When Complaints Become Too Costly for Ordinary Citizens

 

Back in 2021, I lodged a complaint against a law firm. The Advocates Inquiry Committee in Kota Kinabalu heard the matter. What followed was troubling: two different signature pages were produced for the findings. One page bore the signatures of members who had actually attended the hearing. The other included members who had not been present, yet their signatures were counted toward the majority decision. The Committee then declared that it was “their practice” to circulate findings to all members—even those absent—and to allow them to sign off. On that basis, my complaint was dismissed.

This practice undermines fairness. How can members who did not hear the evidence or observe the testimony legitimately vote on the outcome? Rule 7 of the Advocates (Inquiry Committee) Rules 2013 allows the Committee to regulate its own procedure, but discretion should never override natural justice. Decisions must be made by those who actually heard the case. Anything else erodes public confidence.

I am bringing this up again now because a new matter has arisen. But I hesitate to file another complaint. As a B40 citizen, I receive RM100 a month subsidy for purchasing goods in Malaysia known as Sumbangan Asas Rahmah (SARA)from the government.To lodge a complaint, I would need to pay RM100 and spend additional money on printing copies. That is a heavy burden when the system itself appears stacked against complainants. Why should ordinary citizens bear the cost of pursuing justice in a process that allows absent members to decide outcomes?

Until such practices are reformed, complaints risk being little more than exercises in futility. Accountability requires transparency, and transparency requires that only those present at a hearing should determine its result. Without that, the system protects its own, while ordinary citizens are left to shoulder costs they can ill afford.

 

What Can Be Done?

If disciplinary bodies are unwilling to reform themselves, citizens must look elsewhere. Options include:

 

Ministerial oversight: raising concerns directly with the relevant ministry or regulator, who has the power to review systemic practices.

 

Civil remedies: pursuing matters through the courts, where procedural safeguards are stronger and decisions are subject to appeal. However, this is costly.

 

Public advocacy: documenting and publishing these practices so that the wider community understands how the system operates, and pressing for reform through public pressure.

 

Bringing these issues into the open is the first step toward change. Silence only allows unfair practices to continue unchallenged.

Let us see if Datuk Roger Chin who was the secretary of the Inquiry Committee  has any comments. 

For details read here. Click on the image for a better view. 

 

Please share this post with your contacts.