Monday, 10 January 2011

The Tiger of Jelutong is but a toothless tiger?

The indomitable khalsa warrior Karpal Singh MP and Lawyer sometimes called the Tiger of Jelutong is under the microscope of public opinion lately. As we enter 2011, leaving the year of the Tiger and entering the year of the rabbit, Karpal's once aura of legal and political invincibility is slowly evaporating. The latest from a brave heart of the Gaza Aid fame, Shamsul Akmar:

The taming of the Tiger of Jelutong

IT is widely accepted that Blake had immortalised tigers while Kipling demonised Lunghri, the lame tiger, in the Jungle Book. The question is, how would Malaysia's Tiger of Jelutong fare, having built a stellar reputation, at least among opposition supporters, in the nation's political scene?

Karpal Singh's integrity, credibility, value system and even morality are under scrutiny.

But, first, the issue needs to be put in perspective.

In 1997, less than a year before Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked as the deputy prime minister and Umno deputy president, Karpal, according to several members of parliament and high-profile politicians, had publicly declared that he had evidence that the former had committed sodomy.

According to Karpal's one-time colleague in DAP, Wangsa Maju member of parliament Wee Choo Keong, the former had uttered the allegations against Anwar at a DAP gathering in Federal Hotel.

Another MP, Datuk Zahrain Mohd Hashim of Bayan Baru, had also exposed that Karpal had made such allegations in Parliament as contained in the Hansard of Oct 22, 1997.

Then, there's Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, previously a Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) shining star but now described by Karpal as inconsequential, had also raised the point about Karpal's allegations against Anwar.

A lawyer just like Wee, Zaid had described Karpal as an ular (snake), obviously intending to point out that Karpal spoke with forked tongue in the issue of Anwar's sodomy.

Not to be ignored is MP for Kulim-Bandar Baru, Zulkifli Nordin, another lawyer, who also questioned Karpal's motives of being a defence counsel for Anwar when he himself had accused Anwar of committing sodomy.

Muslim Lawyers Association president Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar had called for an investigation into Karpal's remarks on Anwar's alleged sodomy.

Looking at the list, Karpal's detractors are not only politicians but they are also trained lawyers. This leads to the question of not only whether Karpal has any moral integrity when he decided to defend Anwar after having publicly accused him of committing the act but also his professional ethics.

The silence on the part of the Bar Council on Karpal's antics is deafening, giving credence to the perception that it is sympathetic if not outright supporter of the opposition and not justice.

No doubt, every accused person deserves a defence counsel of his choice.

But, surely, if the counsel had publicly accused his client of a certain crime and then go to court to defend him of the said crime, the counsel would have to first make a public announcement that his earlier accusations were baseless.

No doubt Karpal has argued the fact that Anwar had engaged him meant the latter had confidence in him. It can then be argued that Anwar had engaged him so that Karpal would then stop making the accusations against him in public.

If Karpal publicly admits now that the accusations he made against Anwar in 1997 are baseless, he may be able to redeem himself in continuing as Anwar's counsel. However, it raises the issue of him being an untruthful politician as he had publicly tried to convince the people of Anwar's sexual wrongdoings......

........Or, maybe, they have accepted him to be a toothless tiger, whose growl is louder than his bite.

So, they humour him.

Read the full article here.

My favourite Khalsa warrior a toothless tiger? Ini sudah buat kepala saya pusing!

Talking about kepala pusing, YB Zul Nordin posted a really hard hitting post on Karpal Singh:


It is quite a long interesting post but ended with these:

Secara umum, berdasarkan pernyataan diatas, teman menegaskan bahawa:

1. Karpal Singh sepatutnya menawarkan diri untuk menjadi saksi didalam kes pertuduhan Anwar meliwat kakitanganya sendiri Saiful Bukhori Azlan;

2. Jika Karpal Singh enggan, hendaklah Pendakwaraya memohon kepada Mahkamah untuk mengeluarkan sapina memaksa Karpal menjadi saksi memberi keterangan dalam kes ini;

3. Saiful Azlan Bukhori, sebagai mangsa, boleh melalui peguam beliau juga membuat permohonan kepada Mahkamah untuk mengeluarkan sapina terhadap Karpal Singh untuk menjadi saksi, dan memberi keterangan dan mengemukakan dokumen dan/ atau bukti mengenai kenyataan beliau bahawa beliau mempunyai bukti & keterangan yang Anwar Ibrahim adalah seorang yang terlibat dengan kegiatan homoseks & liwat;

4. Jika Karpal memberi keterangan menafikan mempunyai bukti & keterangan mengenai kegiatan homoseks & liwat Anwar sebagaimana yang didakwanya di Parlimen pada 22.10.1997 (dan diperkuatkan dengan lain-lain ucapan dan tindakan beliau selepas daripada itu), tindakan menghina Parlimen hendaklah dikenakan terhadap Karpal Singh. Dan jika itu berlaku, maka akan terbongkarlah pembohongan Karpal Singh;

5. Jika Karpal Singh memberi keterangan mengaku mempunyai bukti & keterangan mengenai kegiatan homoseks & liwat Anwar, dan memberikan butirannya kepada Mahkamah, maka beliau hendaklah berhenti daripada terus mewakili Anwar Ibrahim berdasarkan Peraturan Guaman (Amalan & Etika) 1978;

6. Majlis Peguam hendaklah menyatakan pendiriannya secara terbuka mengenai status Karpal Singh ini dan teman mencabar Majlis Peguam supaya tidak mengamalkan sikap "talam dua muka" tetapi sebaliknya hendaklah tegas dan konsisten berdasarkan undang-undang sedia-ada; dan jika terbukti bahawa Karpal wajib menjadi saksi, maka teman cabar Majlis Peguam supaya mendesak Karpal Singh supaya memberikan keterangan dan bukti sebagai saksi didalam kes Anwar didakwa meliwat Saiful Bukhori Azlan;

7. Teman berpendapat bahawa mana-mana rakyat dan warganegara boleh membuat lapuran polis mengenai kenyataan dan kedudukan Karpal Singh ini supaya boleh satu siasatan dibuat oleh pihak polis mengenai kesahihan dakwaan Karpal beliau mempunyai bukti dan keterangan mengenai kegiatan homoseks & liwat Anwar Ibrahim. Jika daripada siasatan itu didapati ada keterangan baru diperolehi mengenai kesalahan meliwat Azizan Abu Bakar, maka Pendakwaraya perlu mengkaji dan mempertimbangkan untuk mengenakan pendakwaan baru terhadap Anwar sesuai dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan saperti yang dicatat diatas;

10. Dan kepada Karpal Singh, janganlah poosingh-poosingh. Mr. Singh. Be courageous, be a Singh! Singh is king, not poosingh-poosingh lah Mr. Karpal Singh!!

Read the posting here.

I know that YB Karpal will make a statement sooner or later, his personal and professional credibility is at stake here.

What I want to know is Mr. Ragunath of the Bar Council's Council views on what has been raised by many lawyers, politicians and Malaysian citizens about Karpal Singh's. The Bar Council is never short of views when it comes to particular cases involving the BN Government, but the public perception is that they seemed to be tongue twisted tied whenever  Opposition politicians are involved. Macam  Aliran dan Suaramlah.

As for me, I am taking two paracetamol tablets before I sleep tonight.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

None of tghe members of the Bar council will take on a public debate on any issue about their credibility because they have none.

Ambiga Srineevasan was caught with her pants down when she made the unfortunate statement that "The Malaysian bar knew that Tun Salleh Abbas was innocent". Innocent of what and how she did not say. But she empanelled a bunch of "prominent persons" a lynch mob to try to discredit Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed. She pre empted the result that she had conceived in hers and the bar council's mind.

Karpal Singh is a very average lawyer with a big PR machine and a loud mouth. Malaysia unfortunately does not have much in the form of lawyers or judges to take the man and his embarassing gaffes on.

Gopal Raj Kumar