///KS, please bring the murder case of Altantuya Shaariibuu all the way to the parliment and throw the questions into the face of the culprit/// – Dr. W

I share Dr W’s sentiments.

The problem is the sub judice rule.

The rule prevents reference being made in Parliamentary proceedings to cases which are active in the courts.

The rationale for the Rule : (1) to preserve proper relations between Parliament and courts. This is based on the principle of “comity”, whereby it is considered undesirable for Parliament to
act as an alternative forum to decide that which the court is in the process of deciding, it being undesirable that public get confused when Parliament and court – both central pillars of the Constitution of authority – arrive at different and divergent conclusions on the matter currently tried and (2) Parliament should not debate a matter that may prejudice and influence court’s judgment as it would prejudice the position of the person on trial.

Altantuya Shaariibuu’s father had alleged that two letters were sent by the Mongolian prime minister to Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi late last year and that Mongolia has threatened to break diplomatic ties with Malaysia over the murder trial of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Questions :

· Is it true 2 letters were sent?

· Is it true Mongolia has threatened to break diplomatic ties with Malaysia?

· If so upon what circumstances would Mongolia break diplomatic ties with Malaysia?

· What are the effects and repercussions of such a break of diplomatic ties?

I believe that these questions are matters of public importance worthy of parliamentary debate.

Though reference is made Altantuya Shaariibuu’s trial, yet it is only by way of reference in general terms in so far as necessary to debate the wider 4 general issues of public concern above outlined – and therefore not touching on immediate issues before the court regarding innocence or guilt or procedural conduct of trial – does not infringe the sub-judice rule, and therefore would be a fit and proper matter to be raised in Parliament.

“YB Lim can highlight this issue, but I trust his judgment and experience in this…” – oknyua

I agree. The case is a political and legal minefield that one who comments or raises issues has to tread carefully or risk blown off by C4! :)

Our whole administration of justice system is watched by the world and is on trial.

I think the public would want many issues raised in Parliament pertaining to just not conduct of the judicial proceedings relating to postponements and delays but also arguably certain controversial aspects of police investigation as well as prosecutorial conduct.

It is not necessary for me to specifically identify these issues here that could be read in other blogs including RPK’s Malaysia today.

The problem is defining the limits of sub judice rule balanced against Parliamentary privilege in respect of Freedom of Expression. In my last posting I have touched on certain questions, the raising of which is arguably not infringing that rule.

What is uncertain however is the raising of certain important other questions relating to police investigation as well as prosecutorial conduct, which may or may not – I am not certain here – constitute sub judice.

It is interesting to note that as far as Hindraf Five goes, nobody seems to be bothered abut sub judice in contrast to Altantuya’s case – why is this so???

I could be mistaken but as far as I know the ISA detention of the Hindraf was confirmed by High Court at end of last year, Karpal Singh appealed to Federal Court, made his submissions (I think AG too made his submissions around the first week of this month April) and the Federal Court hearing the appeal has not as yet delivered its decision.

So raising the issue of Hindraf 5 in Parliament could also technically be considered sub judice (ie influencing decision of Federal Court) but so far it has not been considered so as evinced by YB’s notice to Parliament to have an urgent debate for the release of the Hindraf Five but the same is not true for Altantuya’s issues.

I wonder why. I must have missed something important or different here that set Altantuya’s case apart from the Hundraf 5!

Having said that, there is yet another practical problem : who makes ruling under parliamentary standing Orders on whether a motion on issues related to Altantuya may be debated or not on grounds of sub judice?

It is the Speaker (Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia) and yesterday both the deputy speaker positions went to BN’s Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi and Datyuk Ronald Kiandee – none from the Opposition camp!

So how???

///If you say this is of public interest, I would still disagree. There are many cases of even greater importance still waiting trials/// – Killer.

Maybe you can shed some light on (1) which of the many cases are of even greater importance and (2) exactly why they are of even greater importance than Altantuya’s case.