"The presumption of guilt applies only when it is proven, such as through investigations and in court"
That statement is confusing and contradictory. If it is proven in court then it is not presumption.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The standards of Singaporean journalism have slipped over the years...
Then again, this is the country that gave the world 'false statement of fact'.
As far as I can tell, the key to understanding that statement lies in the second half: "that the littering occurred from that residential flat."
This suggests that the investigator only has to prove in court that the litter came from a flat to charge the flat owners with an offense. He doesn't have to prove that the owners threw the litter. The owners have to prove that they didn't do it.