IN the last few months, a number of court cases in our country attracted considerable attention
                       and criticism.

                       One of the oft repeated criticism which has been levelled against our judicial system is that some
                       of the judges and prosecutors in these high-profile cases did not disqualify themselves despite
                       perceived conflict of interest.

                       Within Malaysia, some of the most vociferous criticisms come from a few members of the legal
                       profession. Surprisingly, these lawyers have not seen it fit to apply the same benchmark for
                       themselves.

                       For instance, in the present sodomy trial of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, one of his lawyers is a
                       well-known leader of an opposition party and a Member of Parliament. The lawyer, Karpal
                       Singh, is well known for his staunch "the Government can do no right"-type of views that are so
                       characteristic of Malaysian opposition leaders nowadays.

                       Opposition members like Karpal must have greeted the recent public furore over the alleged
                       arsenic poisoning of Anwar with secret delight. After all, allegations like these are sure to benefit
                       the Opposition. Never mind Anwar's health, what matters is that the Government is thoroughly
                       bashed and the Opposition scores political mileage.

                       Karpal's conduct in court which often involves a considerable degree of drama and theatrics is
                       indicative of this conflict of interest between an opposition politician and a lawyer. It surprises
                       nobody why Karpal, without a shred of proof, so easily alluded to the involvement of top
                       government leaders in the alleged poisoning.

                       Karpal must surely have learnt at law school about the sacred principle that one is innocent until
                       proven guilty. Should not the same apply to the Government too? Or does it mean that because
                       one is an opposition member, one can readily make an exception when it comes to blaming the
                       Government? Since when has the law made such a distinction?

                       The sodomy trial of the former Deputy Prime Minister has generated unprecedented interest
                       among the people in this country, and even outside Malaysia. It is fair comment to say that the
                       vast majority of Malaysians who closely follow the trial are interested in one thing and one thing
                       only - the innocence or guilt of the accused.

                       They are not following the trial simply for entertainment. This trial, like any other criminal trial, is
                       serious business. Theatrics, drama and politics should have no place in the proceedings.

                       Lawyers are not only counsel to their clients, but are also officers of the court. Besides their duty
                       towards their clients, they have a responsibility to protect the integrity of our judicial system.

                       Karpal should set a good precedent and disqualify himself from acting as an advocate and
                       solicitor if he thinks his political career or indeed the political fortunes of his party is greater than
                       the interest of his client and the interest of the public in seeing a fair trial.
 

                       M.N. Amin
                       Kuala Lumpur