Singapore court fines Wall Street Journal for contempt
Updated
Singapore's High Court has slapped a substantial fine on the publisher of the Wall Street Journal for contempt of court, the largest fine ever levied against a media organistaion. The high-profile media outlet's publisher has been fined 16 thousand US dollars for two editorials published earlier this year. The High Court ruled the articles insinuated a lack of impartiality, bias, and a lack of independence within the Singapore judiciary. Expressing disappointment with the judgement, the Dow Jones Publishing company has denied the material contained in the articles constituted contempt.
Presenter: Kanaha Sabapathy
Speaker: Kevin Tan, adjunct professor in the Law Faculty at the University of Singapore
- Listen:
- Windows Media
KANAHA SABAPATHY: In September, Singapore's Attorney-General's Office initiated legal action against the 'Wall Street Journal' and two editors of articles which allegedly cast doubt on the judiciary's integrity. The offending articles include two editorials: 'Democracy in Singapore', published on June 26; and 'Judging Singapore's Judiciary', published on July 15. The third offending article was a letter by Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, which the 'Business Daily' published in July. In his judgment, High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang said all three publications, individually as well as collectively, contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence, and implied that the judiciary is subservient to Mr Lee or the PAP and is a tool for silencing political dissent. Dow Jones strongly disagreed with the court's analysis that the editorials and letter to the editor constitute contempt of court. The defence of fair criticism is well-established in the law of contempt. So, was the ruling too harsh given the fact that the court read insinuations in the articles? Kevin Tan is adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore.
PROFESSOR KEVIN TAN: So far as the Singapore courts are concerned, the threshold for contempt of court, or we normally call scandalising the judiciary, is a very low threshold as compared to some other countries where the judiciary is far more accommodating of robust critique.
KANAHA SABAPATHY: Justice Tay also said the fact that Dow Jones was found in contempt of court two other times aggravated this case. But can a judgement on a case be linked to the outcome of other cases? Professor Kevin Tan.
PROF KEVIN TAN: There are several things going on as far as determining liability is concerned. No. 1 in determining or not in this two particular instances whether or not the journal has committed contempt, it has no bearing whatsoever for the purposes of determining the tendency whereby the journal is putting some kind of sustained campaign against Singapore.
KANAHA SABAPATHY: In a statement issued after the verdict, the 'Wall Street Journal' rejected any allegations of being engaged in a campaign of any sort against the Singapore judiciary. The judge also held the publisher in contempt for printing a letter by Chee Soon Kwang, the Secretary-General of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. The court saw the letter from Mr Chee - who was at that time facing defamation charges - as contemptuous. Professor Tan says publications have the responsibility to censor articles that are deemed to be defamatory.
PROF KEVIN TAN: The position of the Singapore law is that the media should censor itself to make sure you don't have things which are untruthful, defamatory or contemptuous going out there. I think that is indeed the case. Let us put it another way - if somebody writes a letter which is clearly defamatory of somebody else, the editorial ward of the publication should ensure that letter doesn't get published because if indeed the writer of the letter gets sued for defamation then you become an accessory to this whole defamatory process as well, you see, because defamation requires publication.
KANAHA SABAPATHY: The case against the international editor and the managing editor have been set aside for the present. Despite its disappointment with the outcome, Dow Jones will not be appealing the verdict, but says, in future, it will continue to report and comment on matters of international interest, including matters concerning Singapore.
