MP SPEAKS Karpal Singh 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 a 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 in 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 practised, 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 Hadi Awang ( left ) 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 represents the religion, neither An Nahda or anyone else. Society through its dynamic is the one to formulate and translate religion into policies, laws and culture... the dynamic continues untill there is consensus 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  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 and 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’s) birthday cake from Karpal on Jan 27, 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’s 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.”

Goodbye forever

The speaker of Dewan Rakyat will be one who would be missing the most of Karpal’s demise as Karpalss 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 moment’s silent in the ruckus of the voices slamming the Tiger of Jelutong when news of his tragic death filtered through and was broadcast 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!

Yesterday Part I: ‘Karpal was never anti-Islam’

MUJAHID YUSOF RAWA is the Member of Parliament for Parit Buntar.