Karpal Singh: Bye-bye, Jangan main-main/Don't fool around !

Standing his ground:Karpal telling the Speaker: “I have a right to be here” as the police wait to escort him out in May 1981.  Images for Karpal Singh images

Tributes for Karpal Singh's Quotes:

“Jangan main-main” – a catchphrase of sorts for the statesman, Karpal Singh said this on many occasions – to the Registrar of Societies when his beloved party was faced with the threat of deregistration, after being sent live bullets by thugs.

“The tiger is still alive and ... a wounded tiger is even more dangerous.” – Karpal in April 1995 after DAP was defeated in Penang. The then-state chairman said the defeat did not mean the end of the opposition in Penang.

“I know what it is like to lose your liberties. So I want to go on being in Parliament as long as I can.” – Karpal in 1995, when asked about his determination during the general elections campaign period.

“For there to be integration in essence and spirit, I hope all restrictions in the way of uniting the people are removed.” – Karpal in June 1995, welcoming the move to integrate the legal systems of Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia.

“Offences perpetrated upon children, particularly infants, are the most heinous of offences because children are defenceless against such attacks.” Despite his dislike of capital punishment, Karpal felt that those who committed crimes against children deserved harsh sentences.

“Singh is King.” A reference to a popular Bollywood movie with the same catchphrase, Karpal used the line several times including after he received live bullets in the mail (prefaced with “jangan main-main”).

“I do not intend to give up. The Opposition has a big role to play in this country.” – Karpal after his accident in 2005 which left him in a wheelchair.

“There are always people who are insensitive, we just have to take it. There is nothing you can do about it. We cannot be discouraged, as that’s exactly what our enemies would want.” – Karpal in a Sept 2006 interview with The Star.

“Once you are in this situation, you realise how little the disabled have in this country. Governments in many countries make lots of allowances to include them in society. We haven’t reached that stage. I will do what I can to make sure the disabled are given all opportunities in line with other countries.” – Karpal in 2006, commenting on the lack of disabled-friendly infrastructure and legislation in Malaysia.

“We may have our differences with PAS but it is a solid, principled party and an important ally.” – Karpal in 2012. “My parents wanted me to be a doctor but I would have been a lousy doctor!” – Karpal in a 2010 interview with The Star.

“I am not questioning the privileges. I am asking how long they will be implemented.” – Karpal in 2010, asking the Government for a time frame for the gradual removal of special privileges accorded to Malays and other bumiputras, in the spirit of 1Malaysia.

“As long as I am alive, I will continue to struggle to see a non-Malay become prime minister.” – Karpal in 2012, saying the Federal Constitution did not provide that only Malays could be prime minister.



Sources: The Star/Asia News Network

• For more stories click here.

Infographics:
Tiger, tiger who burned bright
Karpal the politician
Karpal the lawyer

Photo Gallery:
Old days of Karpal
About Karpal
From hospital to his home

Related posts:

 Karpal Singh: 1940 – 2014 | BJ Thoughts...

 DAP's Tiger roars, Malaysian election fevers! 

 Disturbing legal implications on sedition and 'fatwa in Malaysia.

Disturbing legal implications on sedition and 'fatwa' in Malaysia

Kassim Ahmad & Karpal Singh Two recent cases raise the issue of what amounts to sedition and why one can’t question or challenge a ‘fatwa’.

THE recent conviction of Karpal Singh under the Sedition Act and the charging of Kassim Ahmad under the Federal Territories Syariah offences law raise some disturbing questions with serious implications as to where we are headed as a democratic nation.

First, let us look at the Sedition Act. The trouble with this law, a remnant of British colonialism, is two-fold. First, its basic premise is that criticism of authority should be controlled. This in itself is already an affront to democracy.

Second is its open-ended nature. Just what exactly amounts to sedition, for example. However, up until the Karpal Singh case, I thought there was one defence in the Sedition Act that was pretty strong.

Something is not seditious if you are pointing out that the object of your criticism has done something wrong, especially in the context of their constitutional limitations. This appears so clear to me that it seemed unlikely any court could find a way around it.

Alas, that is exactly what seems to have happened to Karpal. He basically said that the decision made by the Sultan of Perak of choosing a new Mentri Besar for the state in 2009 could be questioned in court.

I can’t for the life of me see what is seditious about that. Is the Sultan limited by the Constitution and the law in the discharge of his powers? Yes, of course he is. And if there is a dispute as to whether he acted lawfully or not, could he not be questioned? Again, of course he should, for we live in a constitutional and not an absolute monarchy.

And lastly, if there is to be a questioning of the acts of a member of the royalty, is there a lawful manner with which this can be done? Again the answer is yes, because we have the Special Court which was designed specifically for the royals and inserted into our Constitution by the Government.

Even within the authoritarian nature of the Sedition Act, there seem to be limits as to what can be deemed seditious. I thought those limits were clear enough. It appears that I am wrong.

What is of concern is that even when an act clearly falls within the allowable limits of a law, this does not appear to make any difference at all. Thus, the reach of a poor law becomes even greater and all that much more oppressive.

The second thing I want to talk about is the charging of Kassim Ahmad. This case raises some serious problems with some of the Syariah laws we have in this country.

According to the Syariah Offences law of the Federal Territories, it is an offence to question and speak in contradiction to a fatwa made by the mufti.

This fatwa need not be gazetted, that is to say made into law, just its mere exclamation is enough to give it weight of law. Needless to say, fatwas which have been gazetted can’t be questioned either.

Firstly, one wonders why one can’t question or challenge a law? If a fatwa is gazetted and made into law, what makes it different from any other law? Why can’t it be challenged? I can criticise the Contracts Act so why can’t I criticise any other thing which affects my life?

But what is really disturbing is the fact that a fatwa, which is after all merely an opinion, can carry the weight of law even without going through the legislative process of debate and voting. This in effect means that one person’s words suddenly become akin to a law for we cannot challenge it and if we do we can face a fine and jail.

This is frightfully undemocratic and can lead to some horrific scenarios. What if a mufti passes a fatwa saying that any sort of dissension against the civil government is wrong?

According to the Federal Territories law, any challenge of fatwa can be punished. What kind of democracy are we living in if a person’s statement by itself can have such authority?

Much has been said about how Malaysia is edging towards a more liberal and open democracy. Laws have been repealed or changed and steps (albeit baby steps) have apparently been taken.

What these two events show is that there are still some very undemocratic laws in existence, they are still being used and any hope that we are becoming more democratic is hopelessly naïve.

Brave New World by Azmi Sharam

> Azmi Sharom (azmisharom@yahoo.co.uk) is a law teacher. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

DAP's Tiger roars, Malaysian election fevers!

DAP national chairman Karpal Singh, the ‘Tiger of Jelutong’, is now roaring his way into the people’s hearts this general election.

For the first time, he has incorporated his famous tiger trademark into his election campaign by having his campaign vehicles emblazoned with his image beside the image of a tiger.

The 72-year-old lawyer, who earned the nickname following a dispute with former MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu in Parlia-ment in 1982, said he was sure the tiger would bring good luck to him and Pakatan Rakyat.

He also did not mind retelling the story behind the nickname to reporters during a meeting-the- people session at the market in Jalan Gangsa yesterday.



“During an argument with Samy Vellu, he called himself a lion while he called me a tiger.

“But I’m a lion as Singh means lion in Punjabi. And lion is ‘singa’ in Bahasa Malaysia,” he added.

“But then I said to him: ‘Never mind, you be the lion and I’ll be the tiger. There are no lions in the country.

“So the name started from there,” he said with a chuckle.

Karpal Singh, who is defending his Bukit Gelugor parliamentary seat, said a supporter, S. Mahendran, had taken the campaign vehicles — a multi-purpose vehicle and a jeep — to the shop to have the images pasted on them.

He added that he would ensure that tigers, an endangered species, would be protected as any attack on a tiger was an attack on him.

“The vehicles bearing the tiger images received a positive response from the public who would take photographs of them,” he said.

He has also called himself the ‘Tiger General’ in Bukit Gelugor which he said was the only constituency in the country to have four lawyers in the parliamentary and state seats.

“Four lawyers — we are like ge-nerals. And I am the ‘Tiger General’,” he said.

DAP candidates for the three state seats are incumbents R.S.N. Rayer (Seri Delima), Wong Hon Wai (Air Itam) and Yeoh Soon Hin (Paya Terubong).

Karpal Singh won the Jelutong parliamentary seat in 1978 and held the seat for more than 20 years until losing it in 1999.

The Bukit Gelugor constituency was once part of the Jelutong parliamentary constituency until the mid-1990s.

By JOSEPHINE JALLEH josephine@thestar.com.my

Related posts:
The powerful political marketing: hate and love emotions in Malaysian election? 
Right candidates for the picking in Malaysian election fights 
DAP strongman Lim Kit Siang's biggest political gamble 

Practise 'Addin', a Malaysian way of life? PAS Vows Hudud for Malaysia!

The PAS leader's statement that Islam's status in the Federal Constitution would be changed from official religion' to Addin' if Pakatan Rakyat captures power is the latest example of the party pushing its Islamic agenda without consulting its coalition partners.

PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang needs a quick lesson in history and the best person to give him that is his colleague and fellow traveller in Pakatan Rakyat DAP national chairman Karpal Singh.

Abdul Hadi had told a press conference in Terengganu last week that the status of Islam in the Federal Constitution would be changed from “official religion” to a “way of life” if Pakatan Rakyat captures power in the next general election.

The unilateral statement was also justified by an attack on the Reid commission, which drafted our constitution in 1956, with Abdul Hadi claiming that there were no Muslim members among its five members, headed by Lord William Reid.

As Karpal Singh has rightly pointed, Hadi was wrong on both scores.

Political analysts and political parties, including the MCA, followed suit in severely criticising Hadi for wanting to unilaterally amend the constitution.

The matter was certainly not brought before the Pakatan Rakyat leaders' council for discussions.

Pakatan leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who advocates a pluralistic approach to religion, was noticeably missing in the controversy because Hadi and PAS, while colleagues in Pakatan Rakyat, have an entirely different approach in that they believe Islam is the only true way to God.

On his part, Hadi has always been pushing for more recognition for Islam and its primacy as the only path to God.

“In the world today, people know of two ways to describe the faith: one is what is adopted by the West by calling it a religion, which denotes the spiritual relationship between human and God, without mentioning it as a way of life,” Hadi was quoted as saying after launching the Terengganu PAS Youth annual meeting in Kampung Kubang Lembek, Manir.

“The second option is by calling it Addin the way of life which is more apt as it includes everything, from the spiritual to all other aspects of life.

“It is not right to say Islam is a religion. The right way is to describe it as Addin, a way of life,” Hadi said.

His interpretation of Islam clashes with the country's multi-ethnic society populated by different races practising different religions.

If an amendment is done it can seriously affect non-Muslims and their way of life which is radically different from that of Muslims.

Although all religions have similarities in moral values and concepts of human justice, their methods and practices differ greatly.

When religion is imposed as a way of life on the majority, the amendment will impact on the rest who practise different faiths and cultures.

It will create many “dos and don'ts” issues like the banning of alcohol, rules on entertainment, dressing and also the intermingling of sexes.

Such amendments will be a recipe for disaster as it can result in the various races drifting further apart and living separate lives instead of coming together into a harmonious, multi-ethnic melting pot.

Hadi also argued that the current definition of Islam as “the official religion of the Federation” did not do justice to Islam and suggested that legislation in this country be interpreted according to the tenets of Islam.

While PAS is under pressure from its Islamic clientele to speak up for Islam, it is also under pressure from its non-Muslim supporters club to desist and behave like PKR or DAP, in wanting to be better than Barisan Nasional at ruling.

Unlike them, PAS is a party that has dreams of creating an Islamic theocracy, something that is unsuitable in this multi-racial society.

This is one reason why PAS is obstinate and unyielding on implementing hudud law and speaking up on many other social issues and the current one to amend the constitution.

PAS' increasingly “superior behaviour”, however, is a by-product of unquestioning support from the DAP.

It shows that neither the DAP nor even the PKR can control PAS any longer and its acquiesce to its demands, like the statement from Hadi that PAS will implement hudud law if elected to Putrajaya.

PAS has a tendency to declare its Islamic agenda without due consultation with its coalition partners and in doing so, it is impinging on non-Muslims' right to freely practise their religion and rights that are guaranteed under the very constitution the party wants to change.

Originally, PAS championed an Islamic theocracy but later following pressure from PKR and especially DAP, it changed to championing a welfare state.

Now the party has come up with its “Addin” or Islam as the way of life proposal, with hudud law included.

The motive is to win the conservative Islamic vote but at the same time, try to satisfy non-Muslim voters.

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

Islamic Party Vows Hudud for Malaysia

OnIslam & Newspapers

"If we have enough majority (of seats), if Pas is stronger than our allies, we will implement hudud," Harun said. >>

CAIRO - Seeking to lure more voters in next year’s election, Malaysia's main Islamic party has pledged to amend the constitution to allow the application of hudud in the Asian Muslim-majority country.

"We will implement hudud and amend the Constitution even if (it is) not with the current partners we have in Pakatan...may be there will be other pacts (Pakatan) that will lend us their support,” Harun Taib, chief of PAS Ulema Council, was quoted as saying by the New Straight Times on Saturday, May 12."If we have enough majority (of seats), if PAS is stronger than our allies, we will implement (hudud and the amendment to the Constitution)."

Hudud (Penalties) in Contemporary Legal Discourse

The issue was first raised when the Islamic party’s president Abdul Hadi Awang said that PAS had never backtracked on their intention to put hudud (Islamic penalties) to law and that it will seek to implement it if it takes federal power.

But the staetments drew fire from Karpal Singh, the national chairman of the secular Democratic Action Party (DAP).

Harun reiterated the party support for Hadi on the issue of hudud, saying that the party views Karpal’s criticism as a “personal opinion as a lawyer.”"I think whether it is against the Constitution or not is just his (Karpal's) personal opinion and comment as a lawyer,” Harun said.

"As a PAS member, I am fully behind Hadi."

With an estimated 800,000 members, PAS is the main rival of Prime Minister Najib Razak's United Malays National Organization.

A few years ago, PAS has enacted the hudud laws in Kelantan, to be imposed only on Muslims who represent about 90 per cent of the state's 1.5 million population.

The laws introduced Shari`ah punishments for theft, robbery, adultery, liquor consumption and apostasy.

Adamant

The leader of PAS Ulema council confirmed that hudud can only be implemented through a parliamentary majority."If we have enough majority (of seats), if Pas is stronger than our allies, we will implement (hudud and the amendment to the Constitution)," Harun said.

He added that hudud remains PAS’s intention despite the criticism it received from both its allies in Pakatan and rivals Barisan Nasional.

The Islamic party had already enacted the law in Kelantan and Terengganu but faced constitutional restraint in its implementation.

"We are a party that is championing Islam,” Harun said.

“Of course we will implement what is required by Islam. Pas will always be behind Hadi and the party's struggle to uphold Islam in the government and administration of the country."

Malaysia’s parliamentary elections are due in 2013, but expectations are high that the polls could be called much earlier.

Muslim Malays form about 60 percent of Malaysia's 26-million population, while Christians make up around 9.1 percent.

Buddhists constitute 19.2 percent, Hindu 6.3 while other traditional Chinese religions make up the rest of the population.

Related posts:
Politics, Religion don't mix!
Don't let the sun go down on our rights; those mess up politics ...
Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard
Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum ...
MCA do-or-die at 63 in sarong politics
Speaking up for religious tolerance 
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System ... 
Get set for Malaysian politics of the young!

When the Malaysia's Elections will be after Bersih 3 & Occupy Dataran?

Elections won’t be in June

The probability of the Prime Minister calling for polls in June will be unlikely from a strategic planning point of view.

FORGET about June; the more likely time for the polls will be in the first week of September.

If Bersih 3.0 and Occupy Dataran were meant to peak before the polls, then they have been premature.

On the government side, while the Prime Minister has made several nationwide trips, his series of visits, which emphasises his government transformation plans on services for the people, has only just started.

Both sides have also not finalised their list of candidates despite their bravado in making declarations that they are ready for elections.

With a tough fight ahead, being winnable candidates is not good enough; they have to be trustworthy too. Both sides do not want defections after the general election.

This is especially so for Pakatan Rakyat whose elected representatives defected after the polls.

For the Barisan Nasional, it would not want to deal with a situation similar to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s attempt to woo Barisan MPs to cross over.

So far, only the DAP’s Karpal Singh has consistently argued for a law to stop defections. The rest from both sides have refused to be drawn into such a commitment, preferring perhaps to keep the options open.

Then there is the matter of seat swapping. Both sides are still at the negotiation table and, in the case of Pakatan Rakyat, the unhappy components have gone to the media to voice their frustrations.

In Sabah, the local opposition want the Pakatan Rakyat to stay out but the DAP, especially, is adamant in contesting. It will lead to a crowded fight if no compromises are made within the opposition.

In the Barisan, the seat-swapping issue is still being sorted out and has not even gone to the supreme council level yet.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s diary is packed with commitments, including overseas visits. The media has already been informed of his trips to the United Kingdom and United States in mid-May.

It does not look like a red herring as planning for his meetings has been completed and he would also take a short holiday with his family after his official duties, which include meeting members of the Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council in New York.

The council was set up to enable the country to make a quantum leap from a middle-income status to a high-income one.

By the time Najib returns, it would be the last week of May, and calling for polls in June will be unlikely from a strategic planning point of view.

The push for rural votes – the core of Umno’s support – will continue in June, especially after the windfall for Felda settlers has been declared from the listing of Felda Global Ventures Holdings (FGVH) Bhd, either in end May or early June.

The windfall will be in two forms – cash and equity – but the excitement would be the amount of the quantum. But word is that the rewards would be good.

Over the next few days, Najib will also be announcing details of the minimum wage plan and there is also talk that the Government will unravel the nine-month Malaysia Airlines-Air Asia alliance as early as Wednesday.

The alliance has been a source of discontent for the 22,000-strong staff of the national flag carrier. Their number is big, and given the fact that they are believed to be supporters of the ruling coalition, and their family members who are voters would be too, this issue is significant.

Over in Sabah and Sarawak, there will be two major celebrations – the Kaamatan festival of the Kadazandusun community on May 30 and 31 and Gawai for the Sarawakian Dayaks on June 1 and 2.

As these festivals are the most important events on the calendars of the two main communities in these states, no one would be expected to campaign for elections during this period.

Many Sabahans and Sarawakians, especially those working in the peninsula, are also expected to take a long break at this time.

Those who talk about a June 9 general election obviously have no idea of what’s happening in Sabah and Sarawak.

By July, it will already be the fasting month, which means there won’t be any election campaign. After this, the whole month of August will be taken up by the Hari Raya celebrations.

That means the first week of September will be the last window period.

The general election cannot be in late September as the haj season would have begun, ending only in October.

Then there is the Parliament meeting from Sept 24 to Nov 27, where the Budget needs to be tabled.

Once it is tabled, it has to be approved by the Dewan Negara, which means the session will drag on until next year.

If you are planning a holiday or a major corporate event in May or June, go ahead, your plans won’t be disrupted.

In fact, Malaysia is hosting Asia’s largest oil and gas event from June 5 to 7, bringing top people from this industry to Kuala Lumpur.

If you have planned for the Olympics in London, enjoy the Games, which starts on July 26 and ends on Aug 12.

But don’t be away too long because the drumbeats of the general election would be very loud by then.

ON THE BEAT  By WONG CHUN WAI

Malaysian gutter politics: sex video, like a blast from the past to end up as Three Stooges?

It's like a blast from the past
On The Beat By Wong Chun Wai

Tweet

There is a sense of déjà vu in the sex video case but this time, public expectations seem to have changed.

IT’S now called a sex video and the footage is probably only contained in a thumb drive. But 22 years ago, during the analogue days, they came in the form of the bulky VHS (video home system) tapes.

The visual on tape was often poor and grainy, especially if taken with a hidden camera and in bad lighting. But if they involved political figures, the intrigue and curiosity created would have been no less strong.

There would be the typical open declaration of disgust and anger over such intrusion of privacy but most would want to know more, especially the identities of the people involved.

The controversy over the sex video involving a man resembling Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is like a replay of an old video, or “rewind” as it used to be called.


Twenty-two years ago, DAP’s Karpal Singh walked into the Dewan Rakyat with an expose of a sex video implicating then Dewan Rakyat deputy speaker D.P. Vijandran. The press was tipped off earlier about this tape, which purportedly featured the bachelor politician and a woman in a yellow saree.

Karpal told Parliament then that he was exposing the MIC leader in “public interest” while then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad expressed regret that the issue had been exploited so much that those allegedly involved were being “persecuted”.

At the height of the issue, this writer received a call from Vijandran who pleaded for the story not to be reported. He also called reporter K.P. Waran at the New Straits Times, hoping for the same thing. But we both told him that it would not be possible.

He then issued a statement criticising the Opposition’s call for the setting up of a Special Tribunal or Royal Commission of Inquiry.

There is certainly a sense of déjà vu among veteran journalists today.

Karpal Singh was regarded as quite a hero for his expose then, and even MIC boss S. Samy Vellu was asked by DAP to resign because of the controversy.

Vijandran, who was then the MIC secretary-general, denied he was the man in the video. In fact, when the issue went to court, he maintained that it was not him.

Political enemies would be blamed but, like most sex videos, they are often the work of people closest to the politician. Blaming the former is often a political reaction.

In Vijandran’s case, he blamed his nephew, S. Ravindran, for using a hidden camera to film him in a compromising situation. In his affidavit, he accused Ravindran of “splicing and superimposing his (Vijandran) image onto the pornographic tape portraying him as an actor”. In short, the tape was doctored. It wasn’t him, he maintained.

Fast forward to the present. No one would claim credit for such gutter politics but the Datuk Trio of Tan Sri Rahim Tamby Chik, Datuk Shazryl Eskay Abdullah and Datuk Shuaib Lazim have unprecedentedly taken responsibility for their action. They are also claiming “public interest” as grounds for doing what they did.

Eskay, a former physiotherapist to Anwar and who is said to be the closest to the Opposition Leader, even signed off a press release as “the insider” and dropped hints that he knew more.

Rahim has rebutted allegations that he had an old political score to settle with Anwar. Not many political analysts, however, are convinced.

Umno leaders have said Rahim has not done the party a favour and they are privately saying he lacks credibility. Many have said they are being blamed for something they had no hand in and that they are nervous over how the drama would end.

In 1998, Umno Youth leader Ruslan Kassim, who was aligned to Anwar, alleged that Rahim was the publisher of the book 50 Reasons Why Anwar Cannot Be PM.

Rahim retaliated by suing him for RM15mil. The case only ended in 2004 with Ruslan, who had by then joined PKR, making an open apology to the former Malacca Chief Minister.

Old soldiers may fade away but in Malaysia it would appear that old political enemies will stay on to renew their fights. Anwar certainly has plenty of old enemies both inside and outside his party.

The trio has called for foreign experts to verify the identity of the man in the video.

Interestingly, during Vijandran’s trial, Dr Alfred David Linney, a University College of London specialist in planning and assessment of facial reconstruction, said the actor in the tape was a different person.

In fact, the defence witness testified that “if both the men were the same person, then their facial angles will not differ very much”.

Another defence witness, Japanese forensic anthropologist Masatsugu Hashimoto, testified: “It is wrong to state that the two earlobes of the man are the same because at least 14 points of similarities should have been found. In this case, not even a single point of similarity was found.”

Another defence witness, a lawyer, said he viewed the tape for 75 minutes and did not recognise the actor. When asked if he was sure, he replied: “I am positively sure it wasn’t Vijandran.”

The point is: in a court case, the prosecution and defence can always get witnesses, even so-called experts, to testify in support of their case.

In that instance, with the tapes freely available, the public had formed their own conclusion. In the People’s Court, Vijandran was the actor. Forget about the foreign experts.

In 1994, the Sessions Court sentenced him to a month’s jail and a fine of RM2,000 for fabricating evidence and making a false declaration. He took his appeals to the various upper courts and finally in 1998, he was acquitted by the Court of Appeal, which also set aside his conviction and sentence. But his political career was dead and public opinion of him and the tape remains unchanged.

This time around, however, public expectations seemed to have changed. Most Malay­sians do not believe Anwar is the man in the video even though they haven’t seen it. And even if they did, the die-hard Anwar supporters would regard the use of the video as gutter politics.

If the Datuk Trio had thought they could play heroes, they have found out that the psychological battle has become more complicated. Un­like Vijandran’s tape, only 10-odd journalists, some policemen and a few local film experts have seen the video, not 20 million people. The police have said the video is genuine, so the three Datuks had better plan their next steps carefully if they do not want to end up as the Three Stooges.