作时间，一名第一年的年轻律师的时薪才RM13.64。

非巴生谷：以平均年薪RM27,000（月薪平均RM2,250）除以一年2860小时（一星期平均55小时）的工作时间，一名第一年的年轻律师的时薪才RM9.44。

点评：

许多人一定认为年轻律师们必须经得起考验与磨练，以后方能发光发热，因此现在承受的煎熬必定会得到可观的成就。事实上，有哪一个行业不是必须这样的呢？

每个人对法律系的看法不一。有者认为是一门异常辛苦的科系，闻其名如见鬼般，坦言说修读法律系的都是非凡人才。有些人则认为他与其他较专业的科系一样，都必须比其他“非专业”科系付出稍为多一点的努力。

我们必须了解，法律知识也许人人皆知，因为知识随手可得；但是，律师作为一名被赋予特定权力的一群人士，他能代表客户上法庭争取权益，捍卫正义，是其他专业资格所办不到的。再说，产业买卖，离婚手续，民事刑事诉讼等都必须经过律师的处理。

司法界有它一套的运作方法，其所运用的词汇和方式也只有行内人知道和了解。

该文章也提到，心中那股成为律师的热诚（passion）非常重要，因为它将会在与薪水高低的水平挣扎时，扮演了一定的角色。

以前有人说，律师是正义的守护者。但事到如今，再加上我对这行的一些了解后，我会认为它是“律师，可以是正义的守护者”。纵然在这显示社会里，我们必须养家糊口，为三餐温饱；但“律师”就是有他天生赋予的权力和无法说明的使命。我始终认为成为一名律师，那股passion非常重要，那股助人的心必须时时刻刻保持。

-----------------------------------

文章：Unattractive Legal Profession

The Myth of Secularism

It is rare for me to comment on this debatable issue. Although the heat point never stop, nevertheless our politicians are still love to open fire by contending Malaysia is an Islamic country, and vice versa.

The de facto law minister Dato' Seri Nazri again pointed out that Malaysia is not a secular state. However, the question as to whether Malaysia is an Islamic state is left unanswered. Yes we may agree that the rakyat is (or probably) deeply concerns with this question. Thus, despite the fact that the myth has became another battlefield for the Barisan and Pakatan, we should fairly get to know our country's current practice pertaining to this issue, a topic which I will return to.

Deputy Prime Minister has urged the society not to argue on this "Islamic-Secular State" issue. He further commented that it is vital for the administration to administer the Constitution in government's routine. Fairly speaking I agree with DPM that one should look into the practice of Constitutionalism but DPM has had the question to be evaded, wisely.

Different people has different standard of morality and humanity principles. We might have capitalism or Marxism in faith. However, I strongly opined that we should uphold the most vital and approachable "Constitutionalism", without any hesitation. In any means, Constitution is the supreme law of the land that no one and no any law can above it. 

Article 4(1)
This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Having said that, the awareness of Constitutionalism is apparently weak. More importantly, our fundamental liberties are governed under the Constitution and frankly speaking we have  no reason to reject the responsibility to understand it.

On other fronts, secularism should be explained in advance before further comments took place. To put it simple, secularism means a state without any religious institution attached to it. It is a principle of separation that the state is free from any religious rule and teachings. It may further be asserted that it is a right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people.

The de facto law minister contended that our Constitution is not applying the word "secular", expressly or impliedly. In the mean time, Article 3(1) stated that Islam is the official religion in this Federation and it is further explained that the state has the duty to "protect, defend and promote" Islam. It is indisputable that Islam is the official religion of Malaysia and regardless of any races and religious beliefs, that everyone and anyone has a duty to respect and obey it.

To my point of view, we should look into the intention of the Constitution frame makers, or the draftsmen. However it is worth and ironically to point out that our Constitution was drafted by a country which do not has a codified constitution.

Let me extract several points from the Reid Commission Report:

i.) Observance of “the religion of Malaysia shall be Islam” shall not impose any disability of non-muslim natives professing and practicing their religions

ii.) Shall not imply that the State is not a secular state 

And also the White Paper suggested that:

i.) Declaration that Islam is religion of Federation does not affect present position as a secular state

The documents and evidences shown by the DAP Ipoh Timur MP, Lim Kit Siang may strengthen the argument of secularism further. 

Thus, upon and until this stage, I would rather to comment that it is irrelevant whether Malaysia is a secular or Islamic state, provided always Constitutionalism supersede the others in the first place. A pure politicians' topic does not, and need not attract any interests at this juncture.

We should "constitutionalize" our daily life and have it into practice. The judicial attitude should be widen by referring to the Constitution frequently, in particularly connecting to the issues of personal liberties and religious beliefs (for non-muslim). 

Last but not least, the sovereign should have not amended the Constitution at their own will, which is based on political driven solely. The 1988 Constitutional Crisis has marked the dark sight in the Mahathir's administration milestone that this precedent should not being repeated anymore in the future.

Humanises Drug Offence

Finally the amendment on mandatory death sentencing has came to the spotlight. The de facto law minister Dato' Seri Nazri has openly said that the government is now prepare to review the inhumane law pertaining to S39B(2) Dangerous Drug Acts 1952, particularly.

39B
 (1) No person shall, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person, whether or not such other person is in Malaysia—
(a) traffic in a dangerous drug;
(b) offer to traffic in a dangerous drug; or
(c) do or offer to do an act preparatory to or for the purpose of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

(2) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be punished on conviction with death.

The decision to replace the mandatory death sentencing with maximum imprisonment 30 years as said by the de facto law minister should be welcomed greatly. This courageous step should be read with our Article 2 of Constitution further, which is the "Right to Life".

There are several school of thoughts, opinions and criticisms raised after Dato' Seri Nazri and Attorney General commented on the possibility to repeal the section.

Certain clarifications should have taken place upon this stage:-

(1) the public would have thought there is NO MORE death sentencing for drug carriers (which also called the donkeys). However, according to AG, they are in the midst of reviewing the MANDATORY death penalty. In other word, they are considering to impose some discretion to the judiciary on whether to execute the drug offenders with death sentencing.

(2) abolishing death sentencing could lead to increment of drug cases, which I think this is not true at all. I don't see any reducing on drug offender cases due to the practice of imposing mandatory death sentencing. The current sentencing are not discouraging the drug carriers from challenging the authority.

Under current law, the judges' hand are tied and they are in no position to impose alternative sentencing other than mandatory death penalty. The fact is, the drug carriers could be innocent and they were just a tool to be fooled by the syndicates. I have seen (or have been told) a number of mental disability donkey cases to  import or export the drugs, and nevertheless they were hanged on the platform in the end. From here, I took a stand that the judges could consider to exercise their discretion on not imposing death penalty, in the event that the section has been repealed by the government.

Human rights could be another field of discussion. Although our Article 2 of Constitution is not being weighted and interpreted nicely by the judiciary, nevertheless the execution of human life to an end is considered unjust under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In short, no one can take away another's life.

If the government prepare to do so, undeniably it is a progress move towards a more democratic, just and fair legal system. I would rather to suggest life imprisonment to be implemented for medium level drug offenders, or higher. This could ensure justice would be more well served.

The end of a life is irreversible, and justice can nevertheless being tempered with mercy and second chance.