Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia for relevant statements made in good faith in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or other legal or administrative authority” (Principle 20) and that they are, like other individuals, entitled to the rights to free expression and association and “have the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights” (Principle 23).355 Singapore In Singapore, contempt of court proceedings have been used to curtail freedom of expression and information under the guise of ‘maintaining orderly proceedings’, particularly in cases of online criticism touching upon politically sensitive matters. In October 2017, the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (AJPA) came into force in Singapore, despite well founded concerns raised by multiple organizations that its vague provisions could result in abusive interpretation and implementation, given existing trends of use of contempt of court under common law to limit freedom of expression.356 Prior to the coming into force of the AJPA, contempt of court cases could be brought under common law by Singapore’s High Court and Court of Appeal pursuant to section 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.357 The AJPA lowers the threshold for contempt in what is referred to as “scandalizing the Court”, expanding judicial powers to punish such contempt with increased and onerous penalties. Section 3(1) criminalizes the “scandalizing of court” through (i) “impugning the integrity, propriety or impartiality” of judges by “intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that… poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined” (section 3(1)(a)); and (ii) “intentional” publishing of any material which interferes with pending court proceedings, or sub judice 355 UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers 1990, Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RoleOfLawyers.aspx 356 FORUM Asia, Think Centre, ‘Singapore: New Contempt of Court Law Further Curtails Limited Freedom of Expression’, 20 August 2016, Available at: https://www.forum-asia.org/?p=21369; AWARE, ‘AWARE statement on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill’, 10 August 2016, Available at: https://www.aware.org.sg/2016/08/aware-statement-on-the-administration-ofjustice-protection-bill/; Human Rights Watch, ‘Singapore: Reject Overly Broad Contempt Law’, 8 August 2016, Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/08/singapore-reject-overly-broadcontempt-law; Amnesty International, ‘Singapore: Contempt of court bill is a threat to freedom of expression’, 16 August 2016, Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/08/ singapore-contempt-of-court-law/ 357 This section is now repealed from the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322) Rev. Ed. 2007. 97