The Tiger Was No Gnat

“You’re sad about that opposition leader who died,” my British husband said upon returning home, seeing my face.

We chatted a while. I tried to explain the significance of someone like Karpal Singh to him. “Was he someone like (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim?” he asked.

I had to explain that Karpal was not really a Leader of the Opposition like Anwar, who has his counterpart in Labour’s Ed Miliband, the head of the official opposition in the United Kingdom.

But he was one of the really respected old-timers in the opposition, I said. “Their parties never became the Federal Government. But they spent four decades fighting for what they believed in.”

Anwar Ibrahim, by comparison, spent 16 years opposing the government; and he was even previously on the other side.

“Do you have any opposition leaders here who are old-timers, and really quite treasured or respected?” I asked.

“Ah, okay. He was probably like Tony Benn then,” my husband said, referring to the British Labour politician who was an MP for 47 years, and who passed away just over a month ago.

Benn’s funeral was attended by large crowds and politicians from across the political spectrum. People wept openly, and there was also loud applause when his coffin arrived at Westminster.

His body was kept in St Mary Undercroft (The Palace of Westminster’s chapel) on the night before his funeral. The Labour stalwart was the second politician to be granted this honour, after former Prime Minister and Conservative Icon Baroness Margaret Thatcher.

‘Opposition leaders’ in the UK and the United States do not tend to be opposition figures for too long, because their parties get into power often enough for the tables to turn, and then maybe turn again.

The developed democracies understand that the Opposition is indispensable to a nation, and often, the next Government in line, with their own attempt at leading the country the way they see fit. Critiques are seen as a measure of love and concern, not ‘ingratitude’.

The fact that veteran DAP leader Karpal Singh and his aide, Michael Cornelius, died in such shocking circumstances is tragic enough.

It was doubly painful to see politicians and others members of the public make incredibly insensitive remarks regarding his death.

But I think I get it. Or at least I’m trying very hard to understand why some people would use the word Mampos (‘Die’ or ‘Go and die’) in celebratory fashion.

Many remarks seem to come from the feeling that Karpal was an irritating gnat with only negative, blistering things to say about the country. Just like all the other irritating opposition gnats.

They do not see an individual with very individual things to say, a rich history as an MP. Most would not know that he too engaged and bantered with MPs from the other side of the divide, as most parliamentarians actually do. Their thoughts around Karpal get fused with other thoughts.

Why can’t they just love Malaysia and not run the country down?

Why can’t they see that the government does try?

Why can’t they stop talking about politics, and just appreciate the country like we do?

Karpal is the generalised Opposition, he is the Anti-Us, he is the conflation of all the frustration and defensiveness we feel. How can he be the symbol of justice and fairness and love for the country? That would mean that we are not for justice and fairness and love for the country.

Some of them view critics of the government in the same way. They may have families in the civil service, or work in government offices themselves. Some of them had government scholarships, received loans and benefits, some of them have family members in positions of privilege.

Faced with the possibility of being viewed as unpatriotic or supportive to ‘the wrong side’, the only path that would make sense is to become frustrated, or defensive.

Then again, the other less generous side of me sometimes wants to generalise too. “They are just ignorant idiots,” has wafted around in my brain, especially when faced with aforementioned mampos-proclaimers.

But people like Karpal did not generalise. He knew the Rule of Law like the back of his hand. He was precise and consistent about his views on upholding the Constitution.

He did not generalise people. Former MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu called him a friend. He had no qualms berating his own allies; once calling Datuk Seri Hadi Awang an embarrassment, another time telling Anwar to quit the coalition for promoting a culture of party-hopping.

He did not generalise issues. He was against the setting up of an Islamic state, but he is known for defending Halimatussaadiah Kamaruddin against the government when she was prohibited from covering her face with the purdah (face mask). He argued that the ban was unconstitutional.

We have to resist the temptations to muddle the plethora of Malaysian concerns into one giant white or black, BN or PR block.

If there are citizens who do not yet understand that civil servants are not beholden to political parties and they have to impartially serve the government of the day, the fight must go on.

If there must be continuous reminders that public services and benefits are the responsibility of a serving government and not a generous political gift, the fight must go on.

If people need reminding that patriotism cannot just be proclamations of love, and that they must hold their government accountable, the fight must go on.

We owe it to patriots like Karpal Singh to work harder, to understand our own principles and opinions better, to be more enlightened citizens.

The fight is education. It must go on.

Thank you, Tiger of Jelutong, for being an unwavering fighter to the very end.