Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they
are online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we
are refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia,
which circulates in Singapore.
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Our subject is free speech and the rule of law in the Southeast
Asian city-state -- something on which the international press and
Singapore's government have often clashed.
We can't say which side would prevail if the Singapore public
could hear an open debate, but the fact is that we know of no foreign
publication that has ever won in a Singapore court of
law. Virtually every Western publication
that circulates
in the city-state has faced a lawsuit, or the threat of
one.
Which brings us to the ruling against us this week in
Singapore's High Court. Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) was found
guilty of contempt of court for two editorials and a letter to the
editor published in The Wall Street Journal Asia in June and
July.
The Attorney General, who personally argued the contempt case
against us, characterized the articles as "an attack on the courts
and judiciary of Singapore inasmuch as they impugn the integrity,
the impartiality and the independence of the Court."
In suing for contempt, Singapore chose to go after
us for the most basic kind of journalism. The first
editorial, "Democracy in Singapore," reported on a damages hearing
in a defamation case brought (and won) by former Prime Minister Lee
Kuan Yew against opposition politician Chee Soon Juan. The second
editorial, "Judging Singapore's Judiciary," informed readers what
an international legal organization had said about Singapore's
courts.
Regarding the first editorial, we'll note that court proceedings
are privileged under Singapore law, which means they can be
reported -- though Singapore's media
rarely do the job. Mr. Chee wrote a letter in
response to the first editorial, which we published and which is
cited in the contempt charge. We also published two letters from
Mr. Lee's spokeswoman.
In the second editorial, we reported on the International Bar
Association's critical study of the rule of law in Singapore. This
is the same outfit that held its annual conference in Singapore
last year, a meeting that Mr. Lee himself touted as a sign of
confidence in Singapore's courts.
The Law Society of Singapore is a member of the IBA. If
reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the
judiciary, then
Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public
scrutiny.
Again, we published a letter from the Singapore government
responding to the editorial. This one was from the Law Ministry,
which blasted the IBA report and us for repeating its "vague
allegations." The IBA then weighed in, in a posting on its Web
site, saying it wished "to correct some inaccurate comments" in
Singapore's letter. It invites readers to read the report and "see
for themselves" that its views are "based on comprehensive examples
and evidence." The IBA homepage is www.ibanet.org.
In his ruling, Justice Tay Young Kwang refers to us as a "repeat
offender." He's right in the narrow sense that this isn't the first
time Singapore has pursued the Journal Asia for contempt. In 1985,
the newspaper and its editors were sued over an editorial about
legal actions against opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam. The
editors apologized.
In 1989, the paper was sued for contempt again, this time over a
news story that quoted Dow Jones's then-president, Peter Kann. Mr.
Kann had criticized a libel judgment won by Mr. Lee against the Far
Eastern Economic Review, the Journal Asia's sister publication. The
paper, its editor, publisher, local distributor and local printer
were all named. They lost.
We are not eager to return to that fractious era, when the
Journal Asia had its circulation severely restricted in Singapore
and the paper's reporters were unwelcome. Since 1991, when the
newspaper and Mr. Lee reached a settlement, our relationship with
Singapore had been more or less stable until the latest contempt
charge.
Meanwhile, in September, the Far Eastern Economic Review lost a
defamation case brought by Mr. Lee and his son, current Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an interview it published with
opposition leader Mr. Chee. The elder Mr. Lee has long
used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among
the political opposition.
As for this week's contempt ruling, the first line of Justice
Tay's decision is revealing as a standard for Singapore justice.
"Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the
surface," he writes, going on to interpret the words as
contemptuous because they had an "inherent tendency" to "scandalise
the court." The fine he levied, S$25,000 ($16,500), is the largest
ever meted out for such an offense. Justice Tay expressed the hope
that it will deter "future transgressions."
We'll pay the
fine. We'll also continue to express our views about politics, the
courts and other subjects that we think our readers should know
about. And we'll let readers decide what to make of the judiciary
in Singapore.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122791989311765753.html
