In true Malaysian style this court case attacking someone for voicing their view has taken six years to grind on until a final judgement is made about a passing statement.

In the process the courts have further entrenched a concept that would leave jaws dropping in most democratic countries, in that anyone who speaks out against a court ruling can be sent to jail for holding judges ‘in contempt’!

What would happen to the likes of Donald Trump who castigates judges all day long?

Given that Malaysia operates within a system that exists across a great many countries that allows for the right of appeal and then further appeal against the decisions of judges, the logic of this form of intimidation used against critics is wholly baffling.

The right to appeal is an intrinsic admission by the judiciary itself, and by the balancing authorities within the country from representative institutions, that the courts can get things wrong.  So much so, that judges give defendants two chances to get a judgement reviewed in case a mistake has been made.

As a former elected lawmaker Ms Chin was particularly entitled to speak out to raise concerns about a perceived miscarriage of justice in a case where she considered the judgement troubling – raising concerns of this nature is one of the jobs an elected representative is supposed to perform.

The idea that for doing this a parliamentarian could themselves then be prosecuted, found guilty and jailed is therefore simply stunning from the perspective of most people in most democratic countries. Yet, it is constantly threatened against people who speak out in Malaysia.

By comparison, in the UK at this very time a well known conservative politician has been loudly campaigning against what he sees as a miscarriage of justice against a nurse who was found guilty and imprisoned for murdering babies. He may be wrong or he may prevail, if new evidence re-opens the case (given the nurse has already lost her appeal).

However, the idea that the tireless, and doubtless to many in the judiciary highly tiresome,  lawmaker should be targeted, prosecuted and himself jailed for raising these concerns is beyond inconceivable. The public would consider that its judges had turned into tyrants.

There is a reason why universal laws uphold the right to freedom of speech about matters of public interest (such as the sentencing of a member of the public) whilst curtailing abuses, such at harassment or threats towards public officials involved. It is a clear boundary that allows concerns to be raised without tolerating harassment of those who run our courts.

Maria Chin plainly did no more than voice her opinion and presented no harm to the judge beyond possibly annoying that judge’s ego or rather a person invested in their judgement.

The concept that the public was encouraged by such criticism to lose some mythical confidence in the unshakable infallibility of all judges at all times has, as mentioned above, already been undermined by the acknowledgement by the judiciary itself of the right to appeal.

Malaysia’s horrid practice of locking up those who voice criticism of already powerful court figures are paving the way for intimidation by ‘untouchable’ judges (some of whom will be inevitably tempted to abuse their positions in knowing they are above criticism).

Elsewhere, critics would be crying “judicial overreach’ and the same concern should apply back in KL over this disgraceful attempt to once again jail a renowned campaigner for democracy and reform, already previously locked up for bravely opposing a corrupt prime minister at a time when many in the judiciary, parliament and elsewhere cowered and grovelled and failed to take the right stand.