NOVEMBER 26, 2008
Singapore Court Fines Wall Street Journal
HONG KONG -- Singapore's High Court found The Wall Street Journal Asia in contempt of court for commentary it published about the city-state in June and July.
The court fined Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia), a subsidiary of News Corp.'s Dow Jones & Co. unit and publisher of The Wall Street Journal's Asian edition, 25,000 Singapore dollars (US$16,573) -- the highest amount ever levied for such a case in Singapore.
The ruling related to two editorials and a letter to the editor that the attorney general said were guilty of "scandalizing the court" by impugning the integrity, impartiality and independence of Singapore's courts.
The published items "contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence" on the part of Singapore's judiciary, wrote Judge Tay Yong Kwang in the ruling.
Dow Jones expressed disappointment with the decision. "Dow Jones is extremely disappointed with the ruling of the High Court and strongly disagrees with the court's analysis that the editorials and letter to the editor constitute contempt of court," a Dow Jones spokesman said Tuesday. "Also, contrary to what the attorney general has alleged, The Wall Street Journal Asia has not engaged in a 'campaign' of any sort against the Singapore judiciary. We will in the future continue to defend the right of The Wall Street Journal Asia to report and comment on matters of international importance, including matters concerning Singapore."
The first of the editorials, titled "Democracy in Singapore," concerned comments made in a Singapore court as damages were being assessed against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the two lost a defamation suit brought by Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article the Chees published in their party newsletter that the court said implied corruption on the part of the government.
The Singapore attorney general also complained about a letter to the editor written by Mr. Chee and a Journal editorial that cited a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute on "human rights, democracy and the rule of law" in Singapore.
In his ruling, Judge Tay said a higher fine was being levied than in other similar cases both because of the company's immediate conduct and because of previous instances of contempt, in 1985 and 1989.
Another Dow Jones publication, The Far Eastern Economic Review, was in September held to have defamed the elder Mr. Lee and his son, the prime minister, in relation to an article concerning Mr. Chee.
The court's ruling stated that the test for determining contempt of court is whether there is an "inherent tendency" to interfere with the administration of justice. The test used in some other common-law countries -- whether there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice has been impaired -- was relevant in determining the punishment, the Singapore court found.
Singapore Court Fines Wall Street Journal
HONG KONG -- Singapore's High Court found The Wall Street Journal Asia in contempt of court for commentary it published about the city-state in June and July.
The court fined Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia), a subsidiary of News Corp.'s Dow Jones & Co. unit and publisher of The Wall Street Journal's Asian edition, 25,000 Singapore dollars (US$16,573) -- the highest amount ever levied for such a case in Singapore.
The ruling related to two editorials and a letter to the editor that the attorney general said were guilty of "scandalizing the court" by impugning the integrity, impartiality and independence of Singapore's courts.
The published items "contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence" on the part of Singapore's judiciary, wrote Judge Tay Yong Kwang in the ruling.
Dow Jones expressed disappointment with the decision. "Dow Jones is extremely disappointed with the ruling of the High Court and strongly disagrees with the court's analysis that the editorials and letter to the editor constitute contempt of court," a Dow Jones spokesman said Tuesday. "Also, contrary to what the attorney general has alleged, The Wall Street Journal Asia has not engaged in a 'campaign' of any sort against the Singapore judiciary. We will in the future continue to defend the right of The Wall Street Journal Asia to report and comment on matters of international importance, including matters concerning Singapore."
The first of the editorials, titled "Democracy in Singapore," concerned comments made in a Singapore court as damages were being assessed against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the two lost a defamation suit brought by Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article the Chees published in their party newsletter that the court said implied corruption on the part of the government.
The Singapore attorney general also complained about a letter to the editor written by Mr. Chee and a Journal editorial that cited a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute on "human rights, democracy and the rule of law" in Singapore.
In his ruling, Judge Tay said a higher fine was being levied than in other similar cases both because of the company's immediate conduct and because of previous instances of contempt, in 1985 and 1989.
Another Dow Jones publication, The Far Eastern Economic Review, was in September held to have defamed the elder Mr. Lee and his son, the prime minister, in relation to an article concerning Mr. Chee.
The court's ruling stated that the test for determining contempt of court is whether there is an "inherent tendency" to interfere with the administration of justice. The test used in some other common-law countries -- whether there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice has been impaired -- was relevant in determining the punishment, the Singapore court found.