Revisiting government’s ‘Justice On Wheels’ programme

ON Nov 28, 2025, The Borneo Post quoted a Bernama’s report about clinics.

Nothing to do with medicines, though; it was about dispensing legal advice.

In that report, Minister in Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, announced the government’s plans of expanding the ‘Justice on Wheels’ legal aid clinics in the rural areas and integrating them with a digital system.

For anyone who has a serious problem with the law and needs some advice on how to solve his problem, this facility provides him with an opportunity of getting free legal advice – available at the front door, so to speak.

This is a good programme, provided that it is well-funded; otherwise, it will not last long.

See what happened to the Legal Aid Bureau? Has anybody heard about such a thing?

It was established in Kuching some 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, the Honourable Minister did not provide details of the plan, so we do not know exactly what the scope of the service is.

It would be helpful if the ministry concerned could provide more information on that plan, as soon as possible.

Anyway, I must congratulate whoever conceived the idea.

Repeat, this sort of assistance delivered by a government-related agency depends on the availability of funds on a sustainable basis.

The Legal Aid Bureau was established in Kuching 20 years ago. Not a word about it these days – does it still exist?

Another point is that the minister did not specifically mention Sarawak or Sabah as part of the federal government’s plan.

However, I am assuming that the services rendered by the ‘Justice on Wheels’ will be extended to both states in Borneo in due time.

On that basis, I would like to suggest that the ‘Justice on Wheels’ clinics in Sarawak or Sabah should be manned by lawyers who are familiar with the ‘adat’ (customary) laws or personal laws of the indigenous peoples of the states, including the Native Customary Rights (NCR) law relating to traditional ownership of lands.

In Sarawak, there are many cases of disputes over proprietorship of NCR lands, endlessly pending settlement.

I should imagine that these mobile clinics will have enough ‘patients’ seeking advice.

I guess that this service will be in the form of consultation only.

Real litigation will commence in the court of first instance, followed by appeals, if necessary.

It is what happens at this stage of the plan that needs clarification from the ministry.

I don’t think the plan is worked out in all the details yet.

I am assuming, however, that the services will be confined to an interview with a lawyer, in order to record and verify facts.

Law application is another exercise.

It’s like the service of an ambulance.

The patient is brought into the ambulance equipped with basic services (instruments to test blood pressure, breathing apparatus, etc), which can be administered by the paramedics before the case is referred to a doctor on duty at the Emergency Ward.

Then the patient is either admitted to some ward for substantive treatment, or allowed to go home with the prescribed medicines from the pharmacy.

I should imagine that a similar procedure will be followed in a ‘Justice on Wheels’ legal clinic.

What the clients want is a lawyer’s opinion pertaining to the viability of their case.

The advice obtained in the clinic may be considered as the first opinion; there will be a second, or even a third.

For the subsequent step, there is no choice but to go to another lawyer.

And that means more fees, unless the lawyer can dispense legal work on a pro bono publico basis (legal work that is carried out unpaid for the good of the general community).

It would be good for the state government to support this scheme and adopt as its own should the federal government not extend the ‘Justice on Wheels’ programme to East Malaysia.

Also, a political party vying for power in Sarawak or Sabah should adopt and adapt to this idea as a proposal in their party’s elections, respectively; and formalise it as a government policy should the party come to power.

I would vote for the candidate of that party in the general election.

Repeat, the ‘Justice on Wheels’ should last long if it is well-funded.

Very often, government programmes are not sustainable because of the shortage of funds, or as a result of a change in government policy.

Supplementary questions – what has happened to the government’s legal aid bureau?

Closed for lack of ‘patients’?

Answers to these queries are important because the people who will run the legal clinics as proposed by the minister would most probably face similar problems.

Have we enough lawyers to work for the ‘Justice on Wheels’?

I wonder what members of the legal fraternity will say about the encroachment upon their turf.

One possible side-effect of this mobile and free legal scheme could affect the work of those lawyers who have been handling social affairs: for example, family problems, interpretation of wills, or minor offences.

Some lawyers do not do litigation; they deal with the clients who prefer to settle their disputes out of court.

A lot of disputes can be settled outside the court.

Will the ‘Justice on Wheels’ be able to handle this sort of problems competently?

The federal government should think in terms of utilising the expertise of the practising lawyers in Sarawak and Sabah for the ‘Justice on Wheels’ work.

A lawyer who offers to work at the legal aid office should get paid honorarium by the federal government under the scheme.

It is a similar arrangement with a medical doctor from the general hospital, or another clinic volunteer to help out one another.

A locum; a legal artificial intelligence (AI) locum – why not?

No more questions from me.