There arose in the Singapore Cafe resentment against Fabrication About The PAP's post with regards to opposition MP Sylvia Lim's contention of the proposed Family court in parliament.
Resentment against FAP isn't something new nor novel, but this is something which I like to share some thinking but not to get into some meaningless debates with meddlers at the Singapore Cafe.
The contention is FAP strikes Slyvia Lim without giving due consideration to the key context found in the whole of her speech which was reproduced in WP's website http://wp.sg/2014/08/debate-on-family-justice-bill-mp-sylvia-lim/. There is really no telling whether the FAP admin did or did not read the article in its entire before making the "photoshoped" comment.
The point here is not about defending FAP, reasonable or otherwise.
It is about how we look at context and apply treatment to it.
The bone really is whether the Family Court should be conducted closed door or open itself to the media for public scrutiny. Is there not a provision for the process to be opened at the court's discretion?
They key argument that Sylvia Lim and those who bought her story over at The Singapore Cafe relies on is that the Family Court will normally function in closed door unless ordered otherwise is a departure from the open court concept of the other courts. The supportive argument is that the Juvenile Court allows the presence of news agencies in its hearing of youths in trouble.
Further supportive arguments to push her point, she questioned why shouldn't family matters be opened for public scrutiny. She believes correct and accurate reporting of such cases would enable the public to have a better understanding of family laws and how the Family Court operates. At the same time she too acknowledges that there exist media who would also otherwise sensationalize the reporting, though without mentioning what consequences that may bring about nor how to rectify the damage done if rectifying is ever possible,
Thus I am not sure whether Sylvia Lim and those in cohort of this case are arguing as a matter or principle or for the sake of argument.
They have selfishly placed the rigid way of how they think a court should operates above the tender fragility and sensitivity of family affairs, and allow person to person relationships to be rampaged in the open possibly resulting in irreparable hurt and damages to family and children.
It is not that the court has no room to flexibly manouevre where public interest may be a concern, and neither are cases concerning youths in trouble the same as family issues. Cases of youths in trouble are mainly brought about when a young person committed a crime, and public interest is always present in such cases. In contrast, family cases are largely civil cases about personal relationships.
So I deemed Sylvia Lim and her cohort are a cruel and selfish lot only out to satisfy their thirst for having their way no matter at what cost to others.