Last week, British tabloid The Mirror sacked two writers for promoting companies in which they owned stock in their "City Slickers" column. But editor Piers Morgan who made a killing by buying shares in a company tipped by the column was left unscathed. Like their British counterparts, Malaysian editors are not immune to such temptations. And they, too, got away scot-free.

Apparently, Morgan had bought RM120,000 worth of shares in hi-tech company Viglen Technology, whose shares were tipped to rise by his newspaper the next day. He made a quick RM78,000 when he sold his shares days later, but the proceeds would now go to charity after the scandal broke.

There had been suspicions, speculations and rumours of similar chicanery in Malaysia. Indeed, some would go as far as to accuse the business sheets in Malaysian newspapers for being no more than public relations arm of major companies. Business editors were said to receive offers of shares and other kickbacks to put a gloss on the performance of certain companies in their newspapers.

No one could really pin a finger on it. Not until Nov 1, 1995.

On that day, two newspapers - The Sun and The Star - printed an analysis of the ailing food and engineering company Innovest when its shares were traded in the stock market after a two-month suspension. The analysis in Sun appeared in the "Hawkeye" column in its business pages. While it carried no byline, most believed that the column was written by Sun editor-in-chief Philemon Soon. The same analysis in Star carried the byline of business editor P.Y. Chin.

What was intriguing was that the two pieces were, but for a few words in their opening paragraphs, almost exact carbon-copies.

Both articles were to run, yes, for three consecutive days. When the calumny was discovered, an embarrassed Star ran the second instalment of the series but abandoned the facade by pulling out the final part, while Sun put up a brave front to publish all three parts in full.

Until now, nobody knows who penned the piece. It is, however, unlikely, though not impossible, that both Chin and Soon colluded to run the three-parters in their respective newspapers. After all, Soon was assistant to Chin for a number of years in the Star. But surely they are not that stupid.

Another plausible theory is that the piece could have written by a stock analyst, or perhaps even Innovest itself. Indeed, companies prefer "independent" analysis of their stocks. Better still, if it was written by key newspaper editors.

If that was the case, both Soon and Chin had committed the most heinous crime in journalism - plagiarism. But this was, of course, more than a simple case of plagiarism. We will never know whether the two editors received kickbacks for "favours" rendered. We will never know who actually wrote the three-part analysis. We will never know how Soon got hold of the articles. We will never know because the scandal was kept completely under wraps.

Such blatant abuse of their editorship should have become a public scandal in Malaysia. It wasn't.

There wasn't a squeak from our so-called public watchdog. There was no criminal investigation. The Securities Commission, whose role is to examine cases of insider-trading and the manipulation of the stock market, did not bat an eyelid. The National Union of Journalists, as always, remains mum over the affair.

All this, despite that the evidence was there for all to see.

Eventually both Soon and Chin got away without so much as a slap on the wrist. While Soon resigned a few months later for reasons not entirely connected to the scandal, Chin was "shelved" and he resigned quietly a year later. Apparently, both were nudged out by rivals who wanted to see them gone, not so much because they had violated a cardinal rule in journalism.

In the wake of its shares scandal, The Mirror barred its editors and financial journalists on its payroll from owning shares, apart from shares of the group's newspapers. The Press Complaints Commission has also launched an investigation. Journalists, after all, are forbidden to make monetary gain from information they have received in advance of publication.

No such measures were brought to bear in the case of Malaysia. By keeping a tight lid over its own wrongdoing, the Malaysian media has ensured that the cosy partnership between the media and big business remains to this day.