There, Tan Sri Thomas says:

‘I realised that lawyers from the AGC did not have the same commitment, passion and drive to succeed as their counterparts in the Bar.

Public-sector lawyers had public-service attitudes. They were civil servants, earning a fixed monthly income, and awaiting pension upon retirement. There was no incentive to distinguish themselves…

[The] emergence of the best and brightest stars in the private litigation Bar, had no equivalent in the AGC (at least to an outside observer).’

The purpose of this passage seems to suggest that members of the AGC were not as good as lawyers in the Malaysian Bar.

That is not – I repeat – that is not true at all!

Yet many politicians of race-based parties have seized this passage to show that members of the AGC were alleged to be both ‘stupid’ and ‘lazy’.

I have worked against AGC counsels in many cases. In these years I got to know over 40 of them.

What has been my impression? 

I will, as usual, tell you a story.

In 2007, someone asked me to defend a group of HINDRAF detainees at the Selayang Sessions Court.

The situation in court was a powder keg ready to explode. A strong contingent of police officers was present.

Large groups of people had gathered at the court foyer. Most of them were ethnic Indians. The 15 counsels for the detainees were livid.

By then, newspapers were awash with allegations of racial oppression and other nasty concoctions.

It was hard to differentiate between truth and propaganda.

Feelings were running high.

The question was whether bail should be granted, and what charges these accused were to be indicted with.

The AGC team was first led by DPP Awang Armadajaya.

We conferred. He was, every inch of him, an aristocratic gentleman.  He worked hard to ensure that our clients’ needs were met.

The sessions court judge took her seat. Both sides put forth powerful arguments.

The judge transferred the case to the Shah Alam Sessions Court. There, the then Attorney General himself, Tan Sri Gani Patail, turned up.

The situation was worse than Selayang!

By this time the entire foreign press had mobbed the court.

It was difficult to get in.

There were 60 counsels for the detainees. Most of the lawyers sat cross-legged on the floor. Those addressing arguments sat on several chairs.

There were 166 detainees. Added to that were wailing family members.

And those who had come to post bail.

Several counsels spoke.

The arguments were fierce. Emotional arguments were raised. Mostly from other counsels from our side.

One at a time, multiple primary charges, and alternative charges were read and confirmed.

Arguments were fierce. They ran up until 9:45 pm.

We had to take recesses several times for prayer-breaks.

I think it was the longest remand hearing in Malaysian history.

By 9.30 pm everyone was exhausted. No one had so much as had a glass of water.

I leaned across to the AG. I pointed to the accused. None of them had eaten.

He put his hand in his pocket and took out a large wad of notes.

He handed it to the police officers and asked them to buy food. A break was asked for an granted. The accused had dinner.

In the course of the next six months, Tan Sri Gani Patail worked with me to grant bail to the accused – on the most favourable terms.

Sometimes bail payments were made in instalments: as much as RM50 ringgit a month.

The quality of the AGC’s arguments was calm, organised, and professional.

The AGC team extended many kindnesses. They were courteous to the point of being sympathetic to my clients.

A member of the prosecution team, Dato Yusof (then Solicitor General II), took me aside. He asked me to invoke a particular section of the penal code in order to take an alternative, easier path.

Of the 320 arrested in Batu Caves, 166 were charged. Most were released.

Only 4 went on to the end of trial.

My colleagues, Augustine Anthony, Karthigesan, KN Geetha, Viji, Vib, and Puthan saw it to the end.

In another Bersih case, when various members of the PAS delegation were arrested.

Again the AG, Tan Sri Gani Patail appeared against me. We argued passionately.

But the court granted bail.

At no time was Gani Patail, or his AGC officers were improper towards the defence team.

When the ruling government makes very difficult decisions, it is members of the AGC who face the brunt of it in court.

In every such occasion, these AGC officers spend sleepless days and nights preparing for the cases.

We defence counsel know – it is not easy to break the wall of AGC Prosecution team.

For all this slogging, AGC lawyers do not get paid any more than their monthly salary.

They do their work at great personal risk.

When they fight to enforce the law against organised crime, many AGC officers have been, and to this day, are constantly threatened with death, or severe injury.

Do you remember how DPP Kevin Morais met his death?

That is only one example.

Have members of the AGC ever complained to you about all that?

AGC officers, like you and I, have families and children to look after: even then, they spend very long and hard hours going over case details.

On the many occasions that I have appeared against AGC officers in capital offence cases, civil matters, on Societies Act disputes, Election Petitions, and Land Acquisition cases – every single AGC officer that I have opposed has behaved with the greatest courtesy.

In the clamour of battle, we have often exchanged heated words.

Nobody took it to heart, returned home, and came back the next day to put the best arguments forth.

AGC officers consider it their duty to protect and enforce the law.

Sometimes they see our clients as law breakers who must be brought to book. Can we blame them for slogging to secure a conviction?

If every AGC lawyer who secures a conviction is to be seen in a poor light, where would our justice system be?

Tan Sri Thomas’s allegation that AGC officers ‘have no passion or drive to succeed’ compared to ‘their counterparts in the Bar’ is not borne out by facts.

It is a great disservice to the AGC officers to say that AGC lawyers exhibit ‘public-service attitude’.

My own experience has shown the opposite.

Just because AGC officers are ‘civil servants, earning a fixed monthly income, and awaiting pension upon retirement,’ – which is by the way, their right – does not mean that they are ‘lazy’ or ‘incompetent’ or had prepared for cases ineffectively.

In the years I have worked with members of the AGC, I have found them to be exceedingly bright and hard-working.

Like all bodies of men and women, in every organisation there are good people and the average members, and there are rotten apples.

I know lawyers at the Malaysian Bar who have the same qualities that Tan Sri Thomas alleges.

Do we have lawyers in the Malaysian Bar who are incompetent and lazy? How can I say, ‘No’?

Members of Malaysian Bar, and the Law Societies of Sabah and Sarawak, and the members of the AGC, and finally the institution of the judiciary, form the three sides of the same Legal Edifice that renders justice to the nation.

One cannot exist without the other.

If one eye bleeds, can the other be happy?

When the one limb is under attack, it hurts all other members.  Would you not use one arm to protect the other arm under attack?

It behoves every lawyer to come to the aid of the besieged Attorney General’s Chambers

Those who attack the AGC encourage political and racial division – exactly what some racist politicians desire in their heart of hearts.

We lawyers should avoid this. We should stand together.

I can say this to you members of the Attorney General’s Chambers.

Confidently too!

Every right-thinking member of the Malaysian Bar, and members of the Sabah and Sarawak Bar stand in support of you, our dear the members of the AGC.