Madam, I stand to support the principles behind the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill. At the same time, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on several concerns.

Madam, this is a Bill that seeks to ensure that the court orders are effectively enforced so that persons can receive protection of the law; that persons receive fair trials and that the high level of trust in Singapore's legal system is preserved.

I find it useful that the Bill seeks to codify the current law on contempt so that members of the public will not have to second guess what constitutes contempt of court.

For the layman, the Bill clearly lays out in part two the types of conduct that amount to contempt; the key ones being:

One, sub judice or publishing content that may interfere with or prejudice an ongoing court case;

Two, scandalising the court through acts that imputes improper motives or attacks the integrity or impartiality of the Court; the strength of the Judiciary being founded in the confidence and respect of the people in the justice system; and

Three, intentionally disobeying a court order or breaching an undertaking to the Court. As someone keenly interested in social service matters, I am particularly glad that the Bill makes it clear on the consequences of defying court orders when obligations of maintenance payment are not fulfilled.

Just as important for the layman, the Bill provides for defences in part four of the Bill and through this, clarifies what is not contempt.

One, clause 14 – where scandalising the court is concerned, reports made to the Chief Justice, the police or a law enforcement agency concerning a judge's alleged misconduct or corruption is not considered contempt – these are avenues by which concerns on the Court can be channelled;

Two, where sub judice is concerned, the Bill provides for the defence of persons who are communicating in private or who have no reasons to believe that their content of discussion would be seen or heard by members of the public. Persons exercising editorial duties are not liable for publishing or distributing contemptuous content, if the latter was done without their authority, content or knowledge;

And one that I fully applaud is that provided in clause 21, where there is honest and reasonable failure to obey court order, as in the case of persons who might be illiterate or genuinely unaware of his or her obligations, the Court will consider this to be a strong defence and not rule the act as contempt.

I appreciate the fact that where there is currently no limit on the punishment which may be imposed for contempt of court, a ceiling is now put in place for punishment.

Madam, I would like to touch on one of the biggest concerns that has been circulating about a potential clamp down on freedom of expression when citizens and media are not allowed to publicly express their views on on-going court cases.

The freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kind is regarded as a human right in international law. However, it is also a human right to be entitled to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law.

Therefore, Madam, whilst I fully respect the need for the freedom of expression, I believe that public discourse must not come at the expense of those who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, upon completion of court proceedings.

I refer to the accused parties involved in high-profile cases which may or may not have gained public sympathy, such as Mr Yang Yin, the ex-tourist guide for alleged misappropriation of monies from an elderly widow; and former chief of Central Narcotics Bureau Mr Ng Boon Gay for alleged corruption and who has since been acquitted. In the case of City Harvest, in which six church leaders are prosecuted for alleged misappropriation of funds, the investigation and trial spanning six years have seen much adverse comments being cast in media and by members of the public in public forums. Some of observers are of the opinion that the accused might have already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. I especially empathise with those with young children who are paying the price of such conduct.

Regardless of our personal sentiments to those charged and the nature of their charges, the principle of according each defendant the right to remain innocent until proven guilty and a fair trial must be upheld. I am thus supportive of the Bill in defining sub judice as one of the primary acts of contempt of court. As an American judge once said of unbridled reporting allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression – that "free speech which is the strength of the Nation can be the cause of its destruction."

In conclusion, Madam, I would like to ask the Minister to respond on two major concerns raised in regard to sub judice. The first one is on how the Ministry can ensure that freedom of expression is not unnecessarily muzzled whilst upholding the principle of fair trial and innocence of defendants till proven guilty; and in the process, help ensure that the vulnerable in their lives and the lives of the accused are not subject to trials by courts of media and public opinion.

The second clarification, on how the Bill can prevent abuse of the privilege of Government, current and future, to exercise its right to comment on matters in the name of public interest; and for Minister to provide illustrations of the circumstances, beyond SARS and runs on bank, under which this right is exercised. With that, Madam, I support the Bill.