The decision of the Attorney General’s (AG) chambers to institute criminal proceedings must be impartial and be seen to be impartial, said MCA political education bureau head Gan Ping Sieu.
Drawing a comparison between action by the AGs office against DAP national chairman Karpal Singh and the non-action against Bukit Bendera Umno head Datuk Ahmad Ismail despite a barrage of police reports against the latter’s offensive remarks about the Chinese community in the country, he said:
“The AG’s office is a creation of the Federal Constitution and he is required to discharge his functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution and any other written law.”
“Any decision on his part to institute criminal proceedings must be impartial and seen to be impartial,” he added.
Gan said: “We are concerned that his decision to charge Karpal Singh with section 4(1)(b) of the Secition Act 1948 may bring disrepute to his office.”
“There have been many police reports lodged against politicians who made unwarranted racist remarks on matters of public concern, including police reports lodged by MCA Penang against Ahmad Ismail on his “pendatang” and “penumpang” remarks, but no action was taken.”
Datuk Ahmad Ismail
The proprietary to charge Karpal Singh is questionable and would only convey the perception of selective prosecution, Gan said adding: “The AG must reconsider his decision.”
Gan said the bureau agrees that Perak Sultan Azlan Shah enjoys the discretionary power to determine whether to dissolve the Perak state assembly when a request to do so was made by Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin.
He said, however, that while MCA disagreed with Karpal’s questioning of the Sultan’s discretionary power on the matter, it did not mean that the legality of his decision could not be questioned in the courts of law.
“Further, whether the Sultan’s decision is justicable is also a question of law that must be determined through the judicial process,” Gan added.