By Peter Tan - (Original post from Lee Wei Ling's Facebook page)
To the topic of court, I agree with Dr Lee Wei Ling that such a law is to deny jury to be influenced. But we do not have juries. Second, we have judges appointed by cabinet and it would be sacrilegious to think that they would be easily influenced by mere mortals, unless there is feedback from judges that their decision are being influenced by heresay, of which this undermine the selection of judges.
Most of the time, nobody would know what cases there are in our courts. Only juicy news are spread by our Mainstream Media (perhaps other outlets if they have tips) as it is only normal that they would cover for journalistic purposes. Then, we get to see the proceedings or outcome in these cases. And because we have the internet, we are able to dissect, checkback, gossip, lay our grievance, etc. There will always be discourses but aren't esteemed judges not mere mortals easily influenced? Or are we making them gods which they are not, for they might be feeble and frail in their judgement like the rest of us? And that we need to codify a law to stop nuisances, to make life easier for the judiciary?
Seems like we have more laws to make life easier for civil services and less constitutional rights to make life better for public. Of course, the gov feels that the public will be better served if its civil services are better protected. But this starts to have some resemblance to Asimov's 3 Laws. Let's juxtapose them together.
A civil servant may not injure the public or, through inaction, allow a public to come to harm. A civil servant must obey orders given it by public except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A civil servant must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
So are our MPs the public or civil servant?
To protect the public, the civil service has to be strong. Yet, for the civil service to be strong, it has to decide whether or not it has to curtail people who make it weak. Who is to decide, becomes the question? No MPs are cut from the same cloth, nor morally sew in the same way.
Anyway, I am just a philosopher, waxing his thoughts.
*This is a comment that was posted on Dr Lee's Facebook post. Dr Lee Wei Ling in her second Facebook post on Sunday, shared that she was wrong in the assumption that her letter in 2008 would be in contempt of court under the proposed bill on Contempt of Court and that everyone is entitled to criticise judgements, policies , as she did in the Tang Wee Sung matter.