There's judging before a trial, and then there's subjudice

Just repeating what I've seen in Jeff Ooi's and MGG Pillai's blogs. There's been a large outcry over the abuse of the Indonesian maid, and rightly so.

Yet, you have to wonder how much is genuine outrage and how much is teacup storm-brewing/political bandwagon-jumping.

"I will lash out at the media. I will also shout at the editors and raise this in Parliament. The identity of the housewife's husband should also be made public for allowing the abuse. Any media organisation which blurs the culprit's face is an accomplice,"
Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz, as quoted by The NST, 22 May 2004

In Kuala Lumpur, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said because of the savage and inhuman abuse on Nirmala, the perpetrator deserved to be judged prematurely... "This is one case, I believe, where the adage of law ‘one is not guilty until found so by the court of law' is not suitable for this category (of crime)," he said.
The NST, same article, 22 May 2004

Neither of these two, to my knowledge, have been reprimanded for undermining the Law's and the Court's authority. After all, the suspects have been identified, one has been arrested and charged, there will be a trial, she will plead defence and if she is found guilty, a sentence will be passed. Isn't this justice? Does there need to be a trial by minister-quoting?

And yes, despite what Dato Seri Rais Yatim says, I believe a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

In contrast, the Speaker of the parliament has rejected the motion to debate the performance of the Electoral Commission in the last election as it will be subjudice to election petitions currently filed in court. This was done on the advice of the AG.

Are some things more subjudice than others?