The Karpal Investigation

A reader of The Sun has written in to the local newspaper to voice out his opinion in relation to Karpal Singh’s “offensive commentary” which gave him the lime light quite recently.

The following is the letter written by Param Cumaraswamy to the Sun, published on 14 May, 2008, under the Speak Up! Section, pg17.

“Why undue haste in Karpal investigation?”

Datuk Seri Mohamad Nazri’s Abdul Aziz’s statement reported in the media yesterday that the government does not practice double standards against anyone who makes seditious remarks against the Malay rulers is very commendable.

He was further quoted as having said “I do not care whether the person is an elected representative from the Barisan National or Pakatan Rakyat.” These are stirring remarks of principle.

However, Nazri should be called upon to answer where he was in 1992/93 when then prime minister and UMNO president (Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad made virulent and highly seditious public statements against the Malay Rulers including the then Yang di Pertuan Agong, questioning their immunities, privileges and withdrawing some. Police reports were lodged all over the country against Mahathir, yet there was no action taken against him. Was not double standards applied then? Was not Mahathir then seen to be above the law?

Why all this undue haste in having the investigation on Karpal Singh expedited? In this regard we should be mindful of the remarks of the Regent of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, reported in the media on Dec 12, 1992. He was reported to have said that “it was a misconception to think that anyone or any institution in the country was exempt from the law because there was not a single system in this modern age which denies the people’s basic rights and freedom”. The Regent made those remarks in the context of the institution of the Sultanate some 15 years ago.

Today Malaysia should be and seen to be in an enlightened era with a robust market place for reason dialogue, the exchange of ideas and opinions. Karpal’s remarks must therefore be seen as an expression of his right to an opinion on a constitutional matter and should not be viewed as an offence.