Just another day at work?

Court (Hindi, Marathi, Gujerati, English; 2014)
Screenplay, Director: Chaitanya Tamhane

I remember a joke someone told recently. 

There was once a 75-year-old man who was brought to a magistrate. The spreadsheet showed that the accused was charged with molesting a 17-year-old girl.

The magistrate looked at the 75-year-old and asked, "Why? At this age, why all these? A 17-year-old?"

The accused replied, "Sir, I was also 17 when the incident happened!"

That pretty much explains how slow the legal machinery works and how farcical some of the red tapes are.

Sorry to keep you waiting!
Doctors are humans too, they need to eat.

The men in robes (and women) argue about the most frivolous point and drag their feet to put an end to the misery that the legal system places on the Joe Public.  For them, it is another day in paradise, appearing important and flaunting their verbosity. It is another day of loss of income and the uncertainty of the unknown for the average Joe.

The public looks upon the members of the legal system as someone larger than life, living true to the tenets of life and holding 'the truth' close to their hearts in everything they do. Lest we forget, they are also human beings crumbling to the trappings of life.

If songs can kill

This Marathi movie is said to be one of the best made Indian movies ever made, as described by big movie stars and filmmakers. Unfortunately, if the proof of the success of a movie is in its box-office collection, it did miserably despite receiving multiple international accolades. It was made by a debutante director who received inspiration after spending a day in an Indian court. It was a world of difference from the usual melodrama-filled court drama often depicted on the silver screen. And that is what this film is all about. He tried to illustrate the sombre mood at the courts and how the wheel of justice moves ever so slowly. He goes on to show how the officers of the court, including the judge, the public prosecutor and the defence lawyer, just go on with their lives, seemingly detached from the devasting effects their actions or inactions can have on the fate of people they are entrusted with trying. The lawyers are not as passionate, assertive or demonstrative as police dramas show us.

In reality, the worker did not commit suicide. There are

simply not enough protective gears to go around. The

blame goes back to workers and others in the vulnerable

groups. 

'Court' centres around a 65-year-old folk singer-teacher-social worker who is charged for enticing a sanitation worker to commit suicide via his songs. An archaic law still in force, making it a crime to sing inciteful songs, is probably a colonial legacy. A sanitation worker apparently entered a manhole without any protective apparatus with the suicide in his mind, it is alleged.


The folk singer denies everything. He did not know his songs had such effects on his listeners. He is defended by a well-heeled activist and defence lawyer who is well versed in English, Hindi and Gujerati but not Marathi, in which the whole court proceeding is conducted. Then there is the feisty prosecutor who morphs into a housewife and a mother outside the courts. The judge, we soon learn, believes in numerology and can also be impulsive when challenged outside the courts. The filmmakers humanise all the characters. They are never overtly good or bad, but just products of the space and social construct they grow.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Fourth Estate has vested interest

Richard Jewell (2019)
Director: Clint Eastwood

The press and the print media are often referred to as the 'Fourth Estate' or 'Fourth Power' for a reason. It is supposed to act as an extension of the arms of governance after the legislation, execution and the judiciary branch of Government of rule via indirect public influence. 

It traditionally played the role of the eye of the public to create a check and balance system of the ruling Government. Over the years, we have noticed that it is no longer working towards the well-being of the common man, but rather have the welfare of the financiers at heart. With financiers having vested interest in how a piece of particular news should be presented, the truth is somehow lost in the rabble-rousing. The same message can be displayed by different stations leaving totally different impressions on the public.

So, leave to the public to assess what is right and which is fake, you say. History has proven time and again that people are fickle-minded. Like Pavlov's dog, they can be easily conditioned by their masters. Their opinion changes anywhere the wind blows. With access to social media to opine their two-cents worth literally at their fingertips, arranging a trial by media is an easy task.

The question of exposing too much 'truth' to the public domain and having a trial by media has been popping quite rampantly in Malaysia after the change of Government. Traditionally, in Malaysia, the Fourth Estate has been functioning more like a Fourth Branch of the Government, working well as a propaganda machine of the ruling Government. The old Government is feeling the heat as many of their shenanigans out in the open. They cry foul citing loss of sovereignty of the nation as we go on a rampage washing dirty linen in public. 

One thing people forget is that foreign investors come to our country not because we are trustworthy and virtuous. They come here precisely for the opposite reasons. Our leaders are easy to be bought over, and everything has a price.

The modern society talks about the need for a free press and freedom of information. The film shows one of the dangers of the unabated flow of information.

Richard Jewell is a timid man who lives with his mother and goes on by working as a security officer. It was 1996 and Atlanta was hosting the Centennial Olympics. During the tour of his duty as a security helper in a stadium, he notices an unattended bag. He alerted the police officers who confirmed that it contained a bomb. Jewell helped to evacuate the public from danger, prevent a catastrophe. He is hailed as a hero, and his pictures are plastered on all newspaper. Three days later, everything takes a 180-degree turn. He is reported to be a possible prime suspect as the bomber in the bombing. News leaks that FBI thought that Jewell fit the profile of a lone attacker - single white male, living with his mother, fascinated with guns who clamours a law enforcement career.

The rest of the movie is to shows the humiliation, public scrutiny and trial by media that Jewell and his mother endure. Under the name of national security and the thirst for the round-the-clock instant information, people's life is turned topsy-turvy.

The film created controversy when it suggested that the journalist, Kathy Scruggs, who leaked the information about the FBI investigations on Jewell being the possible suspect obtained it by providing sexual favours.

The saga affected Jewell and Scruggs profoundly. Both had premature deaths. Jewell succumbed to heart ailments, and Scruggs went on to be bogged with depression. She died on morphine overdose. The possibility of suicide was also considered.

Jewell's name did get cleared by FBI after all. In his time, he sued many newspapers and news networks including CNN. He got a fat compensation but, it seems, the bulk of it went to the lawyers' fees. 

That is the bane of modern living - create a molehill out of nothing, make a big deal out of it, talk about principle and doing the 'right' thing but basically doing nothing but create a whole lot of mess. In comes the lawyers (or maybe bankers too) as the knights in shining armours.  They prolong the confusion, build up anxiety and leave with a load of money, giving the impression of saving the day. To those affected, nothing really changes.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Thick as thieves?

The Post (2017)

The ongoing saga involving the former seemingly unassailable Prime Minister of Malaysia and its sovereign fund is a stark reminder that the world is ruled by an unholy union of politicians who conned the public, bankers who finance the whole fiasco, lawmakers who put a legal jargon to all these. Trailing them are a thick band of thieves, yeomen, hyenas and a slew of servants who would die or kill for their cause under the banner of nationalism. Depending on the setting, servants of God would get their hands dirty in the cookie jar to give a divine seal to all these shenanigans. 

In an environment of each wanting to fend for himself, in a world where 'The Truth' does not always prevail, and victors decide justice, the losers are the general public. Repeatedly the laypeople fall prey to the 'powers' of the day's sweet promises. In pursuit of happiness, they sacrifice my sweat, blood and tears.

They say we, the people, choose our leaders and the fate of our country. The politicians are at our mercy and not the other way around. But, increasingly, opposers to the status quo are cowed into submission by fear of harm and lost opportunities. The ongoing 1MDB trial opened the putrid cane of worms where civil servants are treated as lapdogs and rubber stamps for the ruling party. Amongst all these traitors emerge a lowly administrative officer, Nor Salwani Muhammad, who had the foresight to slip a recording device in her superior's pencil box to record certain vital proceedings.

I don't know him!

In a civil society, the last bastion of hope seems to be the media, the third force of resistance. Even that is a threat in many authoritarian societies. Press is no longer the purveyor of the truth but increasingly become mouthpieces of their financial masters.

The Washington Post is usually associated with the Watergate Scandal and Nixon's subsequent resignation as the US President. In 1966, an American State Department military analyst felt that the USA was misleading the public by convincing them that the war in Vietnam was proceeding well when, in reality, things were pretty bleak. The thought of the unassuming public sending their youngsters to be slaughtered in tropics pricked his conscience. The analyst decided to go public with documents that would prove the hypocrisy of three decades of US administration (post WW2) that had been hoodwinking the American public.

Even though it was first exposed to the New York Times, the filmmakers decided to tell the story from the viewpoint of the Washington Post who was struggling with a lady leading the helm as its publisher. The Post was the second newspaper that was approached to publish after the AG office shut down publications of the New York Times for articles deemed threatening national security.

The Post, a political thriller, shows the trials and tribulations of the journalists trying to fight for free speech, The First Amendment. After the mumbo-jumbo of legal threat and repercussions from the Nixon administration, the Supreme Court decided to allow printing of the controversial news. Its justification was that the papers worked for the governed, not the governor!

Lesson learnt: The citizens decide the path of the country. Its leaders should lead their subjects towards this end. They serve the public, not themselves or some uncertain promise of the future. It is difficult, however, when the people are lulled and stupefied by years of indoctrination and self-aggrandisement.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/503023

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

There is no one truth!

Badla (Revenge, Hindi, 2019)


Dhritarashtra, the blind king of the Kauravas, wanted an up-to-date account of the war. He summoned his charioteer, Sanjaya, who is said to have telepathic powers to describe the events in Kurushetra. 

The narration of the battle is from one person's perspective (i.e. Sanjaya). It is told in a version the listener wants to hear, i.e. how his army is doing. The truth is not something so clear cut. It is akin to a blind man describing an elephant, standing at one end of the animal. The understanding of the whole picture depends on where he is coming from. 

If Bhagavadgita were told by Draupadi, it would be a description of revenge and justification of violence on the grounds of humiliation and protecting one's dignity. As arbitration to avert war between cousins, the Pandavas and Kauravas, was on-going, Draupadi was all out for a clash to settle the score.

Influenced by how one tells his story, his body language, his persuasive skill, and how much he can use his sophist skills, he can manipulate the situation as he wants. It is not about fighting for justice or fear of retribution that seems to be the correct thing to do. In the modern world, it is rhetoric, deviant criminal minds and lawyers in expensive suits who will save the day.

In the cerebral battle of the minds, the truth can bend, and a lie may turn white. Forgiveness may become an act of revenge, and the truth may lie in the details. 

This Hindi crime drama is a gripping tale of a high-flying award-winning businesswoman who is embroiled in the murder of her lover. The successful woman is under house arrest and may be imprisoned in three hours. The whole movie is about her conversation with her new appointment, hot-shot lawyer. Yoyoing between truths and untruths, both try to find a sure way to save her skin. What awaits them at the end is the crux of the movie.

Nice one. 4.5/5.

The adage 'truth will prevail' is a fallacy. It just a lullaby song to pacify losers. The truth is determined by the victors who would cast it in stone as the ultimate truth.

In the end, the truth will prevail. Good and evil keep at war.

Whichever wins, future will believe it as the prevailing truth.”

― Toba Beta, My Ancestor Was an Ancient Astronaut

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

No county for the poor!

Innocent Man (2018)
Miniseries S1E1-E6.

This documentary series is an engaging one. It is based on John Grisham's sole non-fiction book based on two murders that happened in a small town in Oklahoma named Ada. Through two unrelated cases that occurred in this place in the years 1982 and 1984, the author tries to highlight the weakness of the American judicial system. 

Debbie Carter was raped and killed in her home in 1982. Denise Haraway was allegedly kidnapped and murdered in 1984. Two men each were convicted for each crime. There were striking similarities in the handling of the cases - a common witness and the same prosecution and investigative team.

The docuseries with Grisham's investigations and a separate team of journalists with a little help from 'Innocence Project', managed to illustrate how the system is so rotten to the core. Up to 4% of prison inmates in American prisons that accounts to 90,000 of them are wrongly convicted and are spending term for crimes they never committed. With the rush to finish off a case, to put a closure to a seemingly unsolvable mysteries, many corners are cut. Lengthy and exhausting interrogations tire suspects to submissions. Invariably, people at the lowest rung of the social pecking order are worst hit. Poverty denies competent legal representations. No doubt, the system ensures that everyone is given a chance to defend themselves, the level of competence may vary. The police, in their haste to close a case, may suppress evidence or purposely take shortcuts. Whatsmore, officers in high positions may have political ambitions and also under pressure from the members of the society. Justice needs to be seen to done and with prompt. 

The storytellers managed to tell, in a convincing manner, a fair account from both the aggrieved as well as the accused, to suggest that the wrong men had wasted many of productive years behind bars due to the weakness of the system. In the case of Debbie Carter, the introduction of DNA in forensic studies was a shot in the arm. Both accusers in her case were released, one just five days before his planned execution. Incarceration scarred the men for life. The remaining two accused in Denise Haraway's case are awaiting justice to be done on them.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/riflerangeboy/

Perks at a cost?

Heard an interview with Malaysia's premier cartoonist, Lat, recently. I was fascinated with the part of the interview when he was doing a cartoon strip in a national daily many years ago. He was doing a strip which ran daily on weekdays, and it was a continuing story. One Friday, he was stuck. He did not know how to continue with his narration, and he had until Sunday evening to submit his work.

He had a kind of writer's block, not knowing how to proceed. Rather than staring blankly at his wall, he thought a little unwinding would help. Downing one or two of his favourite beverages and whipping up a conversation with a couple of his occasional acquaintances, it suddenly dawned upon him. Inspiration sprang from everywhere, and he went on to complete his story to become everybody's satirist.

That is what my friends in the creative field tell me. Whenever they hit a brick wall, ideas come sprawling down when they go out and mingle with people. It seems people-gazing or just talking to them may stimulate the grey cells of the creative hemisphere of your brain to produce your next masterpiece.

Wait. Barristers are not called to the bar for nothing. The Bar is where they eel their way to find or create clients. A few drinks would make one philosophical and ponder about old age. Your friendly insurance agents will always hang around the bar to cook up a plan and pave the way for an affordable retirement plan!

Not so smooth sailing for the self-sacrificing practitioners of the profession of health.
You go to the house of ruins to unwind or you faithfully fulfil your duties as a son to attend some old auntie's grandchild's fifth birthday party and what you get? While you land your bite on your spicy pakora, an old uncle will start describing to you in minute details his abnormal bowel opening and his eternal struggle with haemorrhoids. Just as you politely ease your way by concocting a tale that somebody is calling you, another Auntie catches to illustrate in near demonstrative ways her distress with urinary incontinence. That is when you gaze your golden juice and wonder if you would ever look at fermented hop in the same way ever again. So much for a stimulating conversation and the unwinding needed for a soul exhausted caring for the sick.

To the people who recognise you, they would always see you as the man with the stethoscope, even if you are down to your swimming trunk. That is why many choose to remain incognito under the disguise of anonymity when travelling or appearing in social media interphases! To give peace of mind a chance to the soul...

An English gem

Rumpole of the Bailey (1978-1992)
I do not remember this show to be shown over the Malaysian airwaves when I was young. Perhaps, it was too cerebral to my liking then. With all the witty tongue in the cheek cynic speak and verbosity, I do not think any normal youngster from the Malaysian schooling system eating rice and sambar from the culturally challenged neighbourhood of Rifle Range Flats would appreciate this kind of English court drama.
After reading John Mortimer's biography, I decided to give his creation a try.
'Rumpole of The Bailey' kind of of British presentation is the reason why the British TV shows used to be something of a hit amongst the literate circles of the yesteryear.
Now, with age and the intelligence to appreciate the finer nuances of the language, I find this offering totally absorbing. It tells the courtroom escapades of an eccentric aged barrister, Horace Rumple who works in courts, The Bailey as it is referred to (after the street it is located).
Not only is he set in his ways, he is also a kind of self centred chauvinist who stands dearly to what he believes in and would not budge despite the trouble he may get into.
Despite his experience and age, he is contented with his position as a barrister. Calling  a spade a spade and kowtowing to the people of authority, his place at the judge's bench remains elusive! He is the butt of joke for many of his more junior lawyers who take a swipe at his dressing and accessories.
He may not be the poster boy for healthy living. He smokes cheap cigar most of the time even in his office. He overindulges in cheap wines and drools for rich unhealthy food which may not be the best for his already wide waist line!
His wife is a pity case. She stays all alone keeping the home spick and span putting up with all of Rumpole's antics silently. Rumpole affectionately refers to her as 'one who must be obeyed' in his soliloquy even though she is a meek old lady minding her own business and keeping mum to all to all her husband's idiosyncrasies. That is the other thing. His mumblings under his breath of how he feels about his daily happenings in life and court proceedings would put its viewers into stitches. The frequent ranting of poetry of English poets by Rumpole never sound better.
The cases usually end in not a straight forward manner. Sometimes he wins and he loses but without leaving his mark at the Old Bailey!

A legal satire

Trial and Error (a.k.a. The Dock Brief, 1962)

Just because one had toiled many hours in a particular field and has the academic papers to show it, it does not mean that he is a master in that field. He cannot demand due respect just because of that. Respect needs to be earned.
This is another film made from John Mortimer's play. It showcases two of Britain's greatest offering to showbiz - Peter Sellers and Richard Attenborough. It mainly takes place in a prison cell and an imaginary court room.
A pessimistic prisoner, Herbert Fowle (Attenborough), stand accused of murdering his wife. He admits killing his wife, all because she is full of laughter. Her laughing stitch had reached an unacceptable point of annoyance that he could not stand it any further.
Wilfred Morganhall, a down and out lawyer who is hardly seeked upon for legal representation is assigned by the courts to defend Fowle. He instructs his client to plead innocence.
The sequence of events is narrated in flashback. A low morale Fowle comes home daily to his wife who is full of spirit. She laughs incessantly to practical jokes and anything funny. Fowle labours through it all. He later takes in a lodger. What do you know? The lodger is also a practical joker.
Now, Mrs Fowle and the lodger has plenty to share.
Fowle is hoping that his wife and the lodger would decide to elope together and let him some peace. That, however, never happens. One day, she kicks the tenant out of the house instead! With no choice, Fowle kills her!
Wilfred tries to tell his client of his grandiose plans of saving his client. On the actual day of the trial, he fumbles big time making himself a laughing stock at the courts. Needless to say, he loses his case.
A downtrodden Wilfred later pays a visit to his client in prison. His client is elated. Because he was badly represented in the court by a lawyer appointed by the courts, the Home Ministry decided to set Fowle free.
Instead of mocking his lawyer, the client thanked him. If not for his lawyer, he would be a free man!
As you can see, it is an all out satire and nudge at the legal system. Quite an entertaining one too.

A life lived full?

John Mortimer, The Devil's Advocate. The Unauthorised Biography. (2005)

Author: Graham Lord. 

At the spur of the moment, at the last BBW book fair, picked up this hard cover for a song. I thought then it would comprise a collection of landmark legal cases. As it turned out, John Mortimer was a Queen's Counsel alright but he was more well known for his antics outside the courts, namely the theatre and extra matrimonial activities.
Born in England to a barrister father who dealt with divorce cases and eventually became blind, he was enrolled in a boarding school. Unfit to partake in physical activities, he dwell in writing and theatrics. Even though he was initially a shy boy, he overcame his shortage in the looks department with his wit and charm. He became a woman's man. Given the lackadaisical morals of the swinging post war years, he was romping every person with an extra X chromosome.
Whilst still married to Penelope, who was married when they started an affair earlier, he continued his blue bearded lifestyle.
In spite of his active social life, he graduated as a lawyer and be called to the Bar.
His interest in writing continued and he became a prolific writer of screenplays and books. Interestingly, Penelope was an established author. John's affairs brought many unhappiness to his fragile marriage and Penelope brittle psychology. The many upheavals they had in the family was the theme of many of his plays. Actually all the things that are seen in his plays are actually reminiscent of what was happening in his daily life! Masala in real life!
His continued infidelity drove Penelope to brink of insanity. John's idea of marriage is to accept his clandestine romps without batting an eyelid!
His legal work notoriously involved him defending many cases that were deemed to affect morality of the society. He and his generation were accused of decadence of British social mores and decency, hence the title of 'Devil's Advocate'. He successfully defended a thrashy tabloid which published smut for teenagers under the guise of health education. Even Richard Branson and The Sex Pistols were defended by him for an offence related to the use of the work 'bollocks' in their title of the first album. All in the name of right to self expression and freedom of speech.
He also defended Ben Jayakumar, the opposition politician in Singapore.
His marriage ended when he took a pretty young thing as wife who was young enough to be his daughter. Penelope's health took a dive for the worse. His tryst with an actress also produced a love child which he did not acknowledge decades later.
He continued authoring books and screenplays late into his twilight years. His name graced many films and TV dramas over the years.
The author of his biography was denied permission to write after two long interviews. That would explain why the book became an unauthorised version. In a way, the author looked at it as a blessing as he could tell the negative and low-down-dirty aspects of the subject.

A law tutorial

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

The mainstream movies have come a long way. This courtroom drama had problems getting clearance from the necessary authorities because of the graphic description of the trial. We are talking about a time when words like panties and rape made one red in the face. Guess we have come a long way to what we have now - Criminal Minds and Law & Order SVU!

Imagine the Mayor of Chicago took the filmmakers to court for the language used in the trial. By today's standards, it can be described as 'Sesame Street' stuff. I would describe the dialogue as well-mannered and using delicate words for embarrassing situations.

For the record, the movie is praised as one of the greatest law movies ever made and is sometimes used as teaching material for law students.
It is a story of a down-and-out 'country' lawyer (James Stewart) who gets a call from a desperate housewife (Lee Remick) to defend her Lt Col husband (Ben Gazzara), who is charged with murdering her rapist.

The story is straightforward, with the husband claiming temporary insanity to the crime after hearing his beautiful and promiscuous wife was raped. If you are looking for an unexpected twist at the end of the trial, you will be disappointed. Perhaps at the end of the film, the viewers are left to wonder that maybe the offender and his wife just put on a smokescreen. They appeared to be a doting couple, but behind it all, it is all jealousy, anger and unabated emotions. A good viewing that gives you the feel that you are watching an episode of 'Perry Mason' - the secretary, an investigator, everyone dressed decently and are courteous to each other!

Whodunnit? Agatha Christie style

Witness for the Prosecution (1957)
Director: Billy Wilder

With a whodunnit story rich with fascinating characters for what Agatha Christie is famed for, a cast of talented actors (Marlene Dietrich, Tyron Powers, Charles Laughton and John Williams) and the wit of the English, one cannot expect anything less than pure artistry from this court drama movie. It reminds us of a time when acting and dialogue superseded cinematographic wizardry in the success of a film.

The bossy but loveable Barrister, Sir Wilfrid Robarts, is just out of the hospital after a heart attack. He is accompanied around like a mother hen by his nurse (his real-life wife, Elsa Lancaster). They whip quite a chemistry on screen, their arguments are quite fun to watch. She, as a domineering by the book nurse and he, the delinquent and non-complying patient.
A Mr Vole, an ex-Army man, now trying hard to make ends meet, walks into his office, for assistance as he may be charged with murder. A wealthy widow has been murdered, and he was last seen with her. He is soon arrested.

The case becomes more complicated as he inherits a substantial earning from her will. Mr Vole's wife appears at the office. As mysterious as the situation develops, so does she. As a performing artist, she met him in Germany during the war and vouches as an alibi for her husband. Her services are refused by Sir Alfred as it would not hold water in court.

When the case starts, an interesting one that is, with all the wordplay and subtle puns, Mrs Vole appears for the prosecution instead. She then gives an entirely different description of her union with the accused. Vole is acquitted, but the twist is in how the ending turns out.

Not all lawyers are sharks!

MALAYSIAN BIBLE: THE JOURNEY OF THE AL KITAB BERITA BAIK
UPDATES, RECOLLECTIONS & REFLECTIONS 

BY LEE MIN CHOON

IN MEMORY: KARPAL SINGH, TRUE HUMANITARIAN

This has nothing to do with the Malay Bible. But I can’t help but feel a sense of loss with the passing of colleague at the Bar and friend, Karpal Singh. So, here’s how I remember him.

It must have been around 1985 when I was helping a convict on death row who had become a Christian while in prison. Liew Weng Seng was sentenced to death under the Internal Security Act for possession of a firearm. At the Federal Court, Liew was unrepresented and proceeded to tell the court that he was guilty and did not wish to appeal his death sentence. When court was adjourned, his family tried to pass him a bible but was prevented from doing so by the prison warders. A commotion ensued and made the news the next day. When I read the report, I thought, “Hey, this guy is a Christian and he had just told the court to go ahead to hang him.”

I called the office at Pudu Prison and arranged for an appointment to see Liew. When we met, he confirmed that what the newspapers reported was what happened in court. I listened as he told his story of how he got into crime. It was a pitiful story of a boy growing up in the slums and being influenced by the gangs. Soon he was committing crimes. The law caught up with him. Possession of firearms was a capital offence. Liew was not yet 30 as he faced the gallows. Since his case was over, I offered to write a petition for pardon on his behalf to the King. I would not charge him any fees. It was a favour to a fellow Christian. Liew agreed. Over the next one year, I would visit Liew. As he spoke no English or Malay and as my Chinese was vitually incomprehensible, I always brought along a Chinese pastor with me to encourage and minister to Liew.

One day, Liew’s family called me. They said the prison had called to say that Liew will be hanged in 3 days time. I told them I would do what I can. I called the prison and then the palace to find out what happened to Liew’s petition for pardon. Eventually, I was told that it was rejected and the court had issued a warrant for his execution. I went to see Liew with his family. It saddened me that our friendship over the past year was coming to an end. Liew said that he had made his peace with God and he was not afraid. I asked him if he would consider doing some good with his death by donating his organs. He agreed. Over the next 2 days, I went to the General Hospital to find out the procedure and paperwork for this sort of thing. On the eve of his execution, I came to see Liew one last time and gave him some papers to sign to donate his organs. I bought him a meal from the prison canteen. Then we said goodbye and I told him we will meet again one day.

I arrived home late in the afternoon, went to the backroom of my house and laid down on a bed. I did not want my wife and child to see the tears I shed for Liew. In 12 hours time, Liew will be taken from his cell (at 5.00 am the next day) and be hung by the neck till he was dead.

Suddenly, my wife walked into the room and said, “Karpal Singh is here to see you.”

I went to my front door and saw Karpal Singh and another lawyer, Ngeow Yin Ngee, standing at my front door.

“Are you Liew Weng Seng’s lawyer?” asked Karpal.

“Yes,” I replied.

Karpal then explained that he was the lawyer for 2 convicts who were scheduled to be hanged at the same time with Liew. Karpal’s clients were found guilty of assassinating the Chief Police Officer of Perak. They had waited for him at a traffic junction in Ipoh and shot him to death when he passed by. Karpal said that he had filed a court case raising some legal technicality and had obtained an ex parte stay of execution from Judge Hashim Yeop Sani (ex parte means that the order was given after hearing only one side; later, the Judge would re-hear the case from both sides). When Karpal went to Pudu Prison to serve the order for the stay of execution, he was informed that there was a third man to be executed, Liew.

“Come with me,” Karpal said, “we’ll go to my office and prepare the papers and get a stay of execution for your client as well.”

It must have been about 6.00 pm when we drove back to Kuala Lumpur in Ngeow’s car. We reached Karpal’s office past 7.00 pm. He then started to dictate to his clerk who typed furiously on the typewriter. I gave them Liew’s details. I was still in a daze. All the time, Karpal worked at preparing the papers like a man consumed and trying to beat a deadline. We must have finished the paperwork at about 9.00 pm. It was 8 hours to the execution.

“Let’s go see the Judge,” Karpal said.

The first place we went to was the home of Madam Harwanth Kaur, the Senior Assistant Registrar to Judge Hashim. We bundled her into the car and four of us drove to the home of Judge Hashim in Petaling Jaya. We reached his house at 10.00 pm and Karpal banged on his door. We were let into the Judge’s living room.

“Judge,” said Karpal as he handed the judge a stack of papers, “there is another man due to be hanged tomorrow. Can you give a stay of execution for him as well?”

“The Attorney-General will jump!” sniggered Judge Hashim as he signed an order for the stay of Liew’s execution.

We then left the Judge’s house and drove to the High Court at Kuala Lumpur. It was 11.00 pm when we arrived. The courthouse was in total darkess and tightly shut. We found the security guard and Harwanth ordered him to open the court doors. Four of us went into the registry section of the court house. We were looking for the court seal. The court order although signed by the Judge was no good without the seal of the court imprinted on it. The four of us fanned out to look for the court seal. It was a stroke of good fortune that we found the court seal in a short time. Harwanth sealed the court order and handed it to Karpal. We left the court house but first we had to send Harwanth back home. Her job was done.

When we arrived at the gates of Pudu prison at 12.30 am the next morning, there was a crowd of reporters surrounding the huge metal prison door. Karpal banged on the doors. A warden poked his head out and said, “All of you please stay out. Only Mr Karpal, Mr Ngeow and Mr Lee can come in.”

Karpal duly served the order for a stay of Liew’s execution on the prison director. The next day, the papers reported a sensational last minute rush to save 3 men from the gallows.

Within a week, we were back in Judge Hashim’s court. The Attorney-General, Abu Talib Othman, did jump and he made an application to the Judge to set aside all 3 stay orders. Karpal argued the case with his usual brilliance. I cannot remember the legal point. All I can remember was that it was never argued before. Karpal had no previous court decisions to rely on. It was like going back to school to see Karpal at work and the lesson: “Think outside the box.” At the end of arguments, the Judge set aside the 3 stay orders clearing the way for the men to be executed under a fresh warrant. Karpal appealed to the Federal Court. Again, it was dismissed.

Let me pause awhile. Throughout this time, Karpal did all the work for Liew’s case, paid for all the court expenses and made sure I was always present to take part. He never once talked about payment. It was as if he was meant to do this.

A few months later, warrants of execution were issued again. Judge Hashim had ruled that the High Court could not order a stay of execution. It must be ordered by the Attorney-General who was the chairman of the Pardons Board. Karpal made appeals to the Attorney-General but it fell on deaf ears.

On the eve of the execution, Karpal summoned Ngeow and I to his office. It was about 8.00 pm when we got there. Karpal did a lot of things at night as he would be in court the whole day doing more than one case per day. He suggested we go to see the ambassadors of the European countries to seek their help to persuade the government to delay the executions. Karpal had discounted the US ambassador as the Malaysian government under Dr Mahathir was hostile to the US. However, the government had good ties with the Europeans.

We went to see the German ambassador. He informed us that the European embassies have a system where they would appoint one of the European ambassadors on rotation as a representative to speak to the Malaysian government on behalf of the rest. At that time, the French ambassador was the chairman. So, off we went to the French ambassador’s house. I cannot remember the conversation as it was a long time ago. But the ambassador told us that he was not able to help.

We went back to Karpal’s office at midnight. 5 hours to the execution. Karpal was wracking his brain to think of something. I was exhausted and had almost given up but I hoped that Karpal would again pull something out of his hat. How about this? No, won’t work. How about that? On and on we went. At about 2.00 am, 3 hours to execution, Karpal said that there’s nothing more we could do. He asked us to go home. A few hours later, Liew and the other 2 convicts were dead.

Lawyers can be the most heartless of men. Society had a reason for calling lawyers sharks. Its because we thrive on the misfortunes of others. Most lawyers I met are in it for the money. They have no heart for their clients who they see to be nothing more than a source of income. Karpal was not like that. In my encounter with him over Liew’s case, Karpal demonstrated true humanity and a genuine care for his clients. Whatever their crimes were, he saw them as human beings and felt a sense of responsibility for them over and above the call of duty.

Karpal Singh was a true humanitarian. We will miss him.

http://malaysianbible.net/2014/04/17/in-memory-karpal-singh-true-humanitarian/