Yet another controversial law in Singapore was recently passed in Parliament: The Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill.
Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang did his best to foil the bill — debating with Law Minister K Shanmugam for seven whole hours in Parliament — but the votes overpowered the opposition politician. Seventy-two Members of Parliament voted in favour of the Bill, while there were nine against. Channel NewsAsia reported that all who voted against the bill were from the Workers’ Party, as well as Non-Constituency Members of Parliament.
It’s a pretty polarising bill, one that’s eclipsed by the current media fervour for Joseph Schooling’s gold medal in the Rio Olympics. Already drawing criticism from rights groups like Human Rights Watch, the newly-passed law spells out what exactly constitutes ‘contempt of court’ and the tough penalties that’ll be smacked down on future offenders. Despite the potential implications for Singapore’s freedom of speech (and the various efforts to uphold what’s left of it), the law is already passed and it’s here to stay, for better or for worse.
We don’t blame you for knowing barely anything about this new law though, given the lack of in-depth scrutiny by mainstream media. You’ve got some catching up to do:
What is the The Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill?
It’s “a crystallisation of the law” says Shanmugam. Look at it as a more stringent grip on independent media and postings published online — in other words, it’s an enhancement on the laws against sub judice. It aims to preserve the right to a fair trial and ensure that the trust in the legal system is not eroded.
Once a suspect has been charged with a criminal offence, nobody is allowed to comment on the case (making reckless accusations, statements, etc) because it’s seen as sub judice, where it may affect the outcome of the proceedings. Prior to the passing of this bill, there were no statutes on contempt of court. Now, it’s in writing.
First tabled on July 11, the bill sets out to:
- Define exactly the term contempt of court. The Bill categorises them into three parts.
- Disobeying court orders like refusing to pay fines.
- Publishing material that interferes with ongoing court proceedings.
- Making allegations of bias or impropriety against judges or questioning the integrity of the courts.
- Clarifies what is not considered contempt of court. Objective, accurate reporting of court proceedings is okay, reports made to authorities about judge’s alleged misconduct is okay. Op-eds on ongoing court cases, not okay.
- Set out punishments for offenders. Those convicted will be fined up to $100,000 and jailed up to three years for contempt. Or they can make face-to-face apologies or publish them in newspapers.
Why was it proposed?
In recent years, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) made several warnings regarding the matter of sub judice — especially so in the age of social media where everyone can make comments on anything. There were, however, some cases that seemed to have prompted the Ministry of Law to propose the bill:
- In 2013, the AGC had to urge the public and media not to make or report any statements on the pending Coroner’s Inquiry into the death of American researcher Shane Todd.
- Earlier this year, 14-year-old Benjamin Lim jumped to his death following police interrogation regarding his alleged involvement in a molestation case. During the ongoings of the investigation, The Online Citizen covered the issue extensively, interviewing Lim’s family and questioning if the teen was pressured by police tactics. Shanmugam was not happy, calling it an “orchestrated campaign”.
Other cases that were ripe for sub judice include the likes of the City Harvest Church scandal, Amos Yee’s conviction, and even the antics of Jover Chew.
Presumably, the government would rather clamp down and restrict discussion on issues of public interest in the name of ensuring absolutely no scandalisation of the courts.
Why should we be concerned?
This law means that everyone (the media, the public, etc) will be considered criminals should they ever choose to publish even one disgruntled comment about any ongoing court cases.
Critics of the bill have argued that the definition of material interfering with ongoing court proceedings is far too broad, and could cover a wide range of articulation. Muzzling the public about saying anything is pretty much considered impeding freedom of speech, no? Human Rights Watch called the penalties laid out in the bill pretty “disproportionate”.
According to this Reuters report, Britain had a similar act called ‘Scandalising the Judiciary’, but had it abolished in 2013 as it was “unnecessary and incompatible with freedom of speech”.
“The UK will continue to urge Singapore and all countries which retain ‘Scandalising the Judiciary’ to abolish it,” said British High Commision. Shanmugam commented that the remarks were “quite improper”.
Why don’t people care?
Everyday folks just don’t see the potentially colossal implications of it, probably. There was little public protest, with only 249 Singaporeans signing a petition that called for greater consultation on the Bill’s content. A Facebook page called Don’t Kena Contempt was set up, with only 827 likes. Three Nominated Members of Parliament withdrew their proposed changes for the Bill and voted for it.
It’s probably best to let Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s sister (who also expressed concern about the Bill) to put the Singaporean indifference in words:
“I am amazed that there has not been more vocal protest by more Singaporeans. A phenomenon I observed this morning may provide the answer. I woke up and stepped out of my air-conditioned bedroom and immediately smelled smoke. I asked my two maids who sleep in bedrooms with their windows open whether they smelt anything smoke and they did not. I called a friend who also sleeps in air-conditioned bedroom and he too smelt smoke as he stepped out of his bedroom. Smell is a sensation that we quickly get used to and then no longer notice it if it lingers for less than an hour. Perhaps, Singaporeans have gotten used to an authoritarian government who until recently had always acted for their wellbeing, and so when another new action is taken, they do not even bother to think whether it may be against their welfare. This current government is not like previous PAP governments. I urged all Singaporeans, and all MPs and NMPs to think through what has been proposed, and also read the many commentaries on the internet.”
What happens now?
Basically, it’s best to take all your comments and leave it in your pocket. Shanmugam assures that you can make comments on policies and debate public issues — but it’s a definite no-no to say anything that seriously risks prejudicing a specific case.
“We are here to protect all Singaporeans, including those voices which are not heard — the majority,” the Law Minister said.
