- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
- Points
- 0
REVIEW & OUTLOOK NOVEMBER 29, 2008 Singapore Strikes Again
The city-state resumes its campaign against the Journal.Article
more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share:
Yahoo Buzz facebook MySpace LinkedIn Digg del.icio.us NewsVine StumbleUpon Mixx Text Size
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.
AP
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.
Background Reading
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Democracy in Singapore (06/26/08)
Response: Letter from Lee Kuan Yew's Press Secretary (06/30/08)Response: Letter from Chee Soon Juan (07/05/08)Response: Second letter from Lee Kuan Yew's Press Secretary (07/16/08)
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Judging Singapore's Judiciary (07/15/08)
Response: Letter from Law Ministry Press Secretary (07/23/08)
THE FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
Singapore's 'Martyr,' Chee Soon Juan
– By Hugo Restall
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.
In today's Opinion Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Singapore Strikes AgainObama's Judges and the SenateGermany Loves Iran
TODAY'S COLUMNISTS
Declarations: Turbulence Ahead
– By Peggy NoonanPotomac Watch: Hillary of State
– By Kimberley A. Strassel
COMMENTARY
The Weekend Interview: Geert Wilders
– By James TarantoCross Country: What Newcomers Know About Thanksgiving
– By Melanie KirkpatrickThe Krugman Recipe for Depression
– By Amity ShlaesMarketing in the World of the Web
– By Tom Hayes and Michael S. MaloneWho Will Be the No. 1 College Football Team?
– By Allen BarraWe 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.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
The city-state resumes its campaign against the Journal.Article
more in Opinion »Email Printer Friendly Share:
Yahoo Buzz facebook MySpace LinkedIn Digg del.icio.us NewsVine StumbleUpon Mixx Text Size
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.
AP
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.
Background Reading
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Democracy in Singapore (06/26/08)
Response: Letter from Lee Kuan Yew's Press Secretary (06/30/08)Response: Letter from Chee Soon Juan (07/05/08)Response: Second letter from Lee Kuan Yew's Press Secretary (07/16/08)
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Judging Singapore's Judiciary (07/15/08)
Response: Letter from Law Ministry Press Secretary (07/23/08)
THE FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW
Singapore's 'Martyr,' Chee Soon Juan
– By Hugo Restall
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.
In today's Opinion Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Singapore Strikes AgainObama's Judges and the SenateGermany Loves Iran
TODAY'S COLUMNISTS
Declarations: Turbulence Ahead
– By Peggy NoonanPotomac Watch: Hillary of State
– By Kimberley A. Strassel
COMMENTARY
The Weekend Interview: Geert Wilders
– By James TarantoCross Country: What Newcomers Know About Thanksgiving
– By Melanie KirkpatrickThe Krugman Recipe for Depression
– By Amity ShlaesMarketing in the World of the Web
– By Tom Hayes and Michael S. MaloneWho Will Be the No. 1 College Football Team?
– By Allen BarraWe 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.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
