Judges in Malaysia often complain, both in their written and verbal judgments, of the deterioration of the standards of the Bar.

Strangely, you won't find many lawyers saying the same about the quality of judges in Malaysia for reasons unknown to me. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

Justice RK Nathan's recent public attacks against Justice Gopal Sri Ram give a good indication of how far the standard of judicial candidates has fallen since the pre-1988 days.

I am not glorifying the judges in the pre-1988 days; I am sure there were some incompetent judges as well. But I find that, generally, the standard of judges back then to be higher. They were like Caeser's wife, above suspicion, because they did not indulge in activities that might in anyway compromise their integrity (or even if they did, they were immensely discreet about it).

Furthermore, they were restrained in their comments, concise and just in their judgments and, most importantly, could be counted on to deal with the issues before them impartially. One hardly heard a judge in any scandal back then.

Nowadays, however, our judges are being reported more and more in the daily newspapers not because of their decisions but because of their indiscretions or disputes. They are becoming household names for the wrong reasons.

I'm sure everybody remembers the former chief judge, Eusoff Chin, whose pictures with the lawyer VK Lingam were splashed all over the nation and his very pathetic explanation; or his war of words with de facto Law Minister Rais Yatim about the inefficiencies of the Malaysian courts.

I'm sure everybody remembers Justice Muhammad Kamil Awang's comment in his judgment about Eusoff calling him up about his judgment (what has happened there?). I'm sure not everybody remembers Justice Syed Ahmad Idid's resignation over the poison pen letters he wrote (has any action been taken against him?). That's just to name a few of the reported cases.

I have to confess that Justice RK Nathan's outburst was no surprise. It was only a question of when he would do it and how he would do it. Lawyers who have traced his Lordship's decisions which have gone on appeal on unpolitically related matters would find that many of them when overturned on appeal, would have Justice Gopal Sri Ram sitting in. The latter judge whilst very brusque in his judgments was by no means unfair.

Justice Nathan's outburst was therefore a result of his feeling powerless and being pushed into a corner. Everybody I think knows what someone in such a person would do — lash out, never mind the consequences.

JTB is therefore correct when he called

for Justice Nathan to leave because not only were the manner in which the comments were made (in a totally unrelated case and to the press) and the scathing comments made against a fellow judge were uncalled for, as a judge he should have exercised self-restraint and if necessary, bring up to the chief judge for resolution. A judge when taking action should as far as possible be deliberate, thoughtful, wise and empathetic. If not, he should not be a judge.

Justice Nathan, in order to salvage any dignity he has left, should resign. But knowing Malaysian culture, nobody resigns until made to do so. Therefore the chief judge should procure it because if his Lordship remains on the bench despite what he has done, there would be one more big stain on the soiled sheet of the Malaysian judiciary.