COURT SLAMS DOW JONES FOR CONTEMPT BUT IMPOSES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SINGAPORE 001256

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR EAP/MTS - M. COPPOLA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/26/2018
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KJUS SN
SUBJECT: COURT SLAMS DOW JONES FOR CONTEMPT BUT IMPOSES
NEGLIGIBLE FINE

REF: SINGAPORE 01099

Classified By: DCM Daniel L. Shields for reason 1.4(d).

SUMMARY AND COMMENT
--------------


1. (SBU) Summary. A Singapore judge has fined publisher Dow
Jones over US$16,000 for contempt of court, the largest
contempt fine ever imposed here. The judge also called Dow
Jones a "repeat offender" and ordered the company to pay
Singapore's Attorney-General (AG) nearly US$20,000 in legal
costs. The contempt charges arose from three items published
in the Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA) earlier this year.
The judge adopted the AG's legal arguments with few
exceptions, finding that the publications "clearly possess
the inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of
justice" and rejecting Dow Jones's argument that the AG
should at least have to prove that the publications posed a
"real risk" of harming public confidence in the judiciary.
End summary.


2. (C) Comment. The fine, though reportedly the largest
handed out for contempt in Singapore's legal history, is
surprisingly small. The AG had argued forcefully for a
penalty with true deterrent power, stressing that Dow Jones
had been found in contempt twice before. The court, perhaps
mindful of international opinion, seems to have tried to
split the difference: it gave the AG the legal rulings he
wanted but settled for a fine that poses no real threat to
Dow Jones and is unlikely to deter it from editorializing as
it pleases in the future. Dow Jones probably spent more than
the combined fine and court costs on its own attorneys in the
case. The company's Singapore lawyer, Philip Jeyaretnam
(protect),told PolOff that he was surprised by the low
figure and by the judge's willingness to refuse the AG's
request for at least a six-figure punishment. True
deterrence ) such as defamation damages awards running to
hundreds of thousands of dollars ) is apparently still
reserved for local opposition figures, not for the
international press. End comment.

PREVIOUS CONTEMPT FINES WERE SMALLER, BUT NOT MUCH
-------------- --------------


3. (C) On November 25, Singapore's High Court found Dow
Jones in contempt of court for publishing three items in the
WSJA this past summer questioning the independence of
Singapore's courts from the ruling People's Action Party
government. (See below for details of the publications.) As
punishment, the court ordered Dow Jones to pay a fine of
S$25,000 (approximately US$16,500) and to compensate the AG
for S$30,000 (approximately US$19,900) in court costs.
Singapore courts have slapped Dow Jones with contempt fines
twice before on similar grounds: S$6,000 in 1985, and
S$4,000 in 1991. Until this latest judgment, the largest
contempt penalty on record was reportedly a 1995 fine for
S$10,000 imposed on Christopher Lingle, a U.S. citizen then
teaching at a local university, for publishing a newspaper
article that similarly questioned judicial independence in
Singapore. According to Philip Jeyaretnam (protect),Dow
Jones is still considering its options for responding to the
new ruling. Payment of the fine is due by December 2, but
the company could try to take the case to the Court of
Appeal, Singapore's highest court.

ORDINARY JOURNALISM AS CONTEMPT-OF-COURT FODDER
-------------- --


4. (SBU) The AG based the contempt charges on three WSJA
items that arose from the ongoing legal battles between
high-ranking PAP politicians and opposition party leader Chee
Soon Juan. First, reporting on a defamation lawsuit brought
against Chee by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister
Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, WSJA ran an editorial on June 26, 2008,
criticizing the judiciary's role in "Lee Kuan Yew's
Singapore." The second item was not even written by anyone
at WSJA; on July 9, 2008, WSJA merely printed a letter from
Chee in which he complained that the court in the defamation
case had not allowed him to present a substantive defense,
call witnesses, or cross-examine the plaintiffs. (Note: Chee
essentially defaulted in the defamation case by failing to
offer a timely defense.) The third item was a July 15, 2008,
editorial that highlighted a critical report by the
International Bar Association on the Singapore judiciary's
lack of independence. The court agreed with the AG that all
three of these publications were in contempt of court, even
though WSJA had also published in full replies by Singapore
government officials.

COURT REJECTS NEED FOR EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPT

--------------


5. (SBU) Dow Jones tried unsuccessfully to nudge the court
toward a small modernization of Singapore's law of contempt.
These contempt charges were for "scandalizing the court" )
i.e., for making statements that could undermine public
confidence in the judiciary. Dow Jones argued that even in
jurisdictions where this version of contempt still exists,
courts impose punishment only where the prosecutor shows that
the defendant's statements pose a "real risk" of damaging the
justice system. The judge rejected this test, adhering
instead to Singapore's existing rule that the court can
punish contempt based on a publication's "inherent tendency"
to undermine public confidence, regardless of whether the
government can show that there was a real risk of harm in the
actual circumstances of the case. This ruling is a victory
for the AG, because it leaves him free to continue bringing
contempt cases against critics of Singapore's courts without
have to produce any evidence beyond the publications
themselves.

Visit Embassy Singapore's Classified website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eap/singapore/ind ex.cfm
HERBOLD