Senior Counsel Omar also makes a very important point: The Bill givesthan the Government already has, under existing legislation, and at the same time, the Bill givesMr Singh makes the point that what is fact and what is opinion could be unclear. He has also set out some views on the definition of “public interest” in the Bill. Mr Singh discussed the matter with me. I explained to him why the definitions in the Bill were the most workable, and that they were based on existing jurisprudence.
The approach taken in the Bill is consistent with the current law. Opinion is different from fact. The courts recognise that. The Bill relies on that jurisprudence. And it has been made clear by the Government that the definition of fact in the Bill will not include opinion, and will be restated during the debate in Parliament.
The 3 NMPs , and Mr Omar, recognise that it will be unwise to try and change the definitions of “fact” and “public interest” in the Bill. Mr Omar and the 3 NMPs have suggested that in terms of timeliness and cost, applications to Courts be made fast and inexpensive. Mr Omar has suggested that these be in subsidiary legislation, while the NMPs want some reference to this point , in the Bill itself. The Government agrees with this point, in principle, and has said that it will set this out in legislation. The usual approach is to have these matters set out, in subsidiary legislation.
What about the people? Us. Do we agree? Were our views sought?
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: ChannelNewsAsia - 🏆 6. / 66 Read more »
Source: The Straits Times - 🏆 8. / 63 Read more »
Source: ChannelNewsAsia - 🏆 6. / 66 Read more »
Source: ChannelNewsAsia - 🏆 6. / 66 Read more »
Source: YahooSG - 🏆 3. / 71 Read more »