SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/Asia News Network): Chief editor of sociopolitical website The Online Citizen (TOC) Terry Xu has been fined S$18,000 for contempt of court for reposting an open letter by an Australian citizen who questioned the equity of Singapore’s justice system.
The High Court also ordered Xu to delete the article from TOC’s website, but ruled that the accompanying comments left by readers on the Web page do not have to be removed.
The article had been taken down by Thursday (April 6) afternoon when The Straits Times checked the site.
On Jan 27, 2021, Xu reproduced a letter that Julie O’Connor had posted on her personal blog earlier that day, with a few stylistic edits.
Xu also shared the article on TOC’s Facebook page. The post was removed earlier in 2023.
In a judgment issued on Thursday, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said Xu “failed to practise responsible journalism, and instead proceeded to publish scurrilous allegations against the courts” to influence the opinions of TOC’s readers.
The judge said the article and the Facebook post were “rife with grave allegations levelled against the judiciary”.
Justice Hoo said the article, when read as a whole, suggests to a reasonable reader that the Singapore courts favour those who have money, power or connections with judges; that judges are not selected for their courage to seek or determine the truth; and that the courts decide cases based on political reasons rather than on their merits.
This directly impugns the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and “would necessarily as well as undoubtedly undermine public confidence in the judiciary”, she said.
O’Connor’s open letter was addressed to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and made references to his speech at a ceremony to mark the opening of the 2021 legal year.
O’Connor, a former Singapore permanent resident, referred to several cases from the previous year, such as that of Parti Liyani, a former domestic worker who was acquitted of theft.
She also cited the cases involving Li Shengwu, who was fined for contempt of court, and Lee Suet Fern, who was found guilty of professional misconduct in her handling of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s will.
O’Connor also wrote that a Queen’s Counsel had commented that the court decision in Lee’s case was “legally unsound”.
Between Jan 18, 2021, and March 24, 2021, the TOC article attracted 4,310 page views. The Facebook post, as at June 17, 2021, had received 146 reactions, 31 comments and 44 shares.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) started contempt proceedings against Xu after he refused its demand on June 22, 2021, to remove the article and the Facebook post.
Justice Hoo said Xu showed a complete lack of remorse by keeping the article and the Facebook post up, even after the AGC informed him that the publications contained contemptuous allegations.
She said the reference to “Queen’s Counsel” in the article conjured a false sheen of legitimacy to the allegations.
The Attorney-General had sought a $20,000 fine with 10 days’ jail in lieu of payment. Xu, who was represented by Lim Tean, argued that the fine should be no more than $3,000 with four days’ jail in lieu of payment.
Justice Hoo said a fine of $18,000, with 10 days’ jail in lieu of payment, was appropriate and in line with the precedents.
She cited the cases of blogger and activist Alex Au, who was fined $8,000; activist Jolovan Wham, who was fined $5,000; and Li, who was fined $15,000.
She said Xu’s conduct was more egregious and therefore warranted a higher sentence than these cases.
Under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, those found liable for contempt can be punished with a fine of up to $100,000, a prison term of up to three years, or both.
Xu had earlier failed in his attempt to stop the Attorney-General from continuing with the contempt proceedings against him.
He had argued that prosecuting only him and not even investigating O’Connor was a violation of his constitutional right to equal treatment under the law.
But the Court of Appeal dismissed his bid, saying that Xu‘s treatment cannot be meaningfully compared with that of O’Connor’s as there were differentiating factors between them.
The factors include the fact that O’Connor lives overseas, making it difficult for the Singapore authorities to investigate and prosecute her, and that Xu‘s publication likely gave the allegations much wider circulation than they would otherwise have enjoyed, given TOC’s reach as a news platform.
The Attorney-General was entitled to take these factors into account in deciding to prosecute Xu but not O’Connor, said the apex court.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
