It's all about coming clean

SHAMSUL AKMAR:
It's all about coming clean

2011/01/23

SINCE Karpal Singh has taken the trouble to write and comment on what appeared in this column on Jan 9, and also to share with readers his prowess as the Tiger of Jelutong, the issue merits further mention.

Furthermore, it would not do justice to the matter if it concluded with Karpal's reply, which contained some inconsistencies, as highlighted by his detractors.

To recap, the Jan 9 article -- "Taming the Tiger of Jelutong" -- had pointed out that several members of parliament and politicians, most of them lawyers by profession, had questioned Karpal's integrity, credibility, value system, professional ethics and even morality.

The contention is based on the fact that in 1997, less than a year before Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked as the deputy prime minister and Umno deputy president, Karpal had publicly declared he had evidence that the former had committed sodomy.

Not only did he claim he had evidence, his detractors claimed that he had even demanded that prime minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad act against Anwar.

However, when Anwar had to answer charges to the crime Karpal had accused him of committing, Karpal then became his defence counsel.

In the letter last week, Karpal dismissed any breach of professional etiquette on several grounds, among others, that following the allegations of Anwar having committed sodomy, Dr Mahathir, then inspector-general of police Tan Sri Rahim Nor and attorney-general Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah had all dismissed the allegations against Anwar as slanderous, baseless and politically motivated.

Karpal last week, detailed several newspaper reports in 1997 quoting Dr Mahathir and Rahim as dismissing the allegations against Anwar.

"It can be clearly seen from the statements of Dr Mahathir, Rahim and Mohtar that Anwar had been exculpated by these personalities of no mean rank of the allegations made against him," Karpal said in his letter.

Simply, Karpal had believed Dr Mahathir, Rahim and Mohtar when they said Anwar was not guilty.

But this is where the contradictions start.

The reports quoting Dr Mahathir and Rahim dismissing the sodomy allegations against Anwar were published in August and September 1997.

Wee Choo Keong, the Wangsa Maju MP, a lawyer, once a fellow comrade of Karpal in DAP, had pointed out the incongruity of Karpal's justification.

Wee pointed out that Karpal made the allegations against Anwar in Parliament on Oct 22, 1997 as contained in the Hansard.

Karpal repeated the allegations in the early part of 1998 at a DAP gathering at the Federal Hotel in Kuala Lumpur.

The point Wee was trying to make is that if Karpal had believed what Dr Mahathir and Rahim had said between August and September 1997, why should he raise the matter in Parliament on Oct 22, 1997 and again in 1998.

It can only mean two things. First, Karpal did not believe the three personalities when they said Anwar was not guilty and second, he believed Anwar was guilty.

Hence, Karpal did not let the issue rest. He took it upon himself to bring the matter up in Parliament on Oct 22, 1997.

Not satisfied that the august house was still unconvinced, Karpal went public, risking the possibility of being sued for defamation, and went on to accuse Anwar at a DAP gathering in early 1998.

When Dr Mahathir, Rahim and Mohtar were finally convinced of Anwar's guilt, they acted against him on Sept 2, 1998.

In other words, it took them almost a year before they were convinced of Anwar's guilt while it only took Karpal a meeting with Anwar's accusers -- Azizan Abu Bakar, Ummi Hafilda Ali and others to be convinced of it.

Again, this can only prove two things. Azizan, Ummi and others were convincing and that Karpal had overwhelming evidence to conclude Anwar's guilt in such a short time, thus giving him the confidence to go public in accusing Anwar.

Karpal had challenged those who questioned his professional integrity to report him to the Legal Profession Disciplinary Board instead of making unfounded and baseless allegations.

That is one option but surely Karpal, as a seasoned politician, realises, that it is not about suspension or being stripped of his licence to practise.

It is about coming clean or there must be honour even among thieves, and all those involved, Karpal and his detractors, are better men by all counts.

It must be comforting for Karpal's supporters that "the Tiger of Jelutong will be on the prowl, for a long time to come, protecting the public from marauders and plunderers of national interest".

Anwar was prey of a 1997/98 prowl.