- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 8,533
- Points
- 0
i am always amazed with such people who can speak with such conviction even though they know it's not entirely true. why? human is imperfect mah. how can she be sure at every single details if she lived about 10K miles away from SGP for how many decades?
Your editorial "Singapore Strikes Again" (Nov. 29) claims that The Wall Street Journal Asia was sued for engaging in the "most basic kind of journalism." In fact it was cited for contempt because it accused Singapore courts of being biased.
The WSJA published two editorials and a letter making grave accusations against the Singapore judiciary. The courts were alleged to be compliant and a party to the abuse of the court process to suppress legitimate political dissent. A letter to the editor characterized court proceedings as "pitiful and shameful."
Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defense. 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. The judgment can be found at www.singaporelawwatch.sg. You have decided not to appeal. Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts.
Singapore's strong commitment to the rule of law is a major reason for our success. Our laws are clear and are applied equally and fairly. The law of contempt is rooted in the public interest to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in it, which is crucial for the rule of law. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but that freedom is not unlimited. Our laws prohibit the denigration of the judiciary, allow people who have been defamed to sue in court to establish the facts and vindicate their reputations, and also prohibit the fomenting of religious or racial tension.
The fundamental disagreement between Singapore and the Journal (and its sister publications) has been that you want to force Singapore to change its rules to comply with U.S. norms, so that journalists will not be sued even if they denigrate our judiciary or publish false, defamatory articles. This was the basic issue over which The Asian Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review clashed with the Singapore government two decades ago. We allowed these journals to resume circulation after they signaled clearly that they would henceforth abide by Singapore laws. But as shown by your articles, affidavits filed on your behalf in court, and statements made by your counsel, you are now again campaigning for a change in the laws.
Five thousand, five hundred foreign newspapers and journals circulate in Singapore. All do so subject to our laws. They freely carry articles critical of Singapore. Only a handful have ever been sued. We do not fear or stifle criticism of our policies. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the pretense of free speech. Nor do we intend to change laws and norms which have worked for Singapore, and which voters have overwhelmingly supported in successive elections.
Chan Heng Chee
Ambassador of Singapore to the United States
Washington
Your editorial "Singapore Strikes Again" (Nov. 29) claims that The Wall Street Journal Asia was sued for engaging in the "most basic kind of journalism." In fact it was cited for contempt because it accused Singapore courts of being biased.
The WSJA published two editorials and a letter making grave accusations against the Singapore judiciary. The courts were alleged to be compliant and a party to the abuse of the court process to suppress legitimate political dissent. A letter to the editor characterized court proceedings as "pitiful and shameful."
Your allegations were scandalous and you had no plausible defense. 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. The judgment can be found at www.singaporelawwatch.sg. You have decided not to appeal. Yet you now repeat the scandalous charges, knowing that they are in contempt of the Singapore courts.
Singapore's strong commitment to the rule of law is a major reason for our success. Our laws are clear and are applied equally and fairly. The law of contempt is rooted in the public interest to protect the administration of justice and public confidence in it, which is crucial for the rule of law. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but that freedom is not unlimited. Our laws prohibit the denigration of the judiciary, allow people who have been defamed to sue in court to establish the facts and vindicate their reputations, and also prohibit the fomenting of religious or racial tension.
The fundamental disagreement between Singapore and the Journal (and its sister publications) has been that you want to force Singapore to change its rules to comply with U.S. norms, so that journalists will not be sued even if they denigrate our judiciary or publish false, defamatory articles. This was the basic issue over which The Asian Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review clashed with the Singapore government two decades ago. We allowed these journals to resume circulation after they signaled clearly that they would henceforth abide by Singapore laws. But as shown by your articles, affidavits filed on your behalf in court, and statements made by your counsel, you are now again campaigning for a change in the laws.
Five thousand, five hundred foreign newspapers and journals circulate in Singapore. All do so subject to our laws. They freely carry articles critical of Singapore. Only a handful have ever been sued. We do not fear or stifle criticism of our policies. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the pretense of free speech. Nor do we intend to change laws and norms which have worked for Singapore, and which voters have overwhelmingly supported in successive elections.
Chan Heng Chee
Ambassador of Singapore to the United States
Washington
Last edited:
