By Martin Jalleh
14 October 2011
When a respected retired decider N H Chan called sure judges in a appellate courts "imposters", "intellectual as well as legal frauds", "incompetent", "inane", "ignoramuses", "inconsistent" as well as even an "idiotic" bunch, small did he realize which he was being really mild.
Now it has come to a public's notice which crouching amongst a flourishing association of legal clowns as well as justice jesters in a Palace of Justice is a copycat decider who allegedly plagiarised chunks of a visualisation of an additional decider in a copyright transgression case!
Former Law Minister Rais Yatim has reliable which a supervision had well known about a plagiarising judge, though Rais tries to take a rakyat for a float by blaming it all upon a afterwards Chief Justice (CJ), as well as which it was left to a latter to investigate as well as to take appropriate action.
Copycat out of a bag
Recently, maestro counsel Karpal Singh, with a await of tighten to 60 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, submitted a motion to a office of a Parliament orator opposite Justice Abdul Malik Ishak, to have him placed before a tribunal as well as be removed.
While serving as a High Court decider in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed a corruption of plagiarising a visualisation by afterwards Singapore High Court decider GP Selvam as well as a irony of a make a difference was which Malik was hearing a box per copyright infringement.
Malaysiakini highlighted two headlines reports in Singapore's Straits Times 8 Mar as well as thirteen April, 2000 which were referred to by Karpal Singh. The journal quoted afterwards CJ Eusoff Chin as having created to his Singapore counterpart, Justice Yong Pung How, asking for more report upon a claim of plagiarism.
A month later, Eusoff told journalists which a make a difference was resolved as well as which it had arisen out of a "mi! sunderst anding". He however did not elaborate. (By a way, this is a same CJ, whom a former CJ Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had described as a single who "kept lying to him" when a latter was a Federal Court decider as well as Eusoff was his boss! (Star, thirty Jan. 2008).
The Straits Times additionally reported which Rais Yatim had promised an investigation. Rais was ridiculous enough as to supplement which it was not easy to settle piracy since it was normal for judges to quote a single an additional extensively as well as that: "Quoting an additional decider is not plagiarism."
The Straits Times report of 8 March, 2000 marked down Rais' "rescue bid" of a decider to pristine balderdash when it quoted a former Singapore decider (Selvam) accusing a Malaysian decider of having performed a copy of his (Selvam's) visualisation by a counsel as well as "having copied chunks from me without acknowledging". (Rais sat upon a box for four prolonged years as well as did nothing about it!)
Selvam was additionally quoted to have pronounced a Malaysian decider backdated his visualisation so which people "will think you copied from him!" The exposed truth appears each time Rais speaks by his rear end.
After a Singapore law got a cat out of a bag, a copycat was transferred out of Johor Baru as well as kept in cold-storage for a while. Seven years later a plagiariser would be promoted to a Court of Appeal (16 July, 2007)! This can usually occur in Bolehland!
Karpal Singh has described (on multiform online headlines portals) Malik's alleged plagiarising as a "judicial scandal", "misconduct of a really critical nature", "a source of annoyance for a judiciary" as well as a single which warrants "stern disciplinary action" by a Royal Tribunal.
Will Justice Abdul Malik Ishak have enough honour left to renounce upon his own accord? Is there any superfluous clarity of goodness as well as egoism in him to admit as well as accept a fact which his position as a decider has turn clearly untenable?
!Will a Chief Justice save a law as well as a nation from further annoyance or has a law entirely lost a clarity of shame as well as a CJ prefers to go upon in his superb silence?
Meanwhile, receiving a easy approach out like Rais, Minister in a PM's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz pronounced a supervision could not take movement opposite Abdul Malik as it was a make a difference for a current law to settle.
Asked because a law had not censured Abdul Malik until now, he said: "I do not know, you have to ask them." Strange, entrance from a man who had once proudly as well as loudly spoken himself as a "Minister for a Chief Justice"!
Malik's other "achievements"
On 10 Oct. 2009, a Court of Appeal, with Malik as a presiding judge, struck out Anwar Ibrahim's RM100 million insult fit opposite Dr Mahathir upon a technicality which a memorandum of appeal was not in Bahasa Malaysia. Malik stressed a supremacy of a inhabitant denunciation as he delivered his 31-page created visualisation in English!
On 5 Oct. 2011, a Federal Court authorised Anwar Ibrahim's application to obliterate portions of a created visualisation made by Malik upon 6 July in a Court of Appeal related to a Sodomy II trial, which were deemed disparaging of a statesman as well as his lawyers.
Karpal Singh (Anwar's lawyer) complained to a judges which Malik had "without office as well as for an strong purpose invoked a self-existent office to maliciously as well as scurrilously (go in to a merits and) enter upon upon a relentless conflict upon Anwar as well as a lawyers (in a created judgment)".
"This amounts to legal assassination of a worst kind (and) to make counts worse, a appellant as well as a lawyers were not since an event to urge ourselves as a appellate justice had authorised a rough objection.
"The remarks were uncalled for as well as put a Judiciary in bad light. If a box was authorised to be listened upon a merits, you (would have been) rebuilt to urge ourselves. Howev! er, you were not authorised to do so as a justice authorised a rough objection."
Karpal additionally questioned as to how Malik produced a created 40-page visualisation upon a day a appeal was listened during a Court of Appeal. Various law journals had reported which a visualisation was produced upon 6 July, though lawyers for Anwar usually perceived it upon fifteen Aug.
Malik had additionally scurrilously written: "This box will tumble in history. It will be chronicled as a usually well known box in a nation or for which make a difference inside of a Commonwealth enclave where a appellant as an indicted chairman persistently as well as consistently filed a single application after an additional in an attempt to recuse a learned hearing decider from hearing as well as stability to listen to a sodomy hearing which is ongoing."
Very ironically, it is a box of Abdul Malik which will tumble in story as well as be chronicled as a usually well known box in a nation or for which make a difference inside of a Commonwealth enclave where a a single found guilty of plagiarising in a copyright transgression box was a decider himself!
This entrance was posted upon Friday, fourteen October 2011, 9:28 am as well as is filed under Judiciary, Martin Jalleh. You can follow any responses to this entrance by RSS 2.0.
Lim K it Siang
No comments:
Post a Comment