By Joe Fernandez
AI can do better in legal research, no human being can beat the App, although only human beings have ingenuity for connecting the dots.
Commentary And Analysis . . . The proposition on the English language, on its own terms, was without addition, or distortion.
(https://jesseltontimes.com/2026/06/27/language-best-learnt-on-ones-own-for-mastery/)
It’s normative argument. It’s supported by the evidence adduced, by prima facie systemic deficiency as seen in public statements.
Its internal logic, separating research from advocacy, assigning research for AI, and centering practice on linguistically proficient human advocates, was coherent.
The proposition identifies realignment of work driven by technology. It proposes that the profession’s entry criteria be recalibrated.
The technological and institutional change will continue.
Visible: English mastery as the sole qualification; AI as the superior researcher; human ingenuity as the courtroom’s unique requirement.
Reality: The statements by the law schools, Attorney General (AG) Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, and Chief Justice (CJ) Tun Richard Malanjum; the GiGo (garbage in, garbage out) principle in computerisation, the mentorship tradition; the evolving role of technology; and the profession in transition.
This analysis engaged the proposition without personalisation, without words not spoken, and without conflict.
The truth (Veritas) will emerge from debate and time. — TJT
Longtime Borneo watcher Joe Fernandez has been writing for many years on both sides of the Southeast Asia Sea.
He should not be mistaken for a namesake formerly with the Daily Express in Kota Kinabalu. JF keeps a Blog under FernzTheGreat, as jurist (legal scholar), on the nature of human relationships.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Jesselton Times.
ISSUE
The proposition as stated:
English mastery alone should qualify one to practise law.
AI has eclipsed human legal research; no human being can beat the App.
AI lacks human ingenuity and cannot connect the dots.
Legal research does not mean connecting the dots.
Human beings appear in court.
AI takes the drudgery out of law.
Evidence: the law schools, the former Attorney General, and the former Chief Justice.
RULES
Systemic deficiencies identified by senior figures. The inquiry was about the argument.
Burden of Proof (Onus Propandi)
Under the Evidence Act 1950, sections 101‑103, by analogy.
The proposition cites three sources: law schools which caution that their programmes are academic; Tan Sri Tommy Thomas, who stated that Malaysia lacks even one jurist; and Tun Richard Malanjum, who stated that the legal fraternity resisted the principle that the letter alone isn’t law.
These are statements from authoritative sources.
They constitute prima facie (at first sight) evidence of systemic deficiency.
Law as Language
The philosophical meditations affirm:
“Law ultimately was about the power of language viz. the English language in Commonwealth jurisdiction.”
They also state: “The letter of the law by itself isn’t law;
there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law.”
If language remains the medium of law, and if the spirit of the law prevail, then the capacity for grasping and articulatating both letter and spirit in English was foundational.
Research and Advocacy
There’s clear boundary between research — the retrieval and organisation of material — and connecting the dots.
Neutrality
This analysis addresses the proposition on its own terms, without personalisation, without attribution of motives, and without conflict.
PROPOSITION EXAMINED
English mastery alone should qualify for law practice.
It’s proposal for reform. Its logical basis rests on two premises.
First, the law schools themselves acknowledge that their programmes are academic and do not impart the skills required for practice.
Second, the highest authorities have publicly identified crisis of depth.
Tommy Thomas stated that Malaysia lacks even one jurist.
Richard Malanjum stated that the profession could not grasp that the letter alone is not law.
AI in Legal Research
Legal research was defined as the retrieval and organisation of existing legal materials, a task of pattern recognition and data processing.
AI applications, trained on vast body (corpora) of case law and legislation, can perform this task with speed and comprehensiveness that exceed human capability.
Research and Connecting Dots
Connecting the dots — the construction of persuasive argument, the anticipation of judicial response, the reading of witness — requires human ingenuity.
Human Domain
AI has absorbed research function, and if the courtroom remains the exclusive domain of the human advocate, then the qualification for practice should focus on the skill that enables that performance: English mastery.
Drudgery
AI takes the drudgery out of law. This is a statement of consequence.
The proposed qualification — English mastery — aligns with reality.
Coherence
Six components form a logical sequence:
AI has removed the research function.
Research was distinct from advocacy.
Advocacy requires ingenuity.
Advocacy was language.
Language mastery alone should be the qualification.
Systemic failure adduced from the law schools, Thomas, and Malanjum. It’s internally consistent.
Cause of Action
The proposition does not give rise for cause of action.
If a person acts acts without compliance with current statutory requirements, that person would face consequences.
This is about debate, not legal act.
The debate will be determined by the response.
DISPUTE
Whether English mastery alone should be the qualification for entry into legal practice;
Whether AI has surpassed human capability in legal research, defined as retrieval and organisation of legal materials;
Whether AI’s lack of human ingenuity preserves the courtroom as an exclusively human domain; and
Whether the systemic deficiencies identified by the law schools, Thomas, and Malanjum justify reconsideration of admission standards.
CHRONOLOGY
2018‑2020: Tan Sri Tommy Thomas serves as Attorney General; makes public remarks on the absence of jurists in Malaysia.
2019: Chief Justice Tun Richard Malanjum delivers a farewell speech noting the profession’s resistance on the principle that the letter alone isn’t law.
2020s: AI legal research tools become widely available; law schools caution about the academic nature of programmes.
27 June 2026: The proposition gets published.
STATUTES
Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56): sections 101‑103 (burden of proof, by analogy).
LAWS AND PRINCIPLES
Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 – hearsay rule; assertions must be grounded.
R v. Exall (1866) 4 F. & F. 922 – circumstantial evidence standard.
Sivarasa Rasiah v. Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 2 MLJ 333 – rule of law justiciable.
Principles:
Onus probandi – burden of proof on the asserter.
Prima facie – at first sight.
Correlatio non est causatio – correlation is not causation.
Allegatio non probata – allegation not proven.
Factum probatum – proven fact.
Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself.
Audi alteram partem – hear the other side.
Lex naturalis – natural law.
Veritas – truth.
AUTHORITIES
Public remarks of Tan Sri Tommy Thomas and Tun Richard Malanjum.
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 3rd ed.
Cross & Tapper on Evidence (13th ed., 2018).
