Karpal’s Hudud hot-soup deflection

They say, “Offense is the best defense”. This is probably true for DAP Chairman Karpal Singh. He is now taken Pakatan Rakyat to a serious political fix when the issue of ‘Hudud’ was raised, to determine PAS’s resolved in their fundamental struggle within the unholy-marriage-of-(in)convenience-between-backstabbing-strange-bedfellows.

So the deflection is centered on his sedition case, where he uttered that HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak was acting beyond his ultra vires powers and dismissed the DAP-Puupet MB Perak Nizar “Brother Yong” Jamaluddin and his Exco as the Perak State Government in February 2009 and instead appointed Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry A Kadir as the 10th MB Perak. Karpal was charged and High Court acquited him without being called to defend himself. However, the Public Prosecutor appealed and Court of Appeal ruled that High Court should call Karpal to defend himself.

Published: Thursday August 2, 2012 MYT 8:54:00 PM

Karpal Singh’s review application in sedition case rejected

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has dismissed lawyer Karpal Singh’s review application seeking a fresh hearing by the Appeals Court of the prosecution’s appeal in his sedition case. A five-member panel chaired by Federal Court judge Datuk Hashim Yusoff said there was no basis to say that there was coram failure.

Karpal had wanted the court to review a decision of the Appeals Court which had also rejected his review application to set aside the decision of another Appeals Court panel which ordered him to enter his defence on a sedition charge.

In his review application, Karpal cited coram failure because one of the three judges, Justice Datuk Clement Allan Skinner, was allegedly not proficient in Bahasa Malaysia and hence could not be in a position to understand the 105-page judgment written in Bahasa Malaysia by Justice Datuk Ahmad Maarop who had led that Appeals Court panel. Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abdull Hamid EmbongDatin Paduka Zaleha ZahariDatuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha were the other judges presiding on the panel. On June 11, 2010, Karpal was discharged and acquitted by the High Court at the end of the prosecution’s case on a charge of uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama, Kuala Lumpur, between noon and 12.30 pm on Feb 6, 2009. Karpal, 71, was alleged to have said that the sultan’s removal of Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin as the Perak menteri besar and Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir‘s appointment to the position could be questioned in a court of law.

On Jan 20 this year, the Appeals Court panel comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Maarop, Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali and Skinner allowed the prosecution’s appeal to set aside Karpal’s acquittal and ordered him (Karpal Singh) to enter his defence.

Karpal subsequently filed a review at the Appeals Court against the Jan 20 decision but he was unsuccessful as the Appeals Court’s three-member panel chaired by Court of Appeal President Tan Sri Raus Md Shariff dismissed his review application on April 5 this year.

In the proceedings today, Karpal submitted that Raus, in presiding his (Karpal’s) review application at the Appeals Court, had said Justice Skinner may not be fluent in Bahasa Malaysia but it did not mean he could not understand Bahasa Malaysia. He said a judge must be fluent in a language and it was not enough for a judge to just be able to understand a language. Karpal said judges from East Malaysia usually do not understand Bahasa Malaysia properly, especially the older ones, and added that Skinner, who was born in Myanmar, was a Sabahan.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badarudin argued that there cannot be a miscarriage of justice when allegations were made purely on conjecture and unsubstantiated believe of a party to a proceeding.

She said there must be cogent evidence to say that Skinner was incapacitated, which was tantamount to coram failure.

“He (Karpal Singh) believes Justice Skinner is not fluent in Bahasa Malaysia. He believes Justice Skinner could not understand the 105-page judgement,” she said.

She said she was conducting the appeal where Justice Skinner was one of the judges, and added that the judge (Justice Skinner) was very interactive in the appeal proceeding.

Noorin said Karpal failed to satisfy the court that the order of the Appeals Court (in ordering him to enter his defence) was a nullity, and added that that panel was properly constituted. – Bernama


In simple terms, Karpal Singh is in a fix. The trial in High Court should continue where it was left when the Judge acquitted Karpal. To stretch the game further, the Gelugor MP and veteran Opposition wanted to drag Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr  Mahathir Mohamad and four others into his court room drama as a witnesses for his case, when he is called to defend himself.

03 August 2012 | last updated at 05:05PM

Karpal applies to call Tun M and four others as defence witnesses.

By V. Anbalagan 0 comments

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will hear on Aug 24 the relevancy of lawyer Karpal Singh’s application to call five witnesses, including former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in a bid to strike out the sedition charge against him.

Deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin gave notice to judge Datuk Azman Abdullah that the prosecution would raise an objection to Karpal’s application to subpoena the five.
Karpal later told reporters that apart from Dr Mahathir, he needed to call former Arau MP Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim, ex-Pendang MP Datuk Osman Abdul, current Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali and former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman to strengthen his case on why the sedition charge should be thrown out.
Dr Mahathir had on January 18, 1993, moved a motion to amend the Federal Constitution to remove the immunity of Rulers and establish a Special Court to try monarchs in their personal capacity for criminal and civil wrong.
Karpal said Shahidan, Osman and Ibrahim were among the MPs then who had participated in the debate.
The speeches of Dr Mahathir and the three MPs were recorded in the Parliament hansard and Karpal in his striking out application claimed the four had committed sedition when debating the amendment.
He also questioned why the then A-G (Abu Talib) did not institute criminal action against them as MPs and senators do not enjoy immunity for uttering seditious words in Parliament.
Karpal, who is Bukit Gelugor MP, said what the four had said in Parliament was far worse than what he had uttered about the Sultan of Perak at the height of the constitutional crisis in the state in February, 2009, the subject matter of the charge he is facing.
The veteran lawyer has been ordered to enter his defence on that charge.
In May, Karpal applied to strike out the charge on grounds that it violated his constitutional right to equal protection of the law.
Yesterday, lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, who is in Karpal’s legal team, read out excerpts of the hansard on what was uttered by Dr Mahathir and the three MPs then.
Deputy public prosecutor Azlina Rasid, who is assisting Noorin, submitted that the public prosecutor, who is also A-G, has been given wide discretion under Article 145(3) to institute or stop any criminal action before a civil court.
“The A-G is not bound by Article 8 (equality before the law) in exercising his discretion,” she said.
Azlina said the public prosecutor exercised his discretion when he charged Karpal based on evidence before him and in the interest of the public.
She said the circumstances leading to Dr Mahathir and the three MPs who made statements were not similar to what Karpal did at his legal firm.
“Karpal invited media personnel and distributed a press statement at the height of an uncertain political climate in Perak,” she said.
She also said the charge could not be revoked at this juncture as Karpal had been ordered to enter his defence.
“This application (to strike out the charge) must be dismissed as it is an abuse of court process,” she said.
Karpal rebutted that a constitutional point could be raised at any stage of the trial.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad challenge Karpal to reproduced his statement in Parliament. Karpal Singh responded with a statement, which was published in Malaysiakini five hours ago.

Here’s what Dr M said about the rulers in ’93

It would have been better for Mahathir to have agreed to be subpoenaed as a witness in my trial. The court would be a better forum to expose Mahathir.However, as I have been challenged, I am prepared to pick up the cudgel.In tabling the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, 1993 to set up the Special Court to take away the immunity from legal process of the King and the Rulers, Mahathir, uttered the following, among the many other, seditious remarks during a time when he had no Parliamentary immunity from being charged in court for making those remarks:

Jika Malaysia ingin menjadi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan Demokrasi Berparlimen dan Raja Berperlembagaan, kekebalan yang diberikan kepada Raja-Raja perlulah dihapuskan. [Tepuk]’ [Hansard 18 January, 1993, page 16]

Sebenarnya ketiga-tiga Perdana Menteri dahulu, sebagai Penasihat kepada Raja-Raja, telahpun menegur Raja-Raja berkali-kali semasa mereka berkhidmat. Saya tahu teguran ini dibuat kerana perkara ini telah dilaporkan dalam Mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri dan juga Majlis Tertinggi UMNO berkali-kali.Allahyarham Tun Hussein Onn semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri pernah dalam ucapan bertulis di suatu Mesyuarat Majlis Raja-Raja, yang dihadiri hanya oleh Duli-Duli Yang Maha Mulia atau wakil-wakil mereka sahaja, menegur dengan kerasnya perbuatan Raja-Raja yang tidak harus dilakukan.Tetapi teguran ini tidak berkesan. Pekara-perkara yang disentuh terus dilakukan juga, bahkan ditingkatkan. Apa yang tidak pernah dibuat di zaman British dan pada tahun-tahun awalan Malaysia merdeka, dilakukan dengan semakin ketara da meluas.’ [Hansard, 18 January, 1993, page 19]…‘Kerajaan memang mendengar dan menyedari akan pandangan dan kemarahan sebilangan rakyat yang mengetahui perbuatan Raja. Demikianlah kemarahan mereka sehingga ada, terutama di kalangan generasi muda, yang menganggap Sistem Beraja sudah ketinggalan zaman.Tetapi oleh kerana Akta Hasutan dan larangan terhadap mengkritik Raja, Raja tidak mendengar dan tidak percaya kepada Penasihat mereka apabila maklumat disampaikan berkenaan kegelisahan rakyat. Raja dan keluarga Diraja nampaknya berpendapat bahawa semua ini adalah ciptaan Penasihat-penasihat Raja untuk menakutkan Baginda atau untuk merebut hak Raja.Dalam keadaan ini, Raja bukan sahaja akan meneruskan amalan-amalan yang tidak disenangi atau disukai oleh rakyat tetapi juga akan melakukan perkara-perkara yang lebih dibenci oleh rakyat. Jika trend ini tidak disekat, perasaan rakyat terhadap Raja tentu akan meluap dan menjadi begitu buruk sehingga pada suatu masa nanti rakyat mungkin tidak lagi dapat membendung perasaan mereka. Perasaan yang diluahkan dalam surat-surat kepada akhbar sebenarnya sudah lama wujud.Dengan izin, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin membaca petikan daripada satu rencana yang dihantarkan kepada akhbarThe Straits Times pada 1946 oleh seorang tokoh Melayu yang terkemuka, apabila British mencadangkan penubuhan Malayan Union. Tokoh ini kemudian memegang jawatan yang tinggi dalam Kerajaan. Rencana in tidak disiarkan oleh akhbarStraits Times tetapi ia disampaikan kepada saya baru-baru ini oleh penulis.Penulis ini menyatakan, dengan izin “All intelligent Malay leaders ought now seriously to give most profound and careful thought to the question whether the time has not arrived when the Malay Royalty ( I mean the Sultan and Raja) should gracefully withdraw themselves altogetherJika pandangan seperti ini sudah ada pada tahun 1946, apakah ia tidak mungkin wujud semula pada tahun 1993 [Tepuk] jika Raja-Raja tidak dihalang  daripada melakukan perbuatan-perbuatan yang tidak diingini?” [Hansard, 18 January, 1993, page 20-22]…‘Sebelum ini terdapat banyak insiden dimana Raja menganiaya rakyat, Raja menyalahi undang-undang civil dan criminal, Raja menyalahgunakan wang serta harta Kerajaan dan Negara, Raja menekan dan menganiaya pegawai-pegawai’ [Hansard, 18 January, 1993, page 26]

These are among the passages in Mahathir’s speech as reflected in the Hansard. The passages exude serious and often explosive instances of sedition to which the Attorney-General has chosen to give a blind eye.I challenge Mahathir to come to court voluntarily at my trial and testify and justify what he uttered in Parliament on 18 January, 1993. I hope he will not run away from this challenge.


The Federal Court on 9 Feb 2010 decided that HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak acted constitutionally in the dismissal of the Pakatan Rakyat government and instead appointing BN to the Perak State Government a year earlier.

The thing is that, the amendments to the Federal Constitution in 1993 were about making HRH Rulers be responsible of the own actions and ventures as in their capacity as private individuals, instead in their position as Constitutional Rulers. All these complaints against any HRH Rulers in their personal capacity should be brought forth to a Special Court, whose members are to be determined by the Rulers Council.

HRH Rulers are still immune if they are acting in their capacity as Constitutional Ruler.

This court room drama is clearly Karpal’s attempt to deflect from the fix that he is in; he was found guilty of issuing seditious statement against HRH Paduka Seri Sultan Perak on 6 February 2009 and he brought Pakatan Rakyat into a political limbo, with his strong opposition against Hudud.

This is what Karpal’s statement in negating PAS Secretary General Mustapha Ali’s statement

Email    Print

10 August 2012 | last updated at 01:32AM

Karpal criticises Pas’ unrealistic hudud stance

KUALA LUMPUR: DAP national chairman Karpal Singh yesterday slammed Pas for failing to be “realistic” in its pursuit to implement hudud in the country.

.Karpal Singh says the hudud issue requires an immediate solution by Pakatan Rakyat parties

1 / 1

Calling it “a matter of regret”, Karpal criticised Pas secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali, who was reported as saying that Pas would not drop the idea of implementing hudud even if it may not be part of the opposition’s Buku Jingga (Orange Book).

“Hudud is an issue which requires an immediate solution by the component parties of Pakatan Rakyat. Agreeing to disagree, whatever that means, is no solution,” said Karpal in a statement yesterday.

He also explained that hudud could not be implemented in a secular state like Malaysia, which was decided as far back as 1988 when a five-man bench, headed by the then lord president Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas, ruled that the country was governed by secular law which meant Malaysia was a secular state.

Karpal also pointed out that Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang himself went on record last year in saying that the Quran did not provide for an Islamic state but for a welfare state.

“This pronouncement by Hadi should have put to rest Pas’ long-term objective to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state.”


And again, he reiterated his consistent stance against Hudud and the Islamic State.

21 August 2012 | last updated at 12:32AM

Karpal:Hudud not practical

By LOOI SUE-CHERN | news@nst.com.my 0 comments

DEBATE: DAP, Pas again at loggerheads over hudud implementation

GEORGE TOWN:  HUDUD will not be good for the public and it may encourage more crime, DAP national chairman Karpal Singh said yesterday.

He said would-be criminals would not be afraid of hudud, knowing that it would be impossible to prove a case against them in court.

Hudud, he said would require proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.

“In a rape case, for instance, you must provide four eyewitnesses. It will be impossible to secure four people who saw the act.

“If hudud is applied, nobody will be convicted. It will be practically impossible to prove a case in court.”

Karpal, who is also Bukit Gelugor member of parliament, said he was not against hudud itself but was opposed to it being enforced in the country, calling it impractical.

He said there was no need to hold a dialogue with Pas to discuss hudud because it would not help the issue.

“I am not rejecting the invitation to talk but I am saying that it is not necessary.”

The hudud issue became a hot topic again recently after former Pas deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa claimed that Karpal was anti-Islamic because of his open and vocal objections against the Islamic law.

Karpal has decided to take legal action against Nasharudin for defamation.


PAS is obviously reactive to this latest statement by DAP Chairman, which is still consistent to his “Over my dead body” statement. It was met by stern warning by PAS Youth Kelantan strongman and son to PAS spiritual leader Nik Abduh Nik Aziz

PAS Youth: Anti-hudud Karpal will cost us Malay votes

3:54PM Aug 22, 2012
DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh’s ongoing criticism of proposed implementation of the hudud will cause PAS to lose Malay votes in the next general election, warned deputy PAS Youth chief Nik Mohamad Abduh Nik Abdul Aziz.
Even though Karpal said he apologized for his 1990 “Over my dead body” statement, many still would not able to forget that serious insult.

Karpal admitted that he uttered “Islamic state over my dead body” during the 1990 general election campaign, but had withdrawn the statement and apologised for it in 1999, when DAP was together with PAS and Semangat 46 in Barisan Alternatif.

“The Barisan Nasional propaganda machinery had taken my statement completely out of context. I made it in the context of the constitutional provisions. Muslims in the country were hurt by my statement.

“I had withdrawn the statement and apologised if I had hurt the feelings of Muslims. However, my stand and that of DAP against the setting up of an Islamic state persisted,” he said.

Karpal Singh is definitely in hot-soup. And he will drag the Pakatan Rakyat into the broth that will definitely spoil all these minority-imposing-their-agenda-against-the-will-of-the-majority cooks.
Published in: on August 26, 2012 at 23:52  Comments (25)