NMP apologises after change of heart on contempt Bill amendments
Kok Heng Leun. TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — Apologising to those who felt angered or disappointed by his change of heart on amending contempt of court laws, Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Kok Heng Leun said that after the debate, he had ultimately felt reassured that the new laws would not change current practices, beyond lowering the bar for scandalising the court.
Posting on Facebook at around 2am yesterday, Mr Kok addressed naysayers’ charges that NMPs, who are backed by various communities to enter Parliament, answered to nobody.
“I would say that firstly, I have to answer to myself. I am also keenly aware that I have to answer to the arts community that has supported me strongly, and to the causes I represent,” said Mr Kok, who is the artistic director of theatre company Drama Box.
After a seven-hour debate in Parliament on Monday, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill was passed, with the House voting 72-9 in favour of the legislation.
The new laws spell out conduct that amount to contempt, and consolidate existing laws into statute. All nine Workers’ Party MPs opposed the laws, which was first read in Parliament last month.
Three NMPs, Assistant Professor Mahdev Mohan, Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin and Mr Kok, stepped forward to propose — and later withdrew — 14 amendments. Ahead of the sitting, Mr Kok had also been approached by civil activists to table a petition delaying the passage of the laws.
After Monday’s sitting, some netizens called for the trio to explain their apparent U-turn. Both Asst Prof Mahdev and Ms Kuik spoke out on Tuesday. Asst Prof Mohan had said that Law Minister K Shanmugam’s clarifications “adequately satisfied” his concerns, while Ms Kuik assured netizens on Facebook that the laws on sub judice remain unchanged.
In his post, Mr Kok said that after reading the Bill last month, he “had a lot of issues with it”.
He was particularly concerned about the lowered threshold for scandalising the courts and the fact that the Government could comment on pending court matters “in the public interest” without fear of sub judice.
Upon learning that Asst Prof Mohan and Ms Kuik also wanted to speak on the Bill, he discussed the matter with them, and they decided to table the amendments.
They held two consultation sessions with the Law Ministry over their concerns and rationale. The issues, they agreed, came down to four points: Ensuring the Government would not go unchecked; to put on Hansard’s records the defence for the public to raise issues of public interest; that the threshold for sub judice will not be lowered; and that the threshold for scandalising the court be “real risk”, rather than the proposed “risk”.
From Monday’s sitting, Mr Kok said that he received “the most important assurance” from Mr Shanmugam that comments made “in good faith on ... general public affairs is not contempt of court, if there is no prejudice or interference or real risk of prejudice”. This would give defence to the public to speak on matters of public interest, he added.
Mr Kok noted that he had supported other aspects of the new laws, such as a clause on disobeying court orders, as it would give teeth to court orders pertaining to alimonies and supporting elderly parents.
But he had felt torn, because “not voting ‘no’ might seem as if I have made a U-turn, betraying the purpose of the petition and the arts community that I have represented”, he said.
Ultimately, he voted “yes” to “honour the negotiation and discussion” in Parliament.
Assuring the public that he would continue to push for dialogue, Mr Kok said that he hopes to do better as an NMP.
