Duh DAP wheel chairperson.

Originally, I wanted to headline this posting “The world according to Karp” but considering that I’ve fond memories of the 1982 “Garp” movie and am certainly a fan of Robin Williams, it would have been sacrilegious to associate the two.

Karp have been busy blithering incessantly through the MSM since the PR coalition won big state-wise but still not there yet, federally speaking.

He started off his blitzkrieg with TDM (here), took potshots at the Regent of Kelantan (here) and came to the rescue of the Perak PAS MB (here). The first two items were typically his trademark ‘matter of political principle’ diatribes which were meant to admonish whoever he perceives as his opponents. The third, surprisingly, was a complete reversal in character in which he actually acquiesced to a derogatory nickname for his own flock. Par for the course, I’d presume, for political expediency.

Alrighty. Get on board the OBE time-machine and let’s go back to 1999 when Karp was one of the lead counsel for AI in that (in)famous court case which probably elevated this lawyer bloke to a cult figure among the local legal fraternity and became the darling of western human rights advocates.

Karp uttered these words in court “It could well be that someone out there wants to get rid of him… even to the extent of murder… I suspect people in high places are responsible for this situation”. Mighty strong words but then again, he’s a lawyer fer chrissakes and he’s gotta appear courageous in front of the judge, and the gallery.

For those born yesterday, this lawyerly statement was made on 10th September 1999 during AI’s second trial on the sodomy charge (for which he was later acquitted) and referred to the purported arsenic poisoning of AI while in incarceration. Just prior to this momentous announcement, in August ’99, urine samples from AI were surreptitiously taken out of prison, smuggled overseas under a pseudonym (using an indian name, if I recalled correctly) to Gribbles Pathology Laboratory in Melbourne, Australia for tests. Lo and behold, the ‘unidentified source’ samples tested positive with very high levels of arsenic content which may be fatally harmful to this unidentified person. Hence, Karp must have felt compelled to disclose this incriminating evidence in a court of law to support his contentious statement. Both the trial judge and the AG who was leading the prosecution were equally concerned and agreed to a request for AI to be examined by medical experts.

Subsequently, further tests were carried out by local and foreign experts to establish the veracity of the alleged poisoning bid (as presented by Karp) but none of the results were proven to be fatal to AI’s wellbeing. It takes a long time for arsenic poisoning to take effect in a person and similarly, if ingested, will remain within the body for an extended period.

Anywayz, to shorten this krap.. crap.. long story, please read this opinion piece made by QC Michael Birnbaum obtained from the ‘barhumanrights-uk’ website on what transpired although it’s more on the legalistic explanation on the issue of sedition and contempt of court proceedings. Folks, yer might wanna get a cup of coffee/tea before scrolling down to the juicy bits coz the damn thing is 62 pages long, ok.

Despite the long-winded explanation therein, I’m amazed that the true identity of the person from whom the alleged samples were obtained and sent anonymously to Australia was never questioned nor established at that point in time. QC Birnbaum prepared a convoluted document on the legal aspects of the case but was scant on corroborative details to support the alleged arsenic poisoning. I thought lawyers are meticulous on the issue of building up the body of irrefutable evidence when presenting their arguments and submissions in court but then again, I presume it doesn’t apply to big time lawyers with their high standing clients. It seems and according to the reasoning given by the QC, factual accuracy is irrelevant as long as there is no ‘bad faith’ (mala fide) on the part of the defense counsel. Duh! This was an extremely high profile case involving, for the first time ever, the Malaysian government against a former deputy prime minister. I’m certain that fact was not lost on Karp.

Lawyers and politicians make for strange bedfellows. And if they happen to be one and the same, and in parliament at that, may God have mercy on us ordinary folks coz a quick solution may not avail itself.

P.S. Karp lost in the November ’99 election in case if you’re wondering.