"A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election." - Bill Vaughan
***
S'pore's Attorney-General sues The Wall Street Journal Asia
"Singapore's Attorney General is taking The Wall Street Journal Asia and its editors to court for contempt.
A statement from the A-G's Chambers said that recent publications in the Journal "impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore judiciary."
The relevant articles were two editorials in the newspaper, and the third was a letter by Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan.
They were published in June and July this year.
The A-G's office said that the case was "not about freedom of expression," but "about the Rule of Law," and added that Singapore's courts play a vital role in good governance."
Here we go again!
I hope all parties interested in issuing commentary will not make any statements that might impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore judiciary.
Which means, in essence, that you shouldn't say anything. At all.
I'm just wondering why they aren't taking the International Bar Association's (IBA) Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), the US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, and numerous legal academics and scholars to court as well, since they have certainly impugned the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore judiciary.
After all, our Founding Father has asserted that "if you don't sue, repetition of the lie [makes it credible]. It will be believed".
As such, I hope to see a flurry of lawsuits against these scurrilous individuals and organisations forthwith.
What seems to be the relevant law:
SUBORDINATE COURTS ACT
(CHAPTER 321)
Contempt
8. —(1) The subordinate courts shall have power to punish for contempt of court where the prevcontemptnext is committed —
(a) in the face of the court; or
(b) in connection with any proceedings in the subordinate courts.
(2) Where contempt of court is committed in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), the court may impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or both.
(3) The court may discharge the offender or remit the punishment if the court thinks it just to do so.
(4) In any case where the contempt is punishable as an offence under section 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224), the court may, in lieu of punishing the offender for contempt, refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against the offender.
[Ed: The Penal Code sections don't seem relevant.]