ATTORNEY-GENERAL Walter Woon yesterday asked the High Court to impose a 'substantial fine' on the publisher of the Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA) for contempt of court.

This was necessary to send a signal that would stop others from making similar attacks which, if left unchecked, would chip away at the rule of law here as they had in other democracies the WSJA wanted Singapore to emulate, he said.

The Government alleges that three items published in the WSJA in June and July this year attack the integrity and independence of Singapore's courts.

The first is an editorial on Singapore's democracy, arising out of a May hearing to assess damages 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 is a letter by Dr Chee, in reply to a rebuttal of that editorial by MM Lee's press secretary.

The third article is another editorial, on the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute's report on the Singapore judiciary in July.

Together, the articles imply that the courts do not dispense justice fairly in cases involving critics of senior political figures, and that they play a part in suppressing dissent through the award of damages in libel suits, Prof Woon said.

Such an assault on Singapore's judicial independence is part of a long-running argument between segments of the Western press and the Government here over what Singapore's democracy should be like, he added.

It was not the first time the WSJA had attacked Singapore's judiciary, he noted.

In 1985, when the paper was called the Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones and editor Fred Zimmerman were fined $6,000 and $2,000 respectively for a report on the conviction of then-Workers' Party leader J.B. Jeyaretnam.

In 1991, Dow Jones and editor Barry Wain were each fined $4,000 for implying that a judge hearing a libel case was biased towards Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Prof Woon said these were 'derisory fines' that were 'obviously insufficient to deter them', and suggested a more substantial quantum.

In a two-hour speech before Justice Tay Yong Kwang, Prof Woon outlined how laws on contempt were not unique to Singapore, and were necessary to ensure that the public continued to have faith in the courts' fairness.

He lambasted as 'disingenuous and intellectually dishonest' the WSJA's claim that it was just criticising the law of libel in Singapore and had no intention of undermining the judiciary.

He reiterated that there was a right to free speech here, subject to reasonable restrictions like libel, the law of contempt, sedition and public order concerns.

Singapore's leaders were also no different from other politicians in suing to uphold their reputations, he said, citing opposition MP Chiam See Tong who had successfully sued People's Action Party MPs.

Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, acting for Dow Jones, the WSJA publisher, argued in defence that publishing the comments of other people did not mean it endorsed them. He also rejected the notion that the WSJA was campaigning to reform the political system here.

The articles it published were just responding to events which were unfolding in the Singapore courts, he said.

In addition, the WSJA had carried rebuttals from Singapore officials to its editorials in full, he argued.

There was also no real risk of the articles undermining public confidence in the administration of justice here. Readers were still able to make up their minds and would not have been led to shun courts here, he added.

But if the WSJA were found guilty of contempt, Mr Jeyaretnam urged the court to keep the penalty in line with past fines for similar cases.

Previous fines for contempt of court in newspaper cases have been in the thousands of dollars. The highest - $10,000 - was meted out to American academic Christopher Lingle in 1995 for an article published in the International Herald Tribune.

Said Mr Jeyaretnam: 'Anything else would have an unnecessarily chilling effect on speech and is not needed to vindicate the honour and reputation of our courts.'

In response, Prof Woon argued that the articles implied that defamation actions are used as a means to silence the press and the opposition.

'The impression given is that the courts are a part of this,' he said. 'If WSJA is willing to state unequivocally that our courts are independent, that will be a mitigatory factor. They have not said that.'

Justice Tay will deliver his verdict on Nov 25.

Apart from Dow Jones, the Government is also accusing Hong Kong-based editors Daniel Hertzberg and Christine Glancey of contempt. Both have applied to set aside their court summonses. Their applications will be heard at a later date.

zakirh@sph.com.sg

More reports in Singapore

---

GOING TOO FAR

'Those who have not been asleep for 25 years will know there is an ongoing saga between the Western press and the Singapore Government...At the end of the day, we do not want a generational feud with anyone.

'It is not in our interest, neither is it in their interest. We want to get on with building our own society, whatever others think of our system.

'Have they gone too far? Yes. Sniping from undercover, taking potshots at our judiciary...That is not fair...Leave the judges and courts out of it.'

Attorney-General Walter Woon, arguing that the Wall Street Journal Asia has been engaged in a campaign to press its version of democracy on Singapore

LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE

'If my learned friend were to go to an art gallery, he looks at the impressionist paintings and sees splotches of red, blue and green paint...But you must step back and look at the bigger picture and not just the splotches.'

Prof Woon, dismissing Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam's counter-arguments that the WSJA articles could not be construed as contempt of court