'It is strange that the judge had the good intention of avoiding a by-election but delivered an ill-conceived sentence. In jurisprudence, there must be a way out to resolve this genuine error of mere technicality where the intention did not reflect the judgment.'

Tian Chua case: Judge will not review ruling

Swipenter: What is so important that the judge's intention can override the law and precedent set by his fellow judges. The judge must be judicious enough to admit to his mistake and amend the fine to less than RM2,000 to reflect his intention. Not to do so would be injudicious behaviour.

Kazakh: The wording is in very simple English, unless of course, our mixed-up judiciary choose to let outsiders decide otherwise. From the wording stated, Tian Chua is definitely disqualified.

Mikey: The issue is not so much Tian Chua's conviction, but whether he should have been convicted in the first place. That aside, if Chua accepts the conviction and pays the fine, then he should be disqualified.

Whether he can stand or not for the next five years is irrelevant. He has served in a non-elected capacity for a long time and he can do so in the future.

Koh Kim Theng: If judge Ghazali Cha really wants to avoid a by-election, he should reduce the fine to, say, RM1,950. The judge can't override the Federal Constitution. Not that I want Tian Chua to be out, but we must uphold the constitution. Until the constitution is amended, RM2,000 means Tian Chua is out.

Ong: It's amazing that the country needed its supreme court to explain and decide what 'not less than RM2,000' mean. I would have assumed that anyone possessing even primary school standard English can understand what 'not less than RM2,000' means.

Anyone with even half a brain knows that RM2,000 is equal to RM2,000 and is not less than RM2,000. RM1,999.99 or any amount less than RM1,999.99 is less than RM2,000.

Secondly, when High Court judge Ghazali reduced the penalty from RM3,000 to RM2,000, but at the same time stated that his intention was to prevent a by-election, he made an obvious mistake. By refusing to review his ruling, he is refusing to admit that his ruling has caused confusion and is displaying arrogance.

Paddington Bear: Hang on, why does it seem like I'm the only one who thinks that Tian Chua deserves to keep his seat? The article says, 'to a fine of not less than two thousand ringgit'.

Now, 'not less' means 'more' doesn't it? So in other words, it's 'to a fine of more than two thousand ringgit'. Now, is two thousand ringgit more than two thousand ringgit? No! Two thousand is equal to two thousand. So Tian Chua is still a MP, isn't he?

RR: Tian Chua had a battery of lawyers. Why none could understand simple English? Why the haste in paying the fine and depriving an appeal. Today we not only need judges who are competent and of calibre, but also lawyers of equal knowledge and competence to advise their clients properly instead of jeopardising their fate.

It is strange that the judge had the good intention of avoiding a by-election but delivered an ill- conceived sentence. In jurisprudence, there must be a way out to resolve this genuine error of mere technicality where the intention did not reflect the judgment.

CarL: While most are talking big, Tian Chua is nervous. If he is disqualified now, he won't be able to run in 2013, and have to wait for 2018. By then, he will, or might, be history. So guys, he would appreciate if everyone "kip kool".

It's his job, and he needs the income. Where can you find a job that allows you to be an activist, an important person (MP), get paid well, and receive a pension after that?

Teoh Soong Kee: Firstly, another by-election is costly and not good for anybody (except for the constituents) even for PKR which is confident of winning. Secondly, the amount should be increased as the fine is too low nowadays. A MP should be disqualified for major crimes, not for minor incidents.

Go to jail to stay as MP, suggests deputy speaker

SaveMalaysia: "If Tian Chua were to choose the two months' prison term, this issue would not have arisen, said deputy speaker Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar."

The statement by the deputy speaker is putting the blame on Tian Chua, when the issue is due to a technical error by judge Ghazali Cha. His intention does not jive with the letter of the law. The deputy speaker is barking up the wrong tree. Comments such as this irritate the fair-minded rakyat.

Luk: Article 48 of the Federal Constitution says that if a MP has been convicted by a court of law and faces a jail term of not less than one year or a fine of not less than RM2,000, he or she will be automatically disqualified and a by-election must be called.

The keywords here are "convicted" and "faces" and these are not the same as "undergo" and "served".

What Wan Junaidi said today, that Tian Chua can opt to undergo two months' imprisonment to avoid disqualification, is another absurd interpretation of law that even a lay person like me finds absurd and stupid.

Teoh Kheng Siong: Finally, I hear some good words from BN. At least jail for a while is better then losing the MP post and making the country spend again for a meaningless election and create more pollution to the environment.

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only Malaysiakini subscribers can post comments. Over the past six months, Malaysiakinians have posted 50,000 comments. Be part of the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .