by M. Veera Pandiyan & Rashvinjeet S. Bedi
Like the plaques and accolades adorning the walls of the office, the poster was a gift of gratitude from a client. It is a fitting description for the veteran lawyer and politician known as the “Tiger of Jelutong (his former Parliamentary constituency)”.
Throughout his legal and political career spanning more than three decades, Karpal Singh has been no stranger to controversy and defiance, even after being bound to a wheelchair after a 2005 road accident.
The 68-year-old chairman of DAP made the news again last week when a group of Selangor Umno Youth members mobbed him and demanded an apology from him for alleging that the movement had sent live bullets to him.
In a recent interview with Sunday Star, Karpal Singh, who is currently MP for Bukit Gelugor, gave his views on a wide range of subjects and issues.
Below are excerpts from the interview:
>Are you going to take action against the Sultan of Perak?
>No, I did not say that I was going to take any action. I think the way it has been reported was that I was personally going to take action against the Sultan. What I said was, I was asked to look into the position when the crisis arose and my advice was, the Sultan could be taken to court.
I still stick by that view. It’s very simple if you look at Article 181(2) of the Federal Constitution.
It states that no proceedings whatsoever shall be brought against the Ruler of a state in his personal capacity except in the Special Court.
In other words, in his personal capacity he can be sued only in the Special Court and nowhere else. If it’s the official capacity, there is no bar to it. The Constitution does not say in his personal or official capacity. So it’s on an elementary principle.
I don’t know why I have been sort of being pushed from pillar to post for suggesting what is in fact the legal remedy.
That was my advice to the Government but it was not taken.
>You have filed other cases against reigning Kings.
>Yes. In fact I filed a case against the Sultan of Johor when he was Yang di-Pertuan Agong because I felt it was right and could be done. I lost, but that’s not the point. It was done.
I filed a case against the Sultan of Selangor, and later the Sultan of Pahang in the Special Court where a Singaporean lady sued him for defamation. It was a 4-1 decision. I lost on the ground that a Singaporean could not sue the King or Sultan in this country.
It has been done. I don’t see why everyone is baying for my blood.
>Maybe the noise has been made because of certain coming elections?
>That’s quite obvious. But they ought not to do it in that manner. When they demonstrate, my staff and family are affected. In fact I was told that police were surrounding my office that morning. I said never mind, I will come. My staff felt threatened. I told her to stay inside and not to go out.
When I came here, I saw the FRU and police around. My God, the noise they made here. The FRU was with them and tried to stop them. They had banners abusing me. I didn’t start anything. I was doing my job as MP.
I may say things a little controversial sometimes but that’s in the course of my duties. I’m entitled to my opinion, and others may not agree with what I have to say. Parliament is the forum where they should take me on, not the streets.
>You have used the word celaka (damn) in Parliament several times in the past. You even used it on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Some say you have a fascination for this word.
I remember in 1991 there was a by-election in Prai and I stood for the by-election there. Prai has about 40% to 45% Indian voters and we were poised to win because that was the time in 1990 when DAP garnered 14 seats and nearly formed the Government. And Anwar was reported to have gone to the Prai area and told the Indians there, ‘why vote for Karpal Singh who murdered Indira Gandhi.’ Yes, I lost. When I came back to Parliament, I went for him. I said celaka and asked how dare he say that.
>What does the word mean to you?
>It depends on the context. I would like to just leave it at that because Khairy Jamaluddin dared me to repeat it outside. Come into Parliament and take me on there.
Could you have gone overboard by accusing the Umno Youth of sending you the bullets?
I don’t wish to go into that. It’s not an appropriate forum.
>Some people say provocation is your style of politics. For example, you threw a book in the assembly at the Speaker (the late Ooi Ean Kwong who was in DAP but crossed over).
>Yes, I got him on his chest.
>You are not apologising for your style?
>No, that’s my style and that’s the way I do it. I’m quite different in the courts. You can ask any judge. It’s different in court. There’s intellectual argument. In Parliament, it’s a jungle out there. It’s the survival of the fittest and there are no holds barred. It’s as simple as that.
>Were you saddened by the confrontation?
>I feel outraged that this kind of thing can happen in Parliament. And the IGP says that the police have no power, it is the Sergeant-at-Arms.
I don’t know how the IGP could conjure up that kind of argument. The Sergeant-at-Arms is only for the chamber of the Dewan Rakyat during proceedings, not within the precincts of Parliament.
What if there is a murder in the precincts of Parliament? If you get shot, the police can’t do anything? Come on. The IGP should have more sense than this. I don’t think he has impressed anyone including himself with that statement.
>Some have advised you to hold your tongue, speak wisely and be statesmanlike to remain relevant in Malaysian politics. What are your comments?
>I have a different style. I’m not a statesman. I’m a politician and politicians don’t necessarily have to be statesmen. Of course, as they grow old they become statesmen. I might well become a statesman someday but I’m still young. I’m not that old. I don’t talk all the time, only when necessary. I’m a very quiet man by nature. In fact my mother nicknamed me Gandhi because of my passive resistance type of attitude in the family.
Pakatan Rakyat issues
>Can PR be workable given the ideological differences?
>It has been a thorn in the side of the Pakatan all the while. In fact way back to the Gagasan Rakyat days in 1999, Kit Siang and I were booted out practically from very safe seats in Penang.
I was going for my sixth term in Jelutong and we had made it very clear in the common manifesto with Gagasan Rakyat at that time. We insisted that there would be no inclusion of the Islamic state. That was agreed upon.
Suddenly, two or three days before polling, (PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul) Hadi Awang announced in Terengganu that if they came into power there, they would have an Islamic state in Terengganu.
Can you imagine it? Malaysia is a federation. You can’t have each state having its own laws. And what was the result of that? We found it very difficult to explain to the constituents. They said: “You said everything was all right and agreed on a common manifesto. How come this man is saying otherwise?” That was it. We left the Gagasan Rakyat at the time and in 2004 we came back.
>Are you a tiger or a lion?
>I don’t know. They call me all sorts of things – lion, tiger. Actually, this tiger tag which has been put around my neck was because of something that happened in 1982. I was having an exchange of words with (Datuk Seri) Samy Vellu in Parliament. He said “I am a lion, you’re a tiger.” I said, I’m a lion by birthright (Singh means lion). But never mind you be the lion and I’ll be the tiger because in this country there are no lions. So from then onwards, the tag has stuck. Samy Vellu created it for me.
>What about your recent outburst? Some people say you should have gone through internal channels instead of the media.
>Yes, that charge has been made against me but I thought that you can’t bring up in a party what has publicly been announced. And unfortunately when (Datuk) Nasaruddin (Bota) crossed into PR, Lim Guan Eng – and I hope he was misquoted – said it would strengthen PR. And I thought that was wrong.
How could we support crossovers? I had to make a public stand on behalf of the party, and in the process I went for Anwar Ibrahim because I think it is wrong to form a government because of crossovers. I thought that I had to say something about it.
>What if Anwar had succeeded in doing so and PR formed the Federal government?
>I would not have taken part in such a government. I made it very clear even earlier that party hopping should be abolished and that something must be done about it and hoped the Government would move an amendment to the Constitution. The DAP will support it. I can’t be accused of going against the party. In fact, I was maintaining the party stand.
>Can PR exist without Anwar?
>Of course, I must admit that there is no one to equal Anwar as the position stands now to lead the PR. And I made it very clear in Parliament that what I had said earlier was my personal opinion. Likewise, he also offered an olive branch before I did.
>People are making comparisons between Barisan and PR. The fact that PR has to compromise just like the BN parties do. When it comes to the crunch what’s the difference?
>You see that’s why they say he may be a good lawyer but he’s a lousy politician. That has been a charge against me. But I think one should know that you can’t sacrifice principles for political expediency. That’s the stand I have taken and I won’t shift from that. They say in politics there are no permanent enemies or permanent friends, but I say there must be permanent principles. I must be able to look at myself in the mirror when I get up in the morning. You can’t twist and turn. That’s something that I have not been able to do and I have been criticised for it.
General matters
>You mentioned that Singh is King. Did you watch the movie?
I watched the movie and there is nothing like seeing a Sikh James Bond. It was very entertaining.
>Can you relate to any character in the movie?
>Not that I want to relate. I just came out that day and said look here, don’t play around with me – Singh is King. Then you find (Datuk) Mukhriz Mahathir saying that I have insulted the Rulers by saying that. Then what about Burger King? I think there should be a limit to these things. I did not mean it in any derogatory way. It was more to say don’t play around with me. I think it’s gone quite well with the people. They can laugh and it’s nothing beyond that to say that I have insulted the monarchy.
He may be physically disabled but veteran lawyer and politician Karpal Singh remains ever fiery in Parliament. He makes no apologies for his brazen style and says it is still very much a jungle in there.
A FRAMED copy of American statesman Dean Alfange’s creed, “I do not choose to be a common man”, hangs above the landing leading to Karpal Singh’s office in Jalan Pudu Lama, Kuala Lumpur.
The last three lines read: “I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say - ‘This, with God’s help, I have done.’ ”
Like the plaques and accolades adorning the walls of the office, the poster was a gift of gratitude from a client. It is a fitting description for the veteran lawyer and politician known as the “Tiger of Jelutong (his former Parliamentary constituency)”.
Throughout his legal and political career spanning more than three decades, Karpal Singh has been no stranger to controversy and defiance, even after being bound to a wheelchair after a 2005 road accident.
The 68-year-old chairman of DAP made the news again last week when a group of Selangor Umno Youth members mobbed him and demanded an apology from him for alleging that the movement had sent live bullets to him.
In a recent interview with Sunday Star, Karpal Singh, who is currently MP for Bukit Gelugor, gave his views on a wide range of subjects and issues.
Below are excerpts from the interview:
>Are you going to take action against the Sultan of Perak?
>No, I did not say that I was going to take any action. I think the way it has been reported was that I was personally going to take action against the Sultan. What I said was, I was asked to look into the position when the crisis arose and my advice was, the Sultan could be taken to court.
I still stick by that view. It’s very simple if you look at Article 181(2) of the Federal Constitution.
It states that no proceedings whatsoever shall be brought against the Ruler of a state in his personal capacity except in the Special Court.
In other words, in his personal capacity he can be sued only in the Special Court and nowhere else. If it’s the official capacity, there is no bar to it. The Constitution does not say in his personal or official capacity. So it’s on an elementary principle.
I don’t know why I have been sort of being pushed from pillar to post for suggesting what is in fact the legal remedy.
That was my advice to the Government but it was not taken.
>You have filed other cases against reigning Kings.
>Yes. In fact I filed a case against the Sultan of Johor when he was Yang di-Pertuan Agong because I felt it was right and could be done. I lost, but that’s not the point. It was done.
I filed a case against the Sultan of Selangor, and later the Sultan of Pahang in the Special Court where a Singaporean lady sued him for defamation. It was a 4-1 decision. I lost on the ground that a Singaporean could not sue the King or Sultan in this country.
It has been done. I don’t see why everyone is baying for my blood.
>Maybe the noise has been made because of certain coming elections?
>That’s quite obvious. But they ought not to do it in that manner. When they demonstrate, my staff and family are affected. In fact I was told that police were surrounding my office that morning. I said never mind, I will come. My staff felt threatened. I told her to stay inside and not to go out.
When I came here, I saw the FRU and police around. My God, the noise they made here. The FRU was with them and tried to stop them. They had banners abusing me. I didn’t start anything. I was doing my job as MP.
I may say things a little controversial sometimes but that’s in the course of my duties. I’m entitled to my opinion, and others may not agree with what I have to say. Parliament is the forum where they should take me on, not the streets.
>You have used the word celaka (damn) in Parliament several times in the past. You even used it on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Some say you have a fascination for this word.
I remember in 1991 there was a by-election in Prai and I stood for the by-election there. Prai has about 40% to 45% Indian voters and we were poised to win because that was the time in 1990 when DAP garnered 14 seats and nearly formed the Government. And Anwar was reported to have gone to the Prai area and told the Indians there, ‘why vote for Karpal Singh who murdered Indira Gandhi.’ Yes, I lost. When I came back to Parliament, I went for him. I said celaka and asked how dare he say that.
>What does the word mean to you?
>It depends on the context. I would like to just leave it at that because Khairy Jamaluddin dared me to repeat it outside. Come into Parliament and take me on there.
Could you have gone overboard by accusing the Umno Youth of sending you the bullets?
I don’t wish to go into that. It’s not an appropriate forum.
>Some people say provocation is your style of politics. For example, you threw a book in the assembly at the Speaker (the late Ooi Ean Kwong who was in DAP but crossed over).
>Yes, I got him on his chest.
>You are not apologising for your style?
>No, that’s my style and that’s the way I do it. I’m quite different in the courts. You can ask any judge. It’s different in court. There’s intellectual argument. In Parliament, it’s a jungle out there. It’s the survival of the fittest and there are no holds barred. It’s as simple as that.
>Were you saddened by the confrontation?
>I feel outraged that this kind of thing can happen in Parliament. And the IGP says that the police have no power, it is the Sergeant-at-Arms.
I don’t know how the IGP could conjure up that kind of argument. The Sergeant-at-Arms is only for the chamber of the Dewan Rakyat during proceedings, not within the precincts of Parliament.
What if there is a murder in the precincts of Parliament? If you get shot, the police can’t do anything? Come on. The IGP should have more sense than this. I don’t think he has impressed anyone including himself with that statement.
>Some have advised you to hold your tongue, speak wisely and be statesmanlike to remain relevant in Malaysian politics. What are your comments?
>I have a different style. I’m not a statesman. I’m a politician and politicians don’t necessarily have to be statesmen. Of course, as they grow old they become statesmen. I might well become a statesman someday but I’m still young. I’m not that old. I don’t talk all the time, only when necessary. I’m a very quiet man by nature. In fact my mother nicknamed me Gandhi because of my passive resistance type of attitude in the family.
Pakatan Rakyat issues
>Can PR be workable given the ideological differences?
>It has been a thorn in the side of the Pakatan all the while. In fact way back to the Gagasan Rakyat days in 1999, Kit Siang and I were booted out practically from very safe seats in Penang.
I was going for my sixth term in Jelutong and we had made it very clear in the common manifesto with Gagasan Rakyat at that time. We insisted that there would be no inclusion of the Islamic state. That was agreed upon.
Suddenly, two or three days before polling, (PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul) Hadi Awang announced in Terengganu that if they came into power there, they would have an Islamic state in Terengganu.
Can you imagine it? Malaysia is a federation. You can’t have each state having its own laws. And what was the result of that? We found it very difficult to explain to the constituents. They said: “You said everything was all right and agreed on a common manifesto. How come this man is saying otherwise?” That was it. We left the Gagasan Rakyat at the time and in 2004 we came back.
>Are you a tiger or a lion?
>I don’t know. They call me all sorts of things – lion, tiger. Actually, this tiger tag which has been put around my neck was because of something that happened in 1982. I was having an exchange of words with (Datuk Seri) Samy Vellu in Parliament. He said “I am a lion, you’re a tiger.” I said, I’m a lion by birthright (Singh means lion). But never mind you be the lion and I’ll be the tiger because in this country there are no lions. So from then onwards, the tag has stuck. Samy Vellu created it for me.
>What about your recent outburst? Some people say you should have gone through internal channels instead of the media.
>Yes, that charge has been made against me but I thought that you can’t bring up in a party what has publicly been announced. And unfortunately when (Datuk) Nasaruddin (Bota) crossed into PR, Lim Guan Eng – and I hope he was misquoted – said it would strengthen PR. And I thought that was wrong.
How could we support crossovers? I had to make a public stand on behalf of the party, and in the process I went for Anwar Ibrahim because I think it is wrong to form a government because of crossovers. I thought that I had to say something about it.
>What if Anwar had succeeded in doing so and PR formed the Federal government?
>I would not have taken part in such a government. I made it very clear even earlier that party hopping should be abolished and that something must be done about it and hoped the Government would move an amendment to the Constitution. The DAP will support it. I can’t be accused of going against the party. In fact, I was maintaining the party stand.
>Can PR exist without Anwar?
>Of course, I must admit that there is no one to equal Anwar as the position stands now to lead the PR. And I made it very clear in Parliament that what I had said earlier was my personal opinion. Likewise, he also offered an olive branch before I did.
>People are making comparisons between Barisan and PR. The fact that PR has to compromise just like the BN parties do. When it comes to the crunch what’s the difference?
>You see that’s why they say he may be a good lawyer but he’s a lousy politician. That has been a charge against me. But I think one should know that you can’t sacrifice principles for political expediency. That’s the stand I have taken and I won’t shift from that. They say in politics there are no permanent enemies or permanent friends, but I say there must be permanent principles. I must be able to look at myself in the mirror when I get up in the morning. You can’t twist and turn. That’s something that I have not been able to do and I have been criticised for it.
General matters
>You mentioned that Singh is King. Did you watch the movie?
I watched the movie and there is nothing like seeing a Sikh James Bond. It was very entertaining.
>Can you relate to any character in the movie?
>Not that I want to relate. I just came out that day and said look here, don’t play around with me – Singh is King. Then you find (Datuk) Mukhriz Mahathir saying that I have insulted the Rulers by saying that. Then what about Burger King? I think there should be a limit to these things. I did not mean it in any derogatory way. It was more to say don’t play around with me. I think it’s gone quite well with the people. They can laugh and it’s nothing beyond that to say that I have insulted the monarchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment