Serious Don't Kena Contempt! Serious and Important!

Hi SBF brothers,

I am just helping by sharing this message as urgently and as widely as possible. You can also help by sharing this message as urgently and as widely as possible.

This is serious, and I really mean serious! Otherwise, we citizens will always have to swallow whatever laws they suka suka pass and force down our throats.

Please click the following link, read thoroughly and then take action by giving your signature and support, as civic-conscious citizens of Singapore.


https://www.facebook.com/notes/dont...n-of-justice-protection-bill/1186020078123163


Petition on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill

Don't Kena Contempt·Thursday, August 4, 2016

A petition to the Parliament has been drafted to seek a delay in the passage of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill. We are looking for a parliamentarian to carry this petition. There isn’t much time, but getting as many signatures as possible on the petition would show that there is support among the people of Singapore for a delay so that more extensive public consultation can take place.

We are calling on the Government to:
a) Delay passage of this bill pending greater and more extensive public consultation on the implementation, effects, and implications of the Bill for the general public;
b) Reconsider and clarify provisions of the Bill as stated in the text of this Petition to Parliament to ensure that it does not, intentionally or otherwise, restrict legitimate expression and discussion on matters of public interest; and,
c) Refer this Bill to a Select Committee for further consultation and deliberation.


PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SIGN IT

Digital signatures are not allowed. If you would like to sign the petition, please do ONE of the following:

1) Sign the petition at the petition booth:

From 4 - 9 August, 6 - 9pm, you can sign the petition at the petition booth at Hanis Cafe, National Library, 100 Victoria St, #01-01. The person collecting signatures will be sitting at one of the tables near the Hanis entrance. If you cannot find him/her, please send a message to this page.

OR
2) Click here (http://tinyurI.com/jsb3u9f) to download the full petition. Print out the full petition (including text), sign and post it to:

The Agora, 28 Sin Ming Lane, Mid-View City #03-142 Singapore 573972.

Signed petitions need to reach The Agora by Monday 8 August.

Most letters posted before 5.00pm outside the Central Business District and 7.00pm within the Central Business District should be delivered to the recipient by the next working day.

Lawyers have commented that Section 3 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill uses language – such as the word “prejudges” in Section 3(1)(b)(i) – that is very broad and could potentially cover a wide range of comment. The “risk” and “real risk” tests are also low standards to use to decide whether a comment is in contempt or not.

Read the bill: http://bit.Iy/dontkenacontempt

Please share this image on your social networks – more public education on the implication of the bill is needed!

Section 11(2) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill states:

“Where the publication in relation to contempt of court was published through the Internet or other electronic media (regardless of whether it was first published in Singapore or elsewhere), the publication is taken to be published in Singapore if it was accessed by members of the public in Singapore.”

Read the bill: http://bit.Iy/dontkenacontempt

Please share this image on your social networks – more public education on the implication of the bill is needed!

Section 2(1) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill defines “publish” as:

“...to disseminate, distribute, exhibit, provide or communicate by oral, visual, written, electronic or other means (for example, by way of newspaper, radio, television or through the use of the Internet, subscription TV or other online communications system) to the public at large or a member of the public, and includes cause to be published, and “publication” is to be construed accordingly.”

Read the bill: http://bit.Iy/dontkenacontempt

Please share this image on your social networks – more public education on the implication of the bill is needed!

Section 13 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill gives the Attorney-General, with leave of the High Court, “to direct the publisher of any matter to refrain from or cease publishing that matter.”

This means that the Attorney-General can apply to the High Court for a court order to have a publication or comment taken down. The publisher of the comment need not be informed that an application has been made to the High Court, because Section 13(8)(b) says: “the Attorney-General is not required to give the publisher notice of the application before the hearing of the application.”

Read the bill: http://bit.Iy/dontkenacontempt

Please share this image on your social networks – more public education on the implication of the bill is needed!

http://international.thenewslens.com/article/45849


2016/08/04,

ANALYSIS: Singapore’s New Justice Law has Far-Reaching Implications


Why you need to know?

A new bill, which will undergo a second reading on Aug. 15, could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Singapore and abroad.

The Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill tabled in the Singaporean Parliament on July 11 has far-reaching ramifications for freedom of speech, fair comment, arbitrary executive powers, and the vitality of the Singaporean judiciary. The Bill aims to provide clarity on offences related to contempt of court, which is currently based on previous rulings and precedents. Speaking to reporters, Minister of Law K Shanmugam explained that the Bill does not create a new law of contempt but that it “crystallizes current legal position.”

However, a perusal of the Bill suggests that, instead of clarifying, it introduces new uncertainty and potentially obfuscates the meaning of contempt of court. It fails to define some key terms, defines others in ways that are too vague or broad, and expands arbitrary executive powers. Most significantly, it appears to imply that the government lacks faith in its own judiciary.

Firstly, as defined by the Bill, it appears as if any comment on any ongoing court case could potentially be contempt of court. Section 3 of the Bill uses language – such as the word “prejudges” in Section 3(1)(b)(i) – that is very broad and is undefined. It sets “risk” and “real risk” tests to determine contempt, but these are low standards for deciding whether a comment is in contempt or not. Indeed, this legal requirement for being convicted for scandalizing the court is of a lower threshold than the current test established by judicial precedents.

The Bill does provide some defenses to allow particular types of comment. But these defenses are also vague and uninformative. For example, the Bill says “fair criticism” would not be in contempt of the court, but fails to define “fair criticism.” Indeed, academics could also be in contempt of court for analyzing the political economy of an ongoing case, even if we avoid any discussion of the merits of the case.

Nor is it clear when court proceedings would be considered to have begun. Section 2(2)(b) defines a court proceeding, but it is not clear if it begins from the time a person is under investigation, or if a formal arrest has to be made. For example, Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung were investigated earlier this year for the alleged violation of Cooling-Off Day rules. Although they were questioned, their homes searched and their property seized, neither have been arrested by the police. In this scenario, would it be contempt of court if people were to talk about their case or criticize police behavior? The bill is unclear.

▶︎ See also: "Singaporean Activists Harassed by Police for 'Breaching' Election Rules."

With such vague language, the line between what is or is not permissible discussion when it comes to pending court cases is blurred. This could lead to people deciding to stay silent on issues of massive public importance, out of fear of being found in contempt. This would defeat the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide clarity and allow for discussion in the public interest.

Section 2(1) of the Bill defines “publish” very broadly. It includes disseminating, exhibiting or communicating to even one member of the public. This means that sharing a blog comment, Facebook post, or tweet that is in contempt is also a form of contempt, as is private communication over SMS or WhatsApp, or even discussion over the dinner table. This is true even if none of the parties realize that the comment is in contempt. This could lead to a cascading effect: one person writes a comment in good faith, not realizing it is in contempt, and this comment is shared widely, leading hundreds of other people to find themselves in contempt.

More alarmingly, this includes anything published globally. As long as comment is accessible by members of the public in Singapore, it could be considered in contempt of court. This would discourage commentary and reporting on Singaporean court cases around the world, thus isolating Singapore. Another unintended consequence might be on commercial litigation. Staff of multinational companies involved in civil proceedings in Singapore could be in contempt for discussing the case across borders. A foreign press routinely reporting on the litigation would also be liable for contempt. With the establishment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), this could have far-reaching consequences as the TPP expands the ability of companies to seek legal redress across borders.

It would be solely up to the discretion of the Attorney-General whether to commence proceedings. This leads to the third issue, which is that the Bill enshrines an increase in arbitrary executive power.

The Bill empowers the Attorney-General to order an individual to take down publications that could potentially be in contempt. The Attorney-General is not required to inform this individual that it has applied for a court order to take down the publication; the individual will only find out once the order has been granted and served. This is a new power that is not based on previous rulings or precedents.

The only recourse this person will have is to apply to the court to have the order set aside. This process is both complex and expensive, and the individual will have to satisfy the court that the publication is not in contempt – they are considered guilty unless they can prove innocence. The failure to comply with the take-down order is a criminal offence, and an arrestable one. If convicted, the maximum penalty is a fine of S$20,000 (US$14,900), up to 12 months in prison, or both.

Along the same vein, the Bill introduces an unequal relationship where public discourse on an ongoing case could be dominated by the state. A representative of the government can comment on an issue in an ongoing court proceeding if the government believes it is necessary in the public interest, but anything an ordinary citizen says might be held in contempt. Potentially, the government could say whatever it wanted - and even if it had inadvertently made a serious mistake, no one would respond, for fear of being in contempt.

In sum, anything you say could be in contempt; it is unclear when contempt starts; and the Attorney-General can declare you are guilty of contempt, leaving you to prove yourself to be innocent.

These far-reaching implications are even more troubling in the context of the proposed maximum penalty, which would be a fine of S$100,000, up to 3 months in prison, or both. This is far higher than the current legal precedent. British journalist Alan Shadrake’s case was described as the “worst case of contempt,” but even then his sentence was a fine of S$20,000 and six weeks’ imprisonment. This sentence is the longest imposed for contempt of court, but is far short of the proposed maximum penalty.

Taken in context with recent public criticism of the government’s handling of various court cases, as well as continued debate over Singapore's alleged use of contempt laws to stifle dissent and punish journalists, this law is troubling. It suggests that Singapore’s government lacks confidence in its own judiciary to resist external influence, seeing the judiciary as fundamentally weak and requiring excessive protection to enable it to function properly. This undermines the confidence of Singaporeans in their judiciary.

The Bill will have its second reading on Aug. 15. If the government wishes to achieve greater clarity on contempt, as well as send the message that the judiciary is strong, fair, and independent, it should amend this Bill to have greater clarity and to give greater leeway for honest and fair criticism, including restoring the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.


Edited by: TNL Staff

you didn't get the memo from Japanese press?

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....ovt-calling-it-quot-a-Bright-North-Korea-quot

I also note that throughout history till now:

- southeast asia has always been politically stuck in some sort of monarchy / dictatorship / military junta / sultanate / oligarchy
- coincidentally, this region also produced none / least world influencing innovations and inventions
- the so-called highly educated workforce, as one US recruiter accurately described, really means highly trained
- is economically stuck as the go-to place for cheap labor and rent
- worships the white colonial masters, women would choose them over their own locals for marriage and breeding
- from birth to death, predominantly only care about MONEY MONEY MONEY AND MORE MONEY
- glaring lack of philanthropists and scholars (REAL scholars, not the scholarship award holders). tan kah kee, lee kong chian, tan tock seng are all from CHINA
- glaring lack of highly enlightened individuals. hong chuan fashi, guangxuan old monk, gao can (shaolin monk who fled to Singapore) are all from CHINA. Thailand and sri lanka may be the only 2 exceptional countries in this area, but then all the above points still apply

Sinkee judges had had it with the insults hurled at them, especially on this forum. They are the cream of the crops in this country, how dare plebeians critique their rulings.

With this law, hopefully, no sinkee will ever dare to call judges morons or idiots and will not question their decisions.

The PAP government truly believes in support the judges who have deferred to the government since days gone by. That's why PAP government has never failed in its legal actions against critics and judges are rewarded accordingly.

Reminder and Update from Don't Kena Contempt Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/dontkenaco...141891744315/1189392471119257/?type=3&theater

We are at NLB Hanis, collecting signatures till 9pm. Hope to see you here!

Please do your small part as a civic-conscious citizen of Singapore.

Let your voice be heard by those bloated so-called PAP natural aristocrats!

https://www.facebook.com/dontkenaco...141891744315/1189188341139670/?type=3&theater



We're at Hanis NLB now!

Here's the rest of our schedule for petition-signing:
- Mon 8 August 10.30am - 2.30pm: Hanis Cafe @ NLB
- Mon 8 August 10.00am - 3pm: The Agora @ 28 Sin Ming Lane
- Mon 8 August 6.00pm - 9.00pm: Hanis Cafe @ NLB
- Tues 9 August 6.00pm - 9.00pm: Hanis Cafe @ NLB (last session for petition-signing)

If you cannot find us at these locations, do send us a message.

Hi everyone, they are collecting signatures at Hanis, NLB Victoria Street NOW.

For those who have asked why the petition cannot be signed online and has to be done in person: The public petition you are signing is not the regular petition you can sign on something like change.org. It is a formal public petition to Parliament to delay the passage of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill pending further scrutiny in a Parliamentary Select Committee. That is why we need your original signature.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/dont...n-of-justice-protection-bill/1186020078123163

If you cannot make it there by tonite, you can still sign the petition tomorrow as follows:

Tomorrow evening will be the last session for signing.

Tuesday, 9 August 6.00pm - 9.00pm: Hanis Cafe @ NLB (last session for petition-signing)