Much of the legal thinking in Singapore and Malaysia on the problems of the burden of proof in criminal cases has so far been along textual and historical lines. Little has been said about the principles and policies which ought to govern the decision to place burdens of persuasion on the accused. This article draws on developments in comparative constitutional jurisprudence, especially of the Privy Council and the Canadian Supreme Court, to explore the potential of using the presumption of innocence as a constitutional idiom for the assessment of the prevailing law on the burden of proof borne by the accused in criminal cases.