©The Star (Used by permission)
by LIM CHEE WEE
Karpal Singh was the advocate his fellow advocates would turn to for representation.
KARPAL Singh the righteous, fearless and powerful advocate dedicated his life to the protection and promotion of the rule of law in Malaysia, whether in the courtroom as counsel or litigant, in the Dewan Rakyat as a Parliamentarian, or in the country at large as a politician and activist.
As a great advocate of justice and rule of law, Karpal fought on behalf of all Malaysians, past, present and future, for the realisation of the rule of law, without care for danger to his life and liberty.
Yet, Karpal the advocate I knew was always courteous, soft–spoken and helpful. He was the advocate his fellow advocates would turn to for representation.
Karpal’s advocacy of the rule of law started when he was a law student in the University of Singapore where he organised a series of demonstrations against the introduction by the university authorities of a vetting system requiring students to prove their suitability to study certain courses.
When he was suspended for his role in the demonstrations, Karpal reportedly said that his action “was just the observance of a fundamental principle of one’s rights, namely the right to question legitimate authority which one upholds with respect and dignity” (Karpal Singh: Tiger of Jelutong, Tim Donoghue).
In the courtroom, Karpal was our best advocate in criminal law and constitutional law. Karpal’s name appears in around 600 reported cases, from the Privy Council to the High Court – a testament to his diligence and passion.
And it was in these two areas of the law that Karpal flourished.
Karpal’s work in upholding the sub–rule of the rule of law, namely that the laws of the land should apply equally to all, saw some measure of success when he (and the then Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) voted in Parliament in 1993 in favour of amendments to our Federal Constitution to establish the Special Court for Rulers and remove legal immunity for Rulers.
These amendments were the culmination of Karpal’s earlier courage in the courtroom. Before this, he not only represented litigants in suing Rulers but also himself as a plaintiff in a legal action against a Ruler.
Karpal’s recent conviction for sedition from his statements to the press on Feb 6, 2009 regarding the accountability of a Ruler for the removal of a Mentri Besar was also the price of his belief in equality of and accountability to the law.
Karpal also held the Executive accountable for its actions, championing the principle that all ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.
The leading case for this is the Supreme Court decision in Government of Malaysia v Lim Kit Siang, where Karpal as the lawyer alleged impropriety in the decision of the Government to award to UEM the construction of the North South Highway.
This was one of the many cases which Karpal would act on a pro bono basis to hold the Executive accountable. While Karpal may not have succeeded in most of those cases, the Executive got the message that Karpal was watching over their every decision, action and omission.
It was the objectionable death penalty which witnessed Karpal’s legal ingenuity in challenging the legitimacy of the laws that sent individuals to the gallows. Karpal’s desire was for the law to afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights, and for compliance by the state with its obligations under international law. Karpal successfully argued before the Privy Council in 1978 (against a Queen’s Counsel) that a Proclamation of Emergency and Cabinet decisions announced by the King are reviewable by the Courts, and therefore the Essential (Special Cases) Regulations 1975, pursuant to which security offences were used to prosecute various individuals in possession of firearms, was unconstitutional. However, the Government swiftly enacted laws to overturn this decision.
Karpal’s work against the death penalty had to continue in other ways: in Arulpragasan’s case, where Karpal saved his client from the gallows and clarified the law on standard of proof in criminal cases; and through international campaigns such as in the case of Tan Chay Wa.
Karpal was our voice when we feared to speak, our counsel when we were persecuted or prosecuted and our inspiration when we were forlorn.
Still, like Winston Churchill who once said that the British people, not he himself, were lionhearted in the darkest days of World War 2, and that he had merely been privileged to give the lion’s roar, Karpal had also once said that even if he were gone, “there would be 100 Karpals to take my place.”
Now that the Tiger of Jelutong is no more, we Malaysians must persevere in the struggle to realise the rule of law, and learn to roar for ourselves. This was Karpal’s wish.
> Lim Chee Wee is past Malaysian Bar president.