JULY 4 — The Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker’s argument that discussing the Kugan case in Parliament amounts to interfering in judiciary proceedings does not hold water.

On Monday this week, Ismael Mohamed Said cited that reason as to why he forbade members of Parliament from talking about the case in the House.

“Even though the decision has been made, the government still has 30 days to appeal,” said Ismael.

It must be noted that Ismael was using his own personal judgment when determining that there would in fact be interference as a result of discussing the case in Parliament.

After all, the actual High Court judgment ruling in favour of A. Kugan’s family was already delivered last week. Therefore we can infer that Ismael was referring to the coming appeal proceedings.

But will there really be interference?

Also on the same day, we heard from the Court of Appeal in relation to an appeal by the convicted parties in the much-discussed Altantuya murder trial. One of the grounds of appeal raised by their counsel was that trial judges, like jurors, may be influenced by media coverage in high-profile cases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed that argument as far-fetched as judges are trained to base their judgment on facts presented before them without regard to outside reports.

And that is as it should be, because to presume otherwise opens up a terrible can of worms.

If judges really are susceptible to media reports, then every single court case previously reported in the media —  especially with commentaries and opinions from public figures and others — can rely on the same argument.

So no, Encik Ismael, I do not think that discussing the Kugan case in Parliament will interfere in any further proceedings. Discussing it in the House would not be detrimental.

In fact, it is the opposite. The Kugan case should be high on the Parliament’s to-discuss list as the subject of deaths in custody has been a sore point with Malaysians in recent times.

Even Minister Datuk Paul Low admitted last month that it is a matter of concern to the government, promising that the government will act to prevent further deaths in custody from happening.

“I can assure you that the government is very concerned with the alarming statistics and something has to be done,” Low was quoted as saying. “Do not think they are blind to what is out there. It is just that the process of government needs to find a solution to stop this.”

As the Kugan case ruling has been dubbed a landmark ruling on this subject, it becomes an important reference point to all further discussion and action on this problem.

As elected representatives of the people, how can MPs act on the people’s wishes to see the root of this problem tackled if they cannot even talk about it in the House?

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.