Bill to protect rights of accused persons, integrity of judiciary: MPs
TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — Concerned about the proliferation of “trial by media” in high-profile court cases, and the need to protect the rights of accused persons before verdicts are passed, 10 Members of Parliament (MPs) rose to speak in support of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill yesterday.
Even as they spoke of the need for freedom of expression in commenting on court matters, they also stressed the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
Nineteen MPs spoke, and five — all from the Workers’ Party — objected to the Bill, while three Nominated MPs — Associate Professor Mahdev Mohan, Mr Kok Heng Leun and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin — had tabled amendments.
Rising to speak, Ms Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) said public discourse must not come at the expense of those who are presumed innocent until they are convicted by the courts.
She cited cases such as the ongoing court proceedings against former China tour guide Yang Yin, who allegedly misappropriated monies from a wealthy widow; former Central Narcotics Bureau chief Ng Boon Gay, who was acquitted of corruption; and the six from City Harvest Church who were convicted of criminal breach of trust.
Noting that there were “much adverse comments being cast” in the media and by members of the public in public forums, she said: “Some are of the opinion that the accused might have already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.”
Agreeing, Mr Edwin Tong (Marine Parade GRC) pointed to the “marked proliferation” of social media and its effects on the administration of justice, which he said increases the risk of trial by media, which could potentially be sub judice.
“It undermines the presumption of innocence, could taint or discourage witnesses from coming forward, and affect the evidence they give in court, and puts judges under unnecessary public pressure,” he added. “This can be either real or perceived.”
Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC) said the law would help protect witnesses from “subconscious influence”. Although some have argued that sub judice is only relevant to countries with jury trials, Dr Tan said witnesses are laypersons and are just as vulnerable to influence by the media.
Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong GRC) also noted that although Singapore’s judiciary is well trusted and respected, “baseless accusations, especially if repeatedly made, can affect people’s confidence in the judiciary”. “Over time, people will lose respect (for the judiciary),” she said. “If this happens, we will jeopardise the sanctity of judgments issued by (the) courts.”
Even as they expressed support, some MPs questioned its potential downsides. For example, Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio GRC) asked if there could be an impact on the current reporting practices of mainstream and alternative media outlets.
Ms Kuik noted: “The overriding interest that many young Singaporeans have in this Bill is how it impacts their freedom of speech.”
But Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) felt that, on the whole, the new law would add clarity and certainty to what constitutes contempt, as people would know how far they can go without running afoul of the law, and the consequences of doing so.
“This will also allow people, especially those who previously tended to err on the side of caution, now to speak with confidence and to speak more freely,” said Dr Neo. Amanda Lee
