Heated debate in Parliament as contempt Bill passed

SINGAPORE — A Bill that sets out the law of contempt and the processes in enforcing it was passed by an overwhelming majority in Parliament on Monday (Aug 15), amid fierce objection from the Workers’ Party (WP).

The marathon debate on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill lasted about seven hours, with the Parliament sitting stretching till about 9.30pm. In all, 19 Members of Parliament rose to speak on the topic in spirited debate, that saw WP leaders Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim involved in sharp exchanges with Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam.

The division bell — called by Mr Low — was rung twice, at the second and third readings. In a division, the vote of each MP is collected and tabulated through an electronic voting system to ascertain whether the motion has the support of two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs. In both instances, 72 MPs — comprising the PAP MPs and Nominated MPs who were present — voted yes while all nine WP MPs voted no.

During the debate, MPs raised concerns including possible curtailment of freedom of speech and the perceived unfairness of allowing a Government representative to speak about an ongoing court case “in the public interest”.

But Mr Shanmugam said the new law, by and large, merely puts into writing — in the statute — what had previously been a “mystery” to lawyers. Referring to the law of contempt, he said: “It is the only criminal law in Singapore that is based on case law. This is not satisfactory because criminal laws must be set out in statute.”

The new law, which takes effect on Tuesday, spells out conduct which amount to contempt: Disobeying court orders, interfering with proceedings, sub judice and scandalising the court. But in practice, these were already outlawed anyway. The only change was to lower the bar — from “real risk” to “risk” — for an offence to be made out for scandalising the court.

Noting the high international standing of Singapore’s courts, Mr Shanmugam said: “If one calls a Judge a ‘biased swine’, then let us not have arguments as to whether he only risked undermining the sanctity of the Judiciary, as opposed to whether he really risked undermining the sanctity of the Judiciary.”

The Bill makes clear that fair criticism is not prohibited. After judgment has been passed, people are free to criticise the laws and they can — and they have every right to — “try to go and organise themselves to say the Government should change the law”, Mr Shanmugam said.

Mr Low argued that the Bill set “double standards” by allowing the Government to comment on ongoing proceedings, but not the people. He said: “(It) has given the Government unlimited rights. When (comments) come from the mouth of the minister, it become completely legal, so long as the Government can say this is in public interest.”

WP MPs cited the recent case of Benjamin Lim — the 14-year-old fell to his death after he was questioned by police over alleged molestation — and an incident in February last year that saw three men arrested for fighting with the police during a Thaipusam procession. Mr Shanmugam had spoken publicly about the two cases.

In response, Mr Shamugam challenged the WP MPs to lodge a complaint with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) if they felt he had committed contempt of court. On the Thaipusam incident, he said: “People made all sorts of allegations as the trial was pending. As one of the ministers responsible, it is appropriate that when the police’s integrity is being attacked, I go out in response to those allegations and set out some of the facts”

As for Benjamin’s case, Mr Shanmugam said he had consulted the AGC and felt it was acceptable to make a ministerial statement to discuss “how schools should handle young people (and) a wide variety of issues”. What was inappropriate, however, was discussing the “fact and detail” before they were established by the Coroner, he said.

Citing situations such as a bank run or an epidemic, Mr Shanmugam said that the Government “must come out and state the facts and the position, and hopefully reassure the public”. “It cannot wait for the on-going court proceedings to end before informing the public about some matters,” he said. “It is not targeted at any particular individual, it is not targeted at the case per se. It is about what happened, so that the public can go about their affairs in a more informed way, where there is a specific public interest to do so.”

The Bill had evoked strong reactions from some quarters of society. A petition — with 249 signatories — urging the Government to consult more extensively on the new law was submitted last week by NMP Kok Heng Leun. Citing an internal survey, Mr Shanmugam said the majority of the people supported the Bill — in contrast to the number who signed the petition.

Despite Mr Shanmugam’s explanation, Mr Low said he was unconvinced.

“It allows the Government to be the sole interpreter of what constitutes public interest. I smell a similar element in the Internal Security Act,” he said.

This prompted a riposte from Mr Shanmugam: “Either I’m right or I’m wrong. If I’m right, then none of (Mr Low’s) arguments stand ... this is a strange case where a MP says the Law Minister who puts up a Bill after extensive consultation with the courts and who says ad nauseam that it is the same, the argument is that I don’t believe you ... how do I address that?”