Judiciary cannot be denigrated under the pretence of free speech, it says
By Zakir Hussain 5 December 2008
The government has rebutted an editorial by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that took issue with a recent court ruling which found its sister publication in Asia in contempt of court.
In the editorial last Saturday, titled Singapore Strikes Again, WSJ said Singapore chose to go after the paper ‘for the most basic kind of journalism’.
In reply, Singapore’s Ambassador to the United States, Professor Chan Heng Chee, said the Wall Street Journal Asia was cited for contempt ‘because it accused Singapore courts of being biased’.
‘We do not fear or stifle criticism of our policies. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the pretence of free speech,’ she said in a letter to WSJ published yesterday.
WSJ’s editorial was published on Saturday in its United States and Europe editions, but not in its Asia edition which circulates here. It was also available on WSJ’s website. Prof Chan’s reply appeared in the US edition and on the website yesterday.
On Nov 25, High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang fined the publisher of WSJ Asia $25,000 for contempt for three articles it ran in June and July. The first, an editorial on Singapore’s democracy, arose out of a May hearing to assess damages that Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and others had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for libel.
The second was a letter by Dr. Chee, rebutting the reply by MM Lee’s press secretary to the editorial. The third article was another editorial, on the International Bar Association (IBA) Human Rights Institute’s report on the Singapore judiciary, in July.
However, WSJ, in its Saturday editorial, said the two editorials found in contempt were reports on the May hearing and ‘what an international legal organisation had said about Singapore’s courts’.
It also pointed out that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, ‘which means they can be reported - though Singapore’s media rarely do the job’, and that it had published two letters from MM Lee’s spokesman.
WSJ also defended the editorial on the IBA report, saying ‘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’.
In addition, it had printed the Singapore Law Ministry’s response to the editorial on the IBA. At the same time, it noted, the IBA had weighed in ‘to correct some inaccurate comments’ in the ministry’s reply.
In her reply, Prof Chan said the two editorials and Dr. Chee’s letter alleged the courts ‘to be compliant and a party to the abuse of the court process to suppress legitimate political dissent’. Dr. Chee’s letter also characterised court proceedings as ‘pitiful and shameful’, she noted.
‘Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defence,’ she said.
‘Faced with that situation, your counsel then argued that the law of contempt should be changed. The Singapore High Court rejected that and found you guilty of contempt.’
Dr. Chan further pointed out that WSJ had decided not to appeal the ruling.
‘Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts,’ she said.
In its editorial, WSJ also referred to two previous instances when its sister paper in Asia and the editors were sued for contempt - in 1985 and 1989. ‘We are not eager to return to that fractious era,’ it said.
WSJ noted that since 1991, its relationship with Singapore ‘had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge’.
It also noted that in September, another sister publication, the Far Eastern Economic Review, lost a defamation suit brought against it by MM Lee and PM Lee over an interview it published with Dr. Chee. ‘The elder Mr. Lee has long used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the political opposition,’ WSJ said.
In response, Dr. Chan pointed out that Singapore’s laws ‘are clear and applied equally and fairly’, and the law of contempt is there ‘to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in it, which is crucial for the rule of law’.
‘The fundamental disagreement between Singapore and the WSJ (and its sister publications) has been that you want to force Singapore to change its rules to comply with US norms, so that journalists will not be sued even if they denigrate our judiciary or publish false, defamatory articles,’ she added.
As recent events showed, the WSJ is again campaigning for a change in the laws, Dr. Chan said. Singapore does not intend to change laws and norms that have worked for it, she added.
1 comment:
Government Rebuts WSJ Editorial
Judiciary cannot be denigrated under the pretence of free speech, it says
By Zakir Hussain
5 December 2008
The government has rebutted an editorial by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that took issue with a recent court ruling which found its sister publication in Asia in contempt of court.
In the editorial last Saturday, titled Singapore Strikes Again, WSJ said Singapore chose to go after the paper ‘for the most basic kind of journalism’.
In reply, Singapore’s Ambassador to the United States, Professor Chan Heng Chee, said the Wall Street Journal Asia was cited for contempt ‘because it accused Singapore courts of being biased’.
‘We do not fear or stifle criticism of our policies. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the pretence of free speech,’ she said in a letter to WSJ published yesterday.
WSJ’s editorial was published on Saturday in its United States and Europe editions, but not in its Asia edition which circulates here. It was also available on WSJ’s website. Prof Chan’s reply appeared in the US edition and on the website yesterday.
On Nov 25, High Court Justice Tay Yong Kwang fined the publisher of WSJ Asia $25,000 for contempt for three articles it ran in June and July. The first, an editorial on Singapore’s democracy, arose out of a May hearing to assess damages that Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and others had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for libel.
The second was a letter by Dr. Chee, rebutting the reply by MM Lee’s press secretary to the editorial. The third article was another editorial, on the International Bar Association (IBA) Human Rights Institute’s report on the Singapore judiciary, in July.
However, WSJ, in its Saturday editorial, said the two editorials found in contempt were reports on the May hearing and ‘what an international legal organisation had said about Singapore’s courts’.
It also pointed out that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, ‘which means they can be reported - though Singapore’s media rarely do the job’, and that it had published two letters from MM Lee’s spokesman.
WSJ also defended the editorial on the IBA report, saying ‘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’.
In addition, it had printed the Singapore Law Ministry’s response to the editorial on the IBA. At the same time, it noted, the IBA had weighed in ‘to correct some inaccurate comments’ in the ministry’s reply.
In her reply, Prof Chan said the two editorials and Dr. Chee’s letter alleged the courts ‘to be compliant and a party to the abuse of the court process to suppress legitimate political dissent’. Dr. Chee’s letter also characterised court proceedings as ‘pitiful and shameful’, she noted.
‘Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defence,’ she said.
‘Faced with that situation, your counsel then argued that the law of contempt should be changed. The Singapore High Court rejected that and found you guilty of contempt.’
Dr. Chan further pointed out that WSJ had decided not to appeal the ruling.
‘Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts,’ she said.
In its editorial, WSJ also referred to two previous instances when its sister paper in Asia and the editors were sued for contempt - in 1985 and 1989. ‘We are not eager to return to that fractious era,’ it said.
WSJ noted that since 1991, its relationship with Singapore ‘had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge’.
It also noted that in September, another sister publication, the Far Eastern Economic Review, lost a defamation suit brought against it by MM Lee and PM Lee over an interview it published with Dr. Chee. ‘The elder Mr. Lee has long used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the political opposition,’ WSJ said.
In response, Dr. Chan pointed out that Singapore’s laws ‘are clear and applied equally and fairly’, and the law of contempt is there ‘to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in it, which is crucial for the rule of law’.
‘The fundamental disagreement between Singapore and the WSJ (and its sister publications) has been that you want to force Singapore to change its rules to comply with US norms, so that journalists will not be sued even if they denigrate our judiciary or publish false, defamatory articles,’ she added.
As recent events showed, the WSJ is again campaigning for a change in the laws, Dr. Chan said. Singapore does not intend to change laws and norms that have worked for it, she added.
Post a Comment