My view was in Malaysiakini.com
When I was writing the article about court of public opinion, suddenly I think it will be a good idea if more people can share and criticize my idea. I’m just trying to test the water, to see whether my article is worth to be published in alternative media as popular as Malaysiakini.com. Well, to my surprise, It was up in the letter to editor section. With some editing here and there, I think the main message is still intact, and of course the title is changed, maybe that title can catch more attention. However i think the title shouldn’t be too definitive since my points in that article is not simply do not trust court of public opinions. It’s not just about that.
Anyway, as long as my messages is conveyed, i hope those who read can accept and certainly I’m happy that my thought didn’t go to the trash.
At first i emailed premesh chandran, the CEO, but prem is kind enough to reply me back asking me to re-send my email to the editor. What an amateurish mistake i’ve made. It’s okay since this make me want to contribute more and write more. I really hope bloggers can write with high degree of accountability and wisdom. And that’s my aims and that’s what i’m trying to become, accountable and a man with wisdom.
-I gave a pat on my back, myself-
I only knew about this when a friend of mine wrote on my facebook wall.. here is what he wrote..
Jonathan Lim (LSE) wrote
at 5:42am on May 12th, 2008
in any case, my 2 sens worth is that the public will always have its opinion. but it is when the public does not perceive justice to be meted out when public opinion takes centrestage.
of course, you might then have a circular chicken-and-egg argument because then justice would be defined according to public opinion.
although strictly speaking, the principle of jury trials necessitates judgment by your peers — has public opinion really gone that far wrong in general?
the more pertinent question in my view then, is that if justice if to be served in a manner contrary to public opinion, is there a good reason? recent events have shown otherwise.
hence, judicial reform must still start from the top.