The a theft or a murder, it is

The current law threatens to criminalise individuals for criticising the courts or the administration of justice in Singapore, it also threatens to diminish the constrained space that our prevailing media has, and could deny people access to information and have a chilling effect on bloggers and social media users, sometimes the most sensible and reasonable argument originates from the citizens as onlookers sees the best, but outsiders see most of the game, 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.”Firstly, It is important to understand that the original purpose of enacting the Administration of Justice Bill is not to restrain discussion on issues that concerns of the public interest. Instead, such laws are meant to encourage a more responsible discussion and reporting on matters before the court.

” If we agree to this proposed change, is it then okay if the trial is prejudiced, so long as it is not significantly prejudiced? A defendant of a criminal trial might face a sentence anywhere from a few days to a few years. Would it then be acceptable 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? Are we then neglecting the basic right to a fair trial as well as the presumption of innocence?” Comparing it with someone’s wish to comment on the proceedings, which prejudices the proceedings, is like comparing a defendant’s rights in the court against another’s personal desire to comment. Isn’t it obvious which side should be safeguarded and prioritized?While there is no denying that freedom of expressions should not be neglected, public discourse should not come at the sacrifice 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 upheldThe law set “double standards” by enabling the Government to comment on ongoing proceedings, but not the people.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

It has given the Government limitless rights. When comments and remarks 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 is aware of what is proper and incorrect despite able to read the comments by the general population, 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 not need to be protected from public opinion.

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 no longer realize whether or not their views justifies as “contempt of court”.

This leads to citizens questioning that it’s miles better not to mention some things at all, so as to not risk getting onto the wrong side of the law. 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 concerning 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 corrupted without any evidence, then it should be fair that they should be charged for contempt of court.


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out