Freedom of speech does not mean absolute free speech because otherwise it may degenerate to a licence to abuse others. It means speech hedged in by all the laws against defamation, blasphemy, sedition and so forth. But even then, parliamentarians do enjoy a large measure of immunities against these when debating in parliament, except for contempt of parliament.

Contempt of parliament is when one, by speech or action, obstructs the work of parliament or brings odium to parliament, and, whether intended or otherwise, incite as a result of such action, public disaffection, ill will and even hatred against the supposedly august institution.

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.

Fong Po Kuan (DAP-Batu Gajah) had issued a press statement claiming that the Speaker had abused his powers and prevented parliament and its members from playing their rightful role. Doesn't this incite public ill will and disrespect for the Speaker and by extension parliament? I think it does from a more authoritarian viewpoint.

For much lesser actions, even the DAP themselves had attributed contempt. For example, DAP secretary-general and Kota Melaka MP Kerk Kim Hock in a press statement on Feb 25, 2000, inveighed against the education minister for contempt in not personally replying questions and "preferring to sit and watch the proceedings and how his parliamentary secretary gave a most political answer to a question raised about students who played truant".

Who knows, had the DAP the two-third majority in parliament, it might have voted against the education minister as being contemptuous.

Such subjectivity is because rules are made from words and words are not an instrument of mathematical precision and hence subjective to the majority who interprets and attributes their meaning.

It all started because Fong wanted to raise a motion to debate the issue of the tampered CLP examination results but her request was dismissed by the Speaker for not fulfilling the three pre-requisites needed for debate - that of "urgency, a specific topic and public interest".

Who interprets the meaning of "urgency, a specific topic and public interest"? It is the Speaker and if one says that that is not reasonable, the Barisan Nasional members of parliament who are the majority, judge it is, in the Speaker's support.

For those who in the name of democracy lament the restriction on free speech, they will do well to be reminded that democracy is also the rule of the majority and their views, whether right or wrong!

One can call it the rule of the mob or sheep but it still means just that - the majority's votes, views and wishes prevail.

Fong has three things going against her.

The first is that it is important to say things in the proper way. There are many ways to skin a cat and in the context of parliamentary exchange, retain the substance whilst juggling for the appropriate form.

Take for example, the apparent contradiction between Rais Yatim and the Speaker, Mohamed Zahir Ismail, on the issue of the appointment of Abdul Gani Patail as the new attorney-general.

According to DAP national chairperson Lim Kit Siang, "If ( de facto law minister) Rais (Yatim) was right in saying yesterday that the Speaker was not privy to the constitutional procedures, then Mohamed Zahir was simply talking rubbish."

The difference is that Rais did not say that the Speaker was "talking rubbish" (or he might be held for contempt) but being more experienced he said that the Speaker "was not privy to the constitutional procedures". That is more refined and does not bring odium or incite ill will against the Speaker or parliament.

Now if Fong could take a cue from the more senior members of parliament like Rais and Kit Siang, she could have objected to the Speaker's refusal to allow debate on the issue of the tampered CLP examination results by saying that the Speaker was "not privy to public sentiments" regarding what issue is of "urgency, a specific topic and public interest".

Here it is faulting the Speaker's grasp of facts about public sentiments that can be objectively assessed. Their implications would be so different from the words "abuse of power" that impute unto the Speaker, an important officer of parliament, an improper motive which is hardly verifiable in the objective sense, and therefore should not have been uttered, much less related to the press!

One thing is for sure. If she said it this way, Rais could not bring the motion of contempt because she would be following his cue.

Secondly, it is important that Fong be given an opportunity to speak her side of the story, which she was given, and the vote against her for contempt was not made by the Speaker himself (for that would be judging his own cause) but by the majority vote.

The fact that the majority were BN members who would not be perceived fair - or unfair, depending on whose viewpoint - would be irrelevant because it is the rule of the majority that counts in a so-called democracy.

Thirdly, the penalties were imposed after she was given the chance of escaping their imposition if she apologised but she did not. In spite of the majority being against her, she was unrepentant and, principled or not, has to accept the consequences meted out by the majority.

To sum. All things considered, it would be gracious and magnanimous not to impose too severe a penalty (as was otherwise unfortunately done) taking into consideration mitigating factors that she is the youngest member of parliament, full of zeal to represent her constituency and public interest and not as experienced by way of approach and words as the seniors like Rais and Kit Siang.

This again is my 'subjective' opinion because degree of 'severity' is also an open-ended expression as there may well be others who think that six months suspension without pay is not severe having regard the necessity to set a precedent against repetition of such contemptuous behaviour.

All rules and procedures based on words are subject to a range of varying subjective interpretation. It depends on the moving spirit of the person(s) who interpret them. It would augur better if in the spirit of democracy and charity, interpretations were tilted and bias more on the side of freedom of speech.

The greater the threshold of tolerance on the part of a parliament and its members to the rough and tumble of combative exchange and occasional insults (actuated by over zealousness rather than malice), and the less threatened it is by "contemptuous remarks", the higher such a parliament holds claims to being the true and enduring Citadel of Democracy!