Wall
Street Journal
The city-state resumes its campaign against the
Journal.
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.
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.