张素兰： 维护我们的司法制度 Protecting Our Judiciary Bill by Teo Soh Lunghttps://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/
国际保护记者委员会（Committee to Protect Journalists）今天说，新加坡的国会议员必须抛弃拟议的立法——把在新闻报道和公众评论视为构成藐视法庭。藐视法庭法案所定下的刑罚包括了批评司法制度都可能被判处坐牢。它的出台将恐吓新加坡媒体的自我审查及约束没有的自由。
司法（保护）法案Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill）将会归纳目前的法律和司法程序判例成为一种系统的法规。根据新闻报道news reports，它可以发表关于法院诉讼程序、法官和司法的系统。它将允许总检察署，而不是法官，指控有关的作者的藐视行为。这是允许政府利用法律手段追究批评者……
这部司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill）同时也是适用于在社交媒体的出版方面。它包含极其广泛的司法释义构成藐视法庭的定义和确定判处违规的最高刑罚。这将是远远超越法官的庭令裁决。
据报道，新加坡国会于2016年7月12日一读通过了司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill。它将于2016年8月15日二度通过。假设国会在没有如何提出修正建议或者反对有关法案内容的情况下，很快将在新加坡国会三度通过。
国际保护记者委员会东南亚的高级代表肖恩克里斯（Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia）说，“新加坡所需要的是减少对司法系统的批评的法律条款，而不是强化对司法系统批评的法律与条款。”
新加坡国会议员必须拒绝这部拟议的司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill。同时，优先通过保护新闻作者和社交媒体博客，以免他们遭受轻率的和具有政治动机的诉讼。
律政部三穆根与2016年7月11日told reporters告诉记者说，司法（保护）法案Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill并没有扩大现有法律的有关藐视法庭的定义。但是，但代表了有关这方面“法律的结晶”。他同时也说，司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill是旨在保护公民的权利，公平审判和确保付出法庭的判决。他提到在法院诉讼中“善意”的“公平”和“准确的报道将不会受到这部法律所惩罚。
司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill里的含糊词句赋予了总检察长广泛的阐述权力。总检察长是由总统所委任的。他的职责是为政府领导诉讼工作的。他拥有诠释（或定义）什么是法律上的具有“善意”的“公平”的报道。
司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill的第2 部分第3章在没有说明有关什么是侵犯定义下，对关于法律规定出版材料的释义，做了如下的释义：案件在审理中或预料进入司法程序，言行预作判断 (prejudge)，影响当事人接受公平审讯的权利。
司法（保护）法案（Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill同时也赋予总检察长可以施以最高达三年的监禁和罚款高达10万新元（合折成美金7.45万元），作为破坏涉及高等法院的上诉。现行的相关藐视法庭法律并没有定下最高的罚款额，最近对作家的法庭判决的蔑视已经低得多
新加坡政府不断使用藐视法庭的起诉来制止对司法制度的批评评语。根据报章的报道，reports，在2015年，新加坡博客欧如鹏（Alex Au Waipang）因为发表了2篇有关大法官的判决同性恋案件，被判处藐视法庭罪名成立，罚款8千元新币。他向执政党提出挑战的上诉被有三名法官的组成陪审团法庭驳回。法庭指他的文章具有削弱公众对司法的信心的“真正的危险性”。有关部门处以的罚款是“完全适当‘的
在2010年，法院判处英国的作家和前新闻作者亚伦·沙德瑞克（Alan Shadrake）因为在的著作《一旦成了愉快的刽子手》(Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock)里抨击这个国家使用死刑，被法庭判决诽谤“新加坡法院系统，而被判处6个月监禁和罚款2万新元。
Proposed law on contempt of court threatens press freedom in Singapore
Protecting Our Judiciary Bill by Teo Soh Lunghttps://wangruirong.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/
Bangkok, August 5, 2016 – Singaporean lawmakers should scrap proposed legislation on what constitutes contempt of court in news reporting and public commentary, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. The draft law’s penalties for violations, including possible prison terms for criticizing the judiciary, threaten to entrench more self-censorship in Singapore’s constrained media environment.
The Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill would consolidate existing laws and judicial precedent into a statute on what may be published about court proceedings, judges, and the justice system, and, according to news reports, would allow the attorney general, rather than judges, to accuse writers of contempt, opening the door to the government’s use of the law to pursue critics.
The draft legislation, which would also apply to material published on social media, contains broad definitions as to what constitutes contempt of court, and sets maximum penalties for infractions that would be far above what judges have ordered.
The proposed law passed its first reading in parliament on July 12. Its second reading is scheduled for August 15. A third and final reading could immediately follow if legislators do not propose amendments or object to the bill’s content, reports said.
“Singapore needs to soften, not stiffen, laws that bar critical commentary about its judicial system,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “Singaporean legislators should reject the proposed bill and prioritize instead passing laws that protect journalists and bloggers from frivolous, politically motivated lawsuits.”
Law Minister K. Shanmugam told reporters on July 11 that the draft law does not expand on the current legal definition of contempt of court, but represents a “crystallization of the law.” The minister also said that the legislation is designed to protect citizens’ right to a fair trial and ensure that court orders are obeyed. He noted that “fair” and “accurate” reporting made in “good faith” on court proceedings will not be penalized under the proposed law.
Vague language in the draft law could give the attorney general, who is appointed by the president and serves as the government’s lead prosecutor, wide discretion in determining what constitutes “fair” reporting made in “good faith.” Section 2, Part 3 of the law criminalizes publication of material that “prejudges an issue in a court proceeding that is pending and such prejudgment prejudices, interferes with or poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with any court proceeding that is pending,” without stating how prejudice is defined.
Singaporean advocacy groups quoted in press reports say these and other broad terms from the draft legislation could encourage greater self-censorship. The Community Action Network, a local civil society group, said at a recent seminar that the law’s punitive provisions appear to specifically target “socio-political websites, activists, and those with a significant following on social media,” according to news accounts.
The draft legislation would also allow the attorney general to request a maximum penalty of three years in prison and fines of up to $100,000 Singapore dollars (US $74,500) for violations involving High Court or Court of Appeal cases. Prevailing laws for contempt of court do not define maximum penalties, and recent contempt of court sentences against writers have been much lower.
Singapore has repeatedly used contempt of court charges to silence critical commentary of its judicial system. In 2015, Singaporean blogger Alex Au Waipang was convicted of contempt of court and fined 8,000 Singapore dollars for suggesting in two blog posts that a chief justice had shown partiality in two constitutional challenges to a law criminalizing gay sex. The Court of Appeal dismissed his challenge to the ruling, with a three judge panel ruling later that year that his article posed a “real risk” of undermining public confidence in the judiciary and that the administered fine was “wholly appropriate,” reports said.
British author and former journalist Alan Shadrake was sentenced in 2010 to six months in prison and fined 20,000 Singapore dollars for “scandalizing” Singapore’s court system in his book Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock, which criticized the country’s use of capital punishment.