littleworkpage

I am sure that constitutional scholars would agree with me when I assert that a strong case can be made for the view that Section 35 of the Films Act is unconstitutional. This is the provision under which the video recording of Dr Lim Hock Siew’s speech was prohibited recently. The relevant part of Article 14 of our Constitution that deals, inter alia, with Freedom of Speech is as follows: “14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) — (a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression; …………… (2) Parliament may by law impose — (a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence; ………………. “ Section 35 of the Films Act reads as follow...

The Shadrake Affair “If they do anything, it’ll just draw more attention to it all, and they have no defence,” – This is what Allan Shadrake had reportedly said on the day before he was arrested. Well, Shadrake has thrown down the gauntlet and our authorities have taken up the challenge. It would be interesting to see how this plays out. From the information that has emerged thus far from official sources and from international news reports, the following is clear: a) The basis of the arrest was criminal defamation which is an offence under s,488 of the Penal Code which reads as follows: Section 499 of the Penal Code: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. b) The AG’s chamb...