APRIL 27 ― The Malay proverb of “A tiger dies leaving its stripes, a man dies leaving his name” is apt for the late Karpal Singh. For one, metaphorically, the “Tiger of Jelutong” has left behind his stripes; secondly, in reality, he leaves behind a great name as a politician who is respected by both his allies and enemies alike.

It is rare for one to be able to fill this proverb metaphorically and in reality, and it is as such this shows the greatness of the one who has departed us.

Singh is King

This quote was used by Karpal when he replied to the threats received from Umno Youth. I was in Parliament when the late Karpal questioned the actions of a few Umno Youths barring him in Parliament.

Among other statements he made during the tense situation in Parliament at that time was “ini Pemuda Umno yang celaka” (which means “These are the infernal Umno Youths”) which prompted the Yang Dipertua Dewan Rakyat to ask him to retract his statement but Karpal refused.

After repeatedly being pushed to retract, Karpal then agreed and said “I take it back, but these Umno Youths are “memang celaka” - indeed infernal”. At that moment, the Dewan was in uproar with the laughter of the members.

Karpal was also known for his biting words such as “jangan main-main” (don’t play-play) whenever he wanted to push for action to be taken immediately. His Indian slang in the Malay language always tickled us MPs but the content of his speech always got the attention of the BN side due to his poisonous attacks on the BN MPs.

Without Singh is King, the Dewan will definitely be a silent place.

DAP and I

I first came to know of DAP while I was in secondary school through its general election posters when the GE loomed. As a Penangite, growing up in Georgetown, the DAP never frightened me, even though my perception of DAP in my schooldays were very much the stereotyped as the other Malay boys' during my time.

As one who grew up in the household of a PAS leader, I found it hard to accept Umno especially when Umno attacks PAS daily, but at that time, I also did not see DAP defending PAS.

I can summarise that in my schooldays, I saw DAP from the eyes of the PAS that saw DAP as the party which did not help. Furthermore, the anti-Malay DAP perception was very much rooted in the minds of the Malay youths of my time.

Time flies however, and any remnants of (negative) perceptions on DAP has been eroded much from the maturing thoughts of today's generation and it is up to DAP to surely prove otherwise.

I am positive in that the emergence of a new Malaysian politics, one which rejects racial disposition, will ease the paths of those wanting to know DAP.

Karpal and me

In all honesty, I am far too dwarfish in relative terms when compared to the stature of Karpal in the world of Malaysian politics as a first time State Assemblyman in Kedah and his role in the country's legal arena. When Karpal started his political career in 1974, I was only in my Year 4 of primary school.

I only knew Karpal’s name during my late secondary schooling days. When Kelantan introduced the Syariah Penal Enactment, Karpal was amongst the personalities who were strongly against the move.

I became interested of this personality in the 90s and tried to discover objectively why he was opposed to the Islamic penal code of Hudud. It was from here that I started to know his legal thoughts that were firmly entrenched in the sanctity of the framework in Malaysia being a secular nation.

First meeting

In 2005, I returned to my hometown, Penang. The first time I met him was during a visit when he was hospitalised. Although I could not find the time to speak to him due to his conditions then but I managed to convey as a representative of PAS Central, consoling words to his wife.

My subsequent meeting with him was at the Parliament after being elected a Member of the Dewan Rakyat, and now I am together with other MPs standing in solidarity with the veteran MPs including Karpal.

There was uproar during the first day of the Dewan Rakyat swearing in when the Kinabatangan MP protested how Karpal could be sworn in without raising his hand despite the representative of Kinabatangan knowing fully well Karpal had difficulties in doing so.

It was the first time that we were shown how a war of words could erupt in the Parliament of Malaysia.

Subsequently my meeting with him was as a new MP learning the ropes of debating in Parliament and I found his speech mainly centering on legal issues and the Judiciary including his revelation of judical misconduct which could erode the credibility of the courts in Malaysia.

Karpal's speech

I too followed every political speech of Karpal whenever I could. Amongst these was during the time I was in Malacca when the relationship between PAS and DAP was based on the agreement of Barisan Alternative in the late 90s.

His speech was nonchalant but heavily laced with pointed criticism towards the nation’s legal system specifically during the height of the case against Anwar Ibrahim at the time. I then heard a far more serious speech at the DAP’s victory celebration dinner in Penang.

Wheelchair bound, he was spirited in describing DAP’s core struggle and its commitment to the political climate and secularism as the basis for nation building. His words were clear, words tumbling one phrase at a time to thunderous applause from the audience who were in joyous mood over the DAP-led PR (Pakatan Rakyat) success in capturing Penang.

“I Am Not Against Islam”

Behind the pressure on Karpal’s attitude of being supposedly anti-Hudud and anti-Islamic State including his controversial “over my dead body first... ” statement, Karpal had continued stating that he was never against Islam.

I was there during the 2010 Pakatan Rakyat Convention in Kepala Batas when Karpal announced in front of PAS and PKR leadership as well as participants of the convention that he respected Islam as the official religion of the Federation as stated in the Federal Constitution and that he was never against Islam as Malaysia’s official religion.

Karpal even said the following words in an interview, “I'm not opposed to Islam at all, I’m a god fearing man.”

Karpal’s attitude against accepting the Islamic State and Hudud which earned him the accusation of being anti-Islam made him the main target of a group of Malays from both Umno and PAS notwithstanding their political dissimilarities.

The question to be asked however should be; why did Karpal react as such?

Karpal's logic on Hudud

Karpal is a member of the legal fraternity. His assertions had never veered on the ideology of opposition towards religious appreciation, as his interest was more towards the legal ideology.

He has stressed this fact in one of his statements when asked why he could not accept the concept of Islamic State and Hudud. He had answered, “My opposition to Islamic State and hudud is to preserve and defend the constitution.. ”

Understanding Karpal’s logic in this matter is understanding Karpal as a legal man and not as someone who is anti-religion and approaching his strictness in the matter should also be by using the legal logic as opposed to religious sentiments and emotions.

To me, it is not easy for us to accuse another as anti-Islam just on the basis of their rejection of the Islamic State and Hudud on legal basis.

It is my view that to be anti-religion, one would need to be driven by hatred and hostility towards all meanings of the religion including the rejection of Islam as the Federation's official religion.

If that is the logic to be used then, shouldn't the existence of the Syariah Court Act 1965 which obstructs the implementation of Hudud at the States be stated as anti-Islam?

Is the Federal Government under the BN and currently governed by a Prime Minister who is a muslim also be said to be anti-Islam for allowing this barrier to continue?

What of a muslim who rejects the Islamic State and Hudud on the excuse that the economy will suffer and investors fleeing? What of some who even state that both are no longer relevant in the world today?

I am not defending Karpal and his attitude, but merely giving credence and justice to the issue of the Islamic State and Hudud which has never been given a clearer picture due to the far too many people of self-interests in the matter, so much so that it is more comfortable to be taken on face value of a political rather that a substantive issue.

Response logic

Legal logic also demands that we too answer the question on whether Malaysia is a secular nation or half secular although Islam is occupying the highest pedestal and despite the other religions being freely practiced with the restriction of propagation.

How then of the list of states of which are provided the ability to legislate Islamic enactments?

Would it not be possible for the Penal Syariah II enactment in Kelantan to be done legislatively? If this act is taken as being ultra vires of the Courts Act 1965, who is responsible to review the said legal provisions?

PAS once brought to Parliament a Private Members' Bill through its President Datuk Seri Haji Hadi Awang on the issue of apostasy but it was never admitted for debate.

It is this legal logic that should be made the track to convince all legal legislators that an issue of such sensitivity in the end needs to gain a mandate and its political process need to be understood by the people on a substantive level.

The sensitivity of religious issues ― if needs to be legalised including that of Hudud - would surely receive a wide range of responses from the many political persuasions but Rashid Al Ghanushi has given the framework of how the issue could be solved by saying:

“No one has the right to claim he represent the religion, neither An Nahda nor anyone else. Society through its dynamic is the one to formulate and translate religion into policies, laws and culture….the dynamic continues until there is concensus about the opinion of religion on the issue..”

I agree fully with the framework of democratic thoughts as resolved by the said leader of An Nahdah as this is also the framework that we should debate with the logic of Karpal which I know is received with confidence by friends in the DAP when the Hudud issue becomes a widely talked about issue again as it is currently.

Karpal and PAS

A PAS leader who is also linked as being in direct encounter with Karpal is the former Kelantan Menteri Besar Dato’Setia  Bentara Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.

Their encounter is due to the consistency in the PAS Mursyidul Am's intentions in implementing the Syariah Penal enactment which received the mandate agreement from the Sultan of Kelantan but obstructed by the Syariah Courts Act 1965.

As is the consistency in Karpal’s objections against this wish on the argument as mentioned above.

Nik Aziz – Karpal

However the whole nation saw a historic meeting of cordial warmth between the two great leaders at Karpal's home when the PAS Mursyidul Am visited Karpal in Penang while accepting his (Nik Aziz) birthday cake from Karpal on 27^th January 2013.

Both were warm towards each other despite having a completely opposite stand between them. The openness of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz is a symbol of PAS' commitment in respecting rights to disagree despite being in a single political collusion.

Karpal meanwhile has always held a positive stance on PAS from his very own words which proved his sentiments and attitude, in effect: “We may have our differences with PAS but it is a solid principled party and an important ally”.

Good bye forever

The Speaker of Dewan Rakyat will be one who would be missing the most of Karpal’s demise as Karpal's voice will no longer be heard knocking on the microphone and asking for “Point of Order” to be read specifically in objecting the rulings made by the Speaker.

His sharpness in raising legal arguments in the Acts debated and his criticism against the judiciary of this country has always been venomous and piquant yet to the point.

We the young MPs have lost a senior MP who always managed to make both friends and enemies mad and jovial when he debated.

The judges have lost a lawyer who had always tested their integrity at the maximum level.

Members of DAP have lost a spirited voice who once said on the background of the DAP's loss in Penang a while ago of “be careful of the injured tiger as it is more dangerous.”

The civil society who once knew Karpal will not forget his words that, “It is important for every citizens in this country to know that no one is above the law” and on his confidence in the legal moral principles that he came into the problem with the Royalty.

For someone who is firm in the world of politics and legal, Malaysia would also feel the loss of its son who fervently protected the principles of the Federal Constitution with great honesty.

Karpal – A Tribute

The question of whether he was right or wrong in doing so is never an as issue, but that was the way he showed his love to this country.

It was a moments’ silent in the ruckus of the voices slamming the Tiger of Jelutong when news of his tragic death filtered through and was broadcasted across the nation.

The tiger no longer roars but his stripes have left their indelible mark as did his name. The words of the deceased will continue to ring loud in the ears of friends and foes: “You knock out one Karpal Singh, a hundred Karpal will rise.”

Good bye, Comrade Karpal!

*Datuk Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa is a member of PAS (Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party) and a member of parliament for Parit Buntar.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.