DAP chairperson Karpal Singh's proposal to deregister race-based political and professional bodies is unconstitutional and undemocratic, argued constitutional expert Dr Abdul Aziz Bari.

He said there is nothing in the federal constitution that outlaws such bodies, and it may in fact block such a restriction because Article 8(1) guarantees equal protection for all.

"As a senior lawyer and veteran politician he should have been more careful. No doubt Karpal was politically correct, but constitutionally he was dead wrong.

"We may not like what Umno, MIC, MCA, Perkasa or Muslim Lawyers' Association (MLA) have to say but we have to admit that there is nothing in the constitution that outlaws their existence...

"Thus we have to live with it. Technically even communist or Marxist parties have the right to exist so long as they do not promote violence," he said in a statement today.

NONEAziz Bari (left) was responding to Karpal's statement proposing that race-based parties and professional bodies to be deregistered or open their doors to all races, with specific reference to DAP's ally PAS and the MLA.

He had also reportedly chastised MLA for being ‘troublemakers' for threatening the Bar Council not to support The Herald in its appeal on the controversial 'Allah' decision to the Federal Court, saying that it should not be allowed to operate since the Bar Council represents lawyers of all races and religions.

Karpal has since clarified that his statement on Tuesday did not call for PAS' deregistration and had in fact thrown it a lifeline by pointing out that PAS has a non-Muslim supporters wing, unlike "unadulterated racist parties" such as MCA, Umno, and MIC.

Aziz Bari, a former law professor at Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia, said Karpal's proposal for deregistration is tantamount to urging that draconian laws be used against dissidents.

"(It is) like asking dissents to be dealt with by sedition law or asking right wingers to be detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). This is wrong in principle," he said.

He added that the Bar Council, as a statutory body, should have stood by the constitution by highlighting these issues.

"The reason why MLA was unhappy was that the Bar seems to be selective on issues concerning the constitution.

"The Bar may not like MLA and what it stands for but the Bar must defend MLA's right to exist and to express their opinions," he said.