By Martin Jalleh
14 Oct 2011

When the respected retired judge N H Chan called certain judges in the appellate courts “imposters”, “intellectual and legal frauds”, “incompetent”, “inane”, “ignoramuses”, “inconsistent” and even an “idiotic” bunch, little did he realise that he was being very mild.

Now it has come to the public’s notice that crouching amongst the growing company of judicial clowns and court jesters in the Palace of Justice is a copycat judge who allegedly plagiarised chunks of a judgment of another judge – in a copyright infringement case!

Former Law Minister Rais Yatim has confirmed that the government had known about the plagiarising judge, but Rais tries to take the rakyat for a ride by blaming it all on the then Chief Justice (CJ), and that it was left to the latter to investigate and to take appropriate action.

Copycat out of the bag

Recently, veteran lawyer Karpal Singh, with the support of close to 60 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, submitted a motion to the office of the Parliament speaker against Justice Abdul Malik Ishak, to have him placed before a tribunal and be removed.

While serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed the offence of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright infringement.

Malaysiakini highlighted two news reports in Singapore’s Straits Times — 8 March and 13 April, 2000 which were referred to by Karpal Singh. The newspaper quoted then CJ Eusoff Chin as having written to his Singapore counterpart, Justice Yong Pung How, asking for more information on the allegation of plagiarism.

A month later, Eusoff told journalists that the matter was resolved and that it had arisen out of a “misunderstanding”. He however did not elaborate. (By the way, this is the same CJ, whom a former CJ Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had described as one who “kept lying to him” when the latter was a Federal Court judge and Eusoff was his boss! (Star, 30 Jan. 2008).

The Straits Times also reported that Rais Yatim had promised an investigation. Rais was ridiculous enough as to add that it was not easy to establish plagiarism because it was normal for judges to quote one another extensively and that: “Quoting another judge is not plagiarism.”

The Straits Times report of 8 March, 2000 reduced Rais’ “rescue bid” of the judge to pure rubbish when it quoted the former Singapore judge (Selvam) accusing the Malaysian judge of having obtained a copy of his (Selvam’s) judgment through a lawyer and “having copied chunks from me without acknowledging”. (Rais sat on the case for four long years and did nothing about it!)

Selvam was also quoted to have said the Malaysian judge backdated his judgment so that people “will think I copied from him!” The naked truth appears each time Rais speaks through his rear end.

After the Singapore judiciary got the cat out of the bag, the copycat was transferred out of Johor Baru and kept in cold-storage for a while. Seven years later the plagiariser would be promoted to the Court of Appeal (16 July, 2007)! This can only happen in Bolehland!

Karpal Singh has described (on several online news portals) Malik’s alleged plagiarising as a “judicial scandal”, “misconduct of a very serious nature”, “a source of embarrassment for our judiciary” and one that warrants “stern disciplinary action” by a Royal Tribunal.

Will Justice Abdul Malik Ishak have enough honour left to resign on his own accord? Is there any remaining sense of decency and self-respect in him to acknowledge and accept the fact that his position as a judge has become clearly untenable?

Will the Chief Justice save the judiciary and the country from further embarrassment or has the judiciary entirely lost its sense of shame and the CJ prefers to continue in his elegant silence?

Meanwhile, taking the easy way out like Rais, Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said the government could not take action against Abdul Malik as it was a matter for the current judiciary to settle.

Asked why the judiciary had not censured Abdul Malik until now, he said: “I don’t know, you have to ask them.” Strange, coming from a man who had once proudly and loudly declared himself as the “Minister for the Chief Justice”!

Malik’s other “achievements”

On 10 Oct. 2009, the Court of Appeal, with Malik as the presiding judge, struck out Anwar Ibrahim’s RM100 million defamation suit against Dr Mahathir on the technicality that the memorandum of appeal was not in Bahasa Malaysia. Malik stressed the supremacy of the national language as he delivered his 31-page written judgment in English!

On 5 Oct. 2011, the Federal Court allowed Anwar Ibrahim’s application to expunge portions of a written judgment made by Malik on 6 July in the Court of Appeal related to the Sodomy II trial, that were deemed disparaging of the politician and his lawyers.

Karpal Singh (Anwar’s lawyer) complained to the judges that Malik had “without jurisdiction and for an apparent purpose invoked a non-existent jurisdiction to maliciously and scurrilously (go into the merits and) embark on a relentless attack on Anwar and the lawyers (in the written judgment)”.

“This amounts to judicial assassination of the worst kind … (and) to make matters worse, the appellant and the lawyers were not given an opportunity to defend ourselves… as the appellate court had allowed the preliminary objection.

“The remarks were uncalled for and put the Judiciary in bad light. If the case was allowed to be heard on its merits, we (would have been) prepared to defend ourselves. However, we were not allowed to do so as the court allowed the preliminary objection.”

Karpal also questioned as to how Malik produced the written 40-page judgment on the day the appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal. Various law journals had reported that the judgment was produced on 6 July, but lawyers for Anwar only received it on 15 Aug.

Malik had also scurrilously written: “This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing.”

Very ironically, it is the case of Abdul Malik which will fall in history and be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the one found guilty of plagiarising in a copyright infringement case was the judge himself!