The to remain innocent until proven guilty and a

The current law threatens to criminalise people for criticising the courts or the administration of justice in Singapore, it also threatens to diminish the limited space that our mainstream media has, and could deny people access to information and have a chilling effect on bloggers and social media users, sometimes the most reasonable argument comes from the citizens, thus the proposed change that we would like to bring up is the law should only narrow to people that might pose a significant risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously prejudiced.I would like us to firstly consider what in effect is being proposed. If we agree to this proposed change, is it okay if the trial is prejudiced, so long as it is not significantly prejudiced? Think about it. A person is a defendant in a criminal trial. He might face a sentence anywhere from a few days to a few years. Would it then be alright to prejudice his right to a fair trial even if it is “not significant”? Who can guarantee that the “insignificant prejudice” will not affect the final outcome of the proceeding? What happens to the presumption of innocence and the basic right to a fair trial?” If we compare that against someone’s wish to comment on the proceedings, which prejudices the proceedings, it is like comparing someone’s rights in the court against another’s personal desire. Isn’t it obvious which side should be safeguarded and prioritised?While we should respect the freedom of expression, public discourse should not come at the expense of those who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of one’s personal sentiments to those charged and the nature of their charges be it a theft or a murder, it is important that the principle of according each defendant the right to remain innocent until proven guilty and a fair trial must be upheld.The law set “double standards” by allowing the Government to comment on ongoing proceedings, but not the people. It has given the Government unlimited rights. When comments come from the mouth of the minister, it becomes completely legal, so long as the Government can say this is in public interest. The presumption of innocence and basic right to a fair trial would not be affected if our judge knows what is right and wrong despite able to read the comments by the public, our judge’s verdict will definitely not go according to the public’s opinion just because their voice is bigger, it will go according to the law. Our professionally trained judges does need to be protected from public opinion.It is important to understand that the original purpose of enacting the Administration of Justice Bill is not to inhibit robust discussion on matters of public interest. On the contrary, such laws are meant to promote a more responsible discussion and reporting on matters before the court.” Even if a Judge’s verdict is unaffected by the opinions of the public and he distributes justice fairly to the defendant, there is still a risk of the public feeling that the judge was being biased and unfair and thus resulting in improper accusations on the integrity of our court. This might affect the judge’s ability to deliver justice effectively as well as lowering the public confidence in them.However, by doing this, it will limit the citizens’ freedom of speech, as the members of public does not know whether their views justifies as “contempt of court”. This leads to citizens thinking that it is better not to say anything at all, so as not to risk getting in trouble. This would defeat the purpose of having a bill that is meant to provide clarity and allow for discussion that is in the public interest. You stated that it might be an issue regarding the judge’s ability to deliver justice effectively because there are risk of the public feeling that the judge was being biased and unfair, however, our judges are protected by the contempt of court, which prevents citizens from insulting them, we are not able to change their opinions but surely we are able to prevent them from saying anything that discriminates our current justice system. If there are really people blatantly insulting our judges for being biased or corrupt without any evidence, then it should be fair that they should be charged for contempt of court.