98 Dictating the Internet: contempt (section 3(1)(b)).358 Section 3(1)(a) reduced the threshold for “scandalizing” contempt to a mere “risk” of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, where the common law test established in the landmark case of Attorney-General v Shadrake Alan was to establish a “real risk” of such undermining of confidence .359 This exacerbated a standard that was already deeply problematic. Meanwhile section 12(1) of the AJPA increased the maximum penalty for “scandalizing” contempt to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of S$100,000 (approx. USD 72,051) or both, when under common law, a six-week imprisonment sentence and S$20,000 (approx. USD 14,410) fine had been deemed appropriate.360 Judicial proceedings are matters of critical public importance. The bringing into force of this law with its overbroad provision to criminalize any expression or information which can pose a “risk” to public confidence in the administration of justice will have a chilling effect on the capacity of lawyers, academics and the general public to comment on particular cases, or critically analyse questions of jurisprudence. This is particularly relevant in Singapore, where, even prior to the AJPA, contempt of court had been used to unnecessarily and unjustifiably curtail online expression. Following the passage into force of the AJPA, charges were brought against a human rights defender and opposition politician for comments made on Facebook, evidencing that risks that had been highlighted that the law would be used against expressions of public comment were not unfounded. 358 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No. 19 of 2016), Available at: https://sso.agc.gov. sg/Act/AJPA2016#legis 359 See Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter [2018] SGHC 222 at [39], referring to Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General [2011] 3 SLR 778 at [36], Available at: https:// www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/os-510-2018-(ag-vjolovan-wham)-(final)-pdf.pdf (‘AG v Wham Jolovan [2018]’) 360 Associate Professor David Tan, ‘Any Risk Will Do – The New Law on Scandalising Contempt in Singapore’, Singapore Law Gazette, September 2016, Available at: https://www.google.com/sear ch?q=any+risk+will+do+new+law+on+scandalising+contempt+in+singapore&rlz=1C1CHBF_enTH830TH830&oq=any+risk+will+do+new+law+on+scandalising+contempt+in+singapore&aqs=chrome..69i57.8470j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8; In analyzing cases relating to scandalizing contempt that had been brought before Singapore courts prior to the passage of the AJPA, Assoc. Prof. Tan from the National University of Singapore noted that courts had consistently acknowledged that contempt of court had to be balanced with the right to freedom of speech protected under article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, and highlighted tellingly that it was “ironic that the judiciary permits a wider latitude of criticism of itself than Parliament would otherwise tolerate (under the AJPA)”.