A few points against Jeffrey
This is a from-the-heart response to Jeffrey's letter as a simple reader and concerned citizen ('Three points against Fong', Dec 14). I agree entirely when seasoned public figures begin to ask if Parliament is relevant anymore because honestly the average guy in the street doesn't care a hoot about that circus. Anyway, I had to get this off my chest.
Great try, Jeffrey. You're obviously a person of much political, legal experience and you've summed up the case rather deftly. A high court judge couldn't have done a better job.
Unfortunately, Jeffrey has missed the point - the entire point. What are MPs for? Are they mere rubber-stamps? Of course, no. Jeffrey said: "The need to protect parliamentary integrity is considered as important as freedom of speech to which both imperatives are sometimes conflicting and ought to be weighed and balanced. What constitutes odium and insults amounting to bringing contempt is subjective."
He is way off the mark saying the importance of protecting parliamentary integrity and freedom of speech is "sometimes conflicting". I don't need to explain this if the basic concepts are not obvious. But he is spot-on saying the decision on what constitutes "odium and insults amounting to bringing contempt" is subjective.
There lies the rub in Parliament of late where decorum is sorely lacking and where debate takes a sexist turn at every remote, tangential opportunity which the House seems to take as innocent fun. Do our MPs not know the difference between two males riposting on a sexist level and male MPs making snide, humourless, degrading remarks to female colleagues?
This is a from-the-heart response to Jeffrey's letter as a simple reader and concerned citizen ('Three points against Fong', Dec 14). I agree entirely when seasoned public figures begin to ask if Parliament is relevant anymore because honestly the average guy in the street doesn't care a hoot about that circus. Anyway, I had to get this off my chest.
Great try, Jeffrey. You're obviously a person of much political, legal experience and you've summed up the case rather deftly. A high court judge couldn't have done a better job.
Unfortunately, Jeffrey has missed the point - the entire point. What are MPs for? Are they mere rubber-stamps? Of course, no. Jeffrey said: "The need to protect parliamentary integrity is considered as important as freedom of speech to which both imperatives are sometimes conflicting and ought to be weighed and balanced. What constitutes odium and insults amounting to bringing contempt is subjective."
He is way off the mark saying the importance of protecting parliamentary integrity and freedom of speech is "sometimes conflicting". I don't need to explain this if the basic concepts are not obvious. But he is spot-on saying the decision on what constitutes "odium and insults amounting to bringing contempt" is subjective.
There lies the rub in Parliament of late where decorum is sorely lacking and where debate takes a sexist turn at every remote, tangential opportunity which the House seems to take as innocent fun. Do our MPs not know the difference between two males riposting on a sexist level and male MPs making snide, humourless, degrading remarks to female colleagues?
In the present Parliament this has been going on ad nauseum and nothing is being done to try to restore the dignity of the House. In any case, what MP Fong Po Kuan has been punished for was not something she did in the House; if she is punished for that then every single time an elected representative speaks against an official or official policy or action he or she is liable for censure.
We are not talking about any serious matters like concepts of freedom of speech etc here. Think about all that, Jeffrey, before you spew forth all that high-faluting smoke.
