Law on contempt remains largely the same? Perhaps it is if you are lawyer but to the rest of us who has no time and must look at this briefly and be completely practical about it, day has become night. How so? Because we do not know what we can or cannot do. There are definitely somethings we could but now we can't. So people will play it safe and Lee Wei Ling would be right that this has the effect of muzzling public discourse. We did not vote in a government to make the job easier but to be principled and do things right.
For a few years I did not understand why the AG could not take AHTC or formerly AHPETC to court only to recently discover it had everything to do with how the town council act was drafted and passed into law. Those few years I thought the PAP was simply politicizing the whole issue. It wasn't. As political communicators the PAP has much to learn and improve.
Now I need to find the time to go and read in the original what did Dr. Lee exactly say. Guess I trust her more than the Law Minister. She isn't a lawyer but I trust like her late father her heart is completely dedicated to Singapore. The other ministers I sometimes wonder what is their price. Staying in power at all costs? Party above nation?
Update: 10:50 pm
This might be helpful sometime but it also looks like common sense. I never had the urge to treat the courts with contempt ever.
Here is what is or isn't contempt of court
Looks like Donald Trump would be in contempt if he lives here and behave the way he did against the Hispanic judge presiding over the case brought against him.
Perhaps a corollary to 'Justice Must Not Only be Done, but Must be Seen to be Done' would be: A law must not only be balanced and fair, it must also be crystal clear and unambiguously spelt out in order not to trap innocent and inadvertent transgressor.
ReplyDelete*typo, should be "transgression"
Delete