An article published on the Perkasa website questions Justice VT Singham's political leanings and casts aspersion on his sexual orientation.
PETALING JAYA: An article published on the Perkasa website launches a scathing salvo against High Court Judge VT Singham, who is presiding over Anwar Ibrahim’s defamation suit against Utusan Malaysia.
Among others, it cast aspersion on the judge’s sexual orientation, political leanings as well as his past judgments.
Singham is scheduled to deliver his verdict on the RM50 million suit on Jan 22, and the writer believes that it would favour the opposition leader.
“Singham is known to lean towards the opposition. According to observers, when there are cases involving politicians, he would ensure a victory for the opposition,” read the article.
As an example, the writer said in 2011, the judge rejected the application by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein to strike out certain parts in Anwar’s defence statement pertaining to a suit over a sex video.
Singham had also ordered Hishammuddin to pay RM25,000 in cost to Anwar.
“The home minister filed a suit against Anwar over the opposition leader’s statements to the media… where he accused Hishammuddin of being responsible for showing the video to a group of editors and reporters, organising the screening and being part of a plot involving the prime minister and the police top brass.
“These accusations did not make sense because those who were responsible [for exposing the video] did not conceal their identities. That is why there are doubts about Singham.”
The writer was referring to the video which depicted a man resembling Anwar having sex with a prostitute. The opposition leader had denied that it was him in the footage and accused his political rivals of attempting to tarnish his image.
Meanwhile, the article also claimed that Singham’s judgments in non-political matters have also been disputed, for example, a rape case involving a National Service trainer.
“He had freed the accused on the premise that the credibility of the victim was in question for reporting the matter late.
“This was a weak reason because in almost all rape cases, the victims are late in lodging a report because of the dilemma and trauma endured. The comments in the social media revealed that many were displeased with Singham’s decision.”
‘Why is he not married?’
Stooping to a personal level, the writer also questioned Singham’s unmarried status despite the judge being in his fifties and insinuated that he could be homosexual.
“Imagine a judge who is capable in every sense still unable to find a match even at this age. He must have been a ‘desired man’ in the early years of his career.
“The only explanation for a man who does not choose any woman as a partner despite being capable and in the pinnacle of his career is that he does not desire any woman.
“Perhaps he agrees with Anwar that the laws concerning homosexuality in Malaysia are outdated because he himself has led a difficult life because of these laws. Is this the factor that has shaped the ‘manner’ of how Singham executes his judicial duties?”
The writer claimed that if the judgment favoured Anwar, then it would prove that there is something amiss with the judicial system, that it is not fair and independent because it is controlled by the opposition.
Anwar sued Utusan based on a Jan 17 report published on its frontpage quoting former PAS leader Hasan Ali, who called on the people to reject the opposition leader based on the former’s views on laws regarding homosexuality in Malaysia expressed during an interview with BBC.
Commenting on this, the writer said it is odd that Anwar did not choose to sue Hassan or BBC but trained his legal crosshairs on the Umno-owned daily instead.
The article penned by Zainuddin Salleh, under the heading “Kes Saman Utusan: Makhamah Malaysia Bodoh Jika Anwar Menang” first appeared on his blog ob21.net.
Ambiga: This is appalling
Responding to the article, Bersih co-chairperson and senior lawyer S Ambiga described the attacks against Singham as appalling.
“While legitimate criticism of a judgment is allowed, personal attacks of this nature however can be viewed as an interference in the administration of justice. This is wholly unacceptable conduct and in my view constitutes contempt of court,” she told FMT.
Also taking the writer and Perkasa to task was MIC central working committee (CWC) member S Vell Paari.
He said that in the simplistic minds of such individuals, whenever a judgment is not in the government’s favour, it means that the judge is pro-opposition.
“So when we have judgments that favour the government, does this make the presiding judge pro-government? I cannot find the right words to express how I feel about this article,” he added.
Furthermore, he added that the perverted logic here is that any unmarried man must be a homosexual.
“From a legal point of view, this is contempt of court and action must be taken. For Perkasa’s sake, I hope that an unmarried judge does not hear the matter,” he said.
‘Rat choking on chapati’
On another matter, Perkasa criticised DAP chairperson Karpal Singh for his silence over the call to take the witness stand in the defamation suit filed by Anwar against S Nallakarupan.
The movement’s information chief Ruslan Kassim equated Karpal’s tightlipped stand to a “rat choking after eating a chapati.”
“The call was made to Karpal to testify because as a ‘hero’ he had made a statement in Parliament [in 1997] that he had strong evidence of Anwar’s alleged involvement in sodomy.
“Karpal strongly criticised Anwar and demanded his resignation as deputy prime minster but now he wants Anwar to become prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat wins the elections,” he said.
“If I was [Puchong MP] Gobind Singh, I would be embarrassed to have a father who is a hypocrite, with no principles and pride,” he added.