Lee Wei Ling criticises new Bill on contempt of court laws as 'attempt to muzzle public opinion'
Parliament House in Singapore. TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — Dr Lee Wei Ling, the sister of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has criticised a new Bill on contempt of court laws as “an attempt to muzzle public opinion” and restarted an online feud between her and the Government.
The Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill makes contempt of court a criminal offence, and the scope of the Bill extends to prejudicing court matters, disobeying court orders and scandalising the courts.
In a Facebook post on Sunday (Aug 14) afternoon, Dr Lee took issue with the penalties that could be imposed.
Under the Bill, the High Court or Court of Appeal will be able to fine a person up to S$100,000 and/or jail him or her for up to three years for contempt. Other courts such as the State Courts will be able to impose fines of up to S$20,000, and/or a jail term of up to 12 months.
Dr Lee said these were “very serious penalties for someone who may just want to speak out against an unfair judge and/or an unfair government”.
She retracted part of her Facebook post, however, following a personal clarification from Law Minister K Shanmugam.
Dr Lee had mentioned a letter she had written to the press in 2008 about Tangs scion Tang Wee Sung being jailed a day after he had tried to buy a kidney illegally, which she thought was an unfair sentence.
That letter, she said, had been written with the encouragement of Mr Shanmugam, who was then a top lawyer.
While she had thought the kind of comments she made in 2008 would no longer be permissible, she said subsequently that the minister had clarified that it will not be illegal to criticise a judgement or the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
“Thus I was wrong in my assumptions,” she said and apologised to Mr Shanmugam barely an hour after her first post.
But she maintained her other criticisms of the proposed legislation, such as on sub judice, whereby public discussion of a case under judicial consideration may affect or prejudice the outcome of proceedings.
“Ironically, sub judice rules were set up for (situations) where there is a laymen jury who may be naive enough to be misled by rumours or lead by emotion rather than logic as in religious or racial issues,” she wrote.
“If your judges are so vulnerable, then the Cabinet is at fault for its choice of candidates proposed to be promoted to be judges.
Since the Bill was introduced last month, Dr Lee noted that there has been “widespread concern” among Singaporeans who understood its implications, referring in particular to a petition that Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Kok Heng Leun will present in Parliament on Monday.
The petition, which has almost 250 signatories, lobbies for greater public consultation on the Bill’s content and impact. Dr Lee said she was amazed that more Singaporeans had not protested against it.
“Perhaps, Singaporeans have gotten used to an authoritarian government who until recently had always acted for their wellbeing, and so when another new action is taken, they do not even bother to think whether it may be against their welfare,” she said.
“This current government is not like previous People’s Action Party governments. I urge all Singaporeans, and all MPs and NMPs to think through what has been proposed, and also read the many commentaries on the internet.”
In her third posting, in the evening, Dr Lee said: “The Bill ... gives the government the right to comment whilst denying that to people. This is inconsistent with equality before the law and is an attempt to muzzle public opinion.”
The Bill will be debated in the Parliament sitting beginning on Monday.
