Silent Tiger and the Slayer's salient points.

By 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.



The fact that he said he had evidence in his hand, and later admitting that he made such allegations after meeting Azizan Abu Bakar and Ummi Hafilda, the star prosecution witnesses in Anwar's first sodomy trial, meant that he was convinced by their testimonies.

And, based on that, he wanted the government, then helmed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, to act against Anwar. 



Then, when the government and Dr Mahathir finally acted on Anwar based on those allegations by sacking him, Karpal decided to be the champion to defend Anwar.



Even if professionally it is allowed for Karpal to act as such and not found to be unethical, surely by any moral barometer, such conduct is highly questionable.



But who is going to judge Karpal for what he has done and his conduct over the Anwar case?

The opposition supporters do not seem perturbed by the issue.



Pas, the self-professed moral guardians of Muslims in Malaysia, too, does not find what Karpal has done as something of concern.

Its MP for Kota Baru, Wan Abdul Rahim Wan Abdullah, was so "inspired" by the DAP chairman that he announced at a Pakatan Rakyat convention that anyone intending to go against Karpal would have to "step over his dead body".



Wan Rahim's pronouncement came as a surprise, given that Karpal's uncompromising stand over Pas' Islamic state concept and had once used similar words -- "over my dead body" -- when Pas spoke about setting up an Islamic state.



That being the case, the Tiger of Jelutong seems likely to be spared by the opposition.

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



So, they humour him.