SINGAPORE — Two of the three Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs), who had called for changes to new contempt of court laws, said they decided to withdraw their amendments after they felt assured by Law Minister K Shanmugam’s explanation that the law surrounding sub judice contempt remains unchanged.

The Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill was passed after a marathon debate lasting seven hours in Parliament on Monday, with the House voting 72-9 in favour of the legislation. All nine opposition MPs from the Workers’ Party voted against it.

The Bill had been shrouded in controversy since its introduction in Parliament last month, with three NMPs, Assistant Professor Mahdev Mohan, Mr Kok Heng Leun and Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin, stepping forward to propose — and later withdraw — 14 amendments.

Asst Prof Mohan, who lectures law at the Singapore Management University, told TODAY that Mr Shanmugam’s clarifications “adequately satisfied” his concerns.

For instance, the trio had rejected the move to lower the bar — from “real risk” to “risk” — for scandalising the court. This, said Mr Shanmugam, was a “small, narrow” change which only mattered to lawyers.

The NMPs had also asked for the insertion of the following subsection in the Bill: A publication made as part of a discussion in good faith on a matter of general public affairs is not contempt of court ... if the risk of prejudice to, or interference with, a court proceeding is merely incidental to the discussion. In his response, Mr Shanmugam said: “The moment you allow discussion on a pending case as long as it is (in) public interest, what you’re saying is that it’s okay for the trial to be prejudiced.”

In another proposed amendment, the NMPs had suggested eliminating the words “the Government believes that” in a clause stating that the Government can comment on pending court proceedings “if the Government believes that such a statement is necessary in the public interest”.

Asst Prof Mohan said: “The Minister reassured me and others that the courts would be the final arbiter of the Government’s discretion and could hold the Government (accountable) ... for improper or illegal conduct.”

Writing on Facebook yesterday, Ms Kuik said in withdrawing the amendments, all the three NMPs had agreed on “what was the most strategic collective decision”. The social entrepreneur assured netizens that the laws on sub judice remain unchanged, as Mr Shanmugam had pointed out.

“Whatever you want to speak up on, keep speaking up on it without fear. If you see an injustice, speak. If you see a cruelty, speak,” Ms Kuik said. However, she warned that comments that could be construed as influencing a witness in a pending case or slandering a judge would qualify as contempt of court.

Mr Kok declined to respond to TODAY’s queries.