YOURSAY 'For the top leadership in the judiciary, as long as the judgment is written on time, it doesn't matter if you cut, copy or paste.'

Complaint against 'plagiarist judge' dismissed

your sayCala: While senior lawyer cum politican Karpal Singh must be lauded for his unceasing crusade against plagiarism in judiciary, he has forgotten Malaysia is a Third World nation characterised by weak institutions encouraged by the powers-that-be so that the rakyat at large remain ignorant, docile and compliant.

To the newly installed chief justice (CJ) perhaps, plagiarism in judiciary is something tolerable; after all, it is nothing to do with life and death. To therefore talk about plagiarism in this environment is akin to a duck talking to chicken.

Karpal, you have my sympathy. This is ‘Bolehland'.

Lim Chong Leong: Now that the CJ's office has responded in this way, all Karpal has to do is show the original judgment and the plagiarised judgment and the world will see that we have Umno kangarooo courts with copy-cat judges.

They forget that this is not Karpal's complaint but a senior Singapore judge's and Karpal is only bringing this up in the interest of restoring our court's image, which they themselves now have done even more harm to by their flat denial.

Why would a Singapore judge complain through diplomatic channels if there was nothing in the complaint?

P Dev Anand Pillai: And we all thought let's give this new CJ the benefit of the doubt but again we are wrong, the whole judiciary with the exception of a few fine judges who will usually not be given the right positions, has become another highly corrupted 'supposedly independent' organ of state where anything goes as long as it is within the framework of what the ruling Umno government wants.

The constitution is the last thing that the top leadership of the judiciary is bothered with. For them, as long as the judgment is written on time, it doesn't matter if you cut, copy or paste.

All that matters is that it must be completed and there must be no backlogs so that KPIs (key performance indicators) can be maintained and promotions can be obtained. So at the end of the day, the judiciary doesn't give two hoots about which judge copies.

The Rover: We need to be fair to the judge. We need to consider whether the grounds of judgment were based on the written submissions made by a lawyer who did not cite the Singapore case authority, and this judge (who has written many other excellent judgments) just lifted and used it without suspecting.

If this is what actually happened then it is the lawyer who must be taken to task by the Bar Council.

I am trying to be fair here. I am not an apologist for the system by any account.

Vijay47 : The Rover, I think your comments and queries are valid. This is especially so when most of us laymen would not know what actually constitutes plagiarism and what does not.

If it is a question of degree, at what point does innocent similarity become unacceptable copying? Perhaps some legal expert could publish the two decisions side-by-side and analyse them to give credence to one side or the other.

My only suspicion is, considering the garbage lurking within the judiciary, if the whole issue is indeed without merit, why did it take the chief justice 11 years to come out with this stand?

In that light, our five-year wait for the grounds of judgment in the Altantunya Shaariibuu case is hardly anything to lose sleep about.


Karpal denies lodging complaint with CJ

Anak JB: I thought Karpal's request was for the judge to respond, failing which it is deemed as an admission of liability. Karpal has stated that he is willing to be sued.

Compass: Let me clarify a few issues. A person has six years to sue someone who has defamed him. He need not sue "within seven days" or respond to such a challenge.

In fact, a sitting judge should not even think of suing someone for obvious reasons. He should wait until he is no more a judge by retirement or otherwise.

Unless of course his right to sue may soon be defeated by the six-year limitation period, then he should file his suit immediately and seek a stay of the suit until he has left the office of judge.

However, I wonder why Karpal's motion in Parliament was allowed to lapse. That would have been the best way to discuss the conduct of a judge.

I don't fancy judges and members of the public having frequent public spats. Disgruntled litigants will pick personal issues with a judge in the press and the judiciary will become a laughing stock.

Having said all these, I do believe the judge needs to give a clarification on the serious allegation made against him. He could be innocent, who knows?

Hermit: This is the cultured philosophy in Malaysian civil service, indoctrinated since the time of Mahathir. All civil servants, especially at managerial levels, must always portray themselves as ‘yes men'.

Simply saying ‘yes' in itself would not suffice, for a good ‘yes man' must utter ‘yes' and simultaneously nod his head a few times. A good ‘yes man' must pay attentively to his boss, with either hand on the other placed tightly at his umbilical mark, whether he takes instruction from his superior or talking to his superior.

A good ‘yes man' boss is cultured to sign every paper placed on his desk, whether draft papers or a blank paper inadvertently submitted. Those who could not inculcate these good habits have no place in civil service.

 

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.