Plaintiff's counsel in a high profile case writes Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin's judgement; the judge is promoted to the Court of Appeal shortly after, and awaits preferment to the Federal Court, which 26 months after the hearing has yet to deliver judgement in that case. Several years before that a High Court judge was forced to resign after he penned a "surat layang", in frustration, at the petty goings-on in the judiciary. Now, a Singapore judge accuses a Malaysian judge of plagiarising his judgement. Mr Justice G.P. Selvam did not name the judge but lawyers here identify the judicial copycat as Mr Justice Malik Ishak of the Johore Bahru High Court. Ironically the case before the Singapore judge was a copyright infringment case. He had written the judgement but, he said, even before its release, a Malaysian judge obtained it through a lawyer and "copied chunks from it"; to add insult to injury, the Malaysian judge backdated his judgement to Mr Justice Selvam's delivery date so that it would seem he copied from the Malaysian judgement. All this comes at a time when political reliability and loyalty is more important qualities for a Malaysian judge these days than the normal attributes expected of a judge.

If the past is any guide, such behaviour would not only be excused but could well put him in line for promotion -- if he is one of those judges favoured by the Chief Justice, Tun Eusoff Chin. The Federal Court, with Tun Eusoff heading the coram, also clearly warned that any lawyer convicted for contempt of court would get a quick stay if his sometime holiday partner or his brother represents him. Mr Justice Low Hop Bing had sentenced the lawyer, Mr Ramanathan Vellu, to six months jail for not renewing his practicising certificate. Stay pending appeal was refused. Another lawyer could not move the Court of Appeal. But the Federal Court swiftly allowed the stay. A third lawyer, the brother of the holiday partner, had taken over but not before Mr Vellu spent a night in jail for not, it appears, choosing the right lawyer at the right time. Many lawyers expect him, at worst, to be slapped on the wrist -- a la Tan Sri Rahim Noor -- if the same legal representation is retained at the appeal.

Amidst these self-inflicting blows within the judiciary, the Malaysian Bar moved forward to elect Mr Sulaiman Abdullah as its new president. The cabinet ministry in charge of the justice portfolio, Dato' Rais Yatim, quickly welcomed the appointment. He wants the opprobrium with which the executive and the judiciary holds the Bar to be removed. But the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice has not. If proof be needed, it shows clearly that the Bar's problem is not with the executive but with the two individuals. The executive clearly had decided that enough was enough when it appointed Dato' Rais to mend bridges with the Bar. But Mr Sulaiman's election surprised, indeed shocked, many. He is one of the panel of lawyers for the former deputy prime minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and therefore, in the view of many, a man totally unqualified to hold office as Bar chairman. He deflected that brilliantly by pointing out that Dr Cyrus Das representing Dato' Seri Samy Vellu did not affect his tenure as chairman, so why should his.

But that is not at issue here. Would the judiciary clean up its act so that the respect it once had would return. The judiciary has become an exact copy of the Prime Minister's way of governance: the Chief Justice plays favourites, as the Prime Minister, and appoints only them to high profile positions, while the older, trusted and erudite judges are in enforced limbo. As a rule of thumb, I know of no instance where a judge has been appointed in a high profile case who is not closely aligned to the Chief Justice. The latest is the appointment of Mr Justice Augustine Paul to hear election petitions. But this accusation of plagiarism by a foreign judge is one the Chief Justice cannot overlook or ignore. It impinges on the integrity of the Malaysian judiciary and its international reputation. If he does not, it stands condemned to the world outside what it insists what it does within does not. Would he dare rise above his pettiness and punishing any who disagrees with him or his friend to look, for once, at the integrity of the court he presides over? In any case, the allegations are serious for a judicial tribunal to consider the judge's conduct.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my