新加坡法庭判罰《亞洲華爾街日報》
新
加坡高等法院作出判決﹐《亞洲華爾街日報》在6月、7月份刊登的幾篇關於新加坡的文章犯有藐視法庭罪。法 院決定對《亞洲華爾街日報》(Wall Street Journal Asia)的出版商道瓊斯亞洲出版公司（Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia)）處以2.5萬新加坡元（合16,573美元）罰款﹐這是新加坡類似案件中所判的最高罰金。道瓊斯亞洲出版公司隸屬於新聞集團(News Corp.)旗下的道瓊斯公司(Dow Jones & Co.)。
這起案件涉及兩篇社論和一封讀者來信。新加坡總檢察長稱﹐這幾篇文章攻擊新加坡司法部門的正直、公正和獨立﹐犯有“誣蔑法庭”罪。
審理此案的法官鄭永光在裁決書中稱﹐《亞洲華爾街日報》刊登的這幾篇文章影射新加坡司法系統“帶有偏見﹐缺乏公正和獨立性”。
道 瓊斯公司對上述判決表示遺憾。公司發言人稱﹐道瓊斯對新加坡高等法院的判決感到極為遺憾﹐公司強烈反對法院對涉案文章犯有藐視法庭罪的分析結論。此外﹐ 《亞洲華爾街日報》也沒有像新加坡總檢察長所指控的那樣參與任何對抗新加坡司法系統的“活動”。公司將繼續捍衛《亞洲華爾街日報》報導並評論包括新加坡在 內的國際重大事件的自由。
涉案的社論中﹐第一篇的標題為《新加坡的民主》。這篇文章涉及新加坡法院在評估新加坡民主黨 （Singapore Democrats Party）領袖徐順全和徐淑貞兄妹誹謗案賠償金時﹐雙方在法庭上的言語交鋒。2006年﹐徐順全和徐淑貞在內閣資政李光耀和他的兒子－－新加坡總理李顯 龍訴他們兄妹的官司中敗訴。法院判定﹐徐家兄妹在黨內通訊中刊登的內容影射政府腐敗。
新 加坡總檢察長還對《亞洲華爾街日報》刊登的一封徐順全致編輯的信和另一篇社論提出了指控。那篇社論引用了國際律師協會人權研究會 (International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute)一篇關於新加坡“人權、民主和法制”的報告內容。
法官鄭永光在宣判時稱﹐之所以判以比類似案件更高的罰金﹐既因為這次的文章﹐也因為它曾在1985和1989年兩次藐視法庭的事例。
9月份﹐道瓊斯的另一份出版物《遠東經濟評論》(The Far Eastern Economic Review)被判定在一篇有關徐順全的文章中誹謗李光耀父子。
法院在判決中稱﹐藐視法庭罪的判決標準﹐是看其是否具有干擾司法部門的“內在傾向”。而在做出處罰決定時﹐則借鑒了其他習慣法國家的標準﹐即看是否存在司法部門公信力已被削弱的真正風險。
Singapore Court Fines Wall Street Journal
Singapore's High Court found The Wall Street Journal Asia in contempt of court for commentary it published about the city-state in June and July.
The court fined Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia), a subsidiary of News Corp.'s Dow Jones & Co. unit and publisher of The Wall Street Journal's Asian edition, 25,000 Singapore dollars (US$16,573) -- the highest amount ever levied for such a case in Singapore.
The ruling related to two editorials and a letter to the editor that the attorney general said were guilty of 'scandalizing the court' by impugning the integrity, impartiality and independence of Singapore's courts.
The published items 'contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence' on the part of Singapore's judiciary, wrote Judge Tay Yong Kwang in the ruling.
Dow Jones expressed disappointment with the decision. 'Dow Jones is extremely disappointed with the ruling of the High Court and strongly disagrees with the court's analysis that the editorials and letter to the editor constitute contempt of court,' a Dow Jones spokesman said Tuesday. 'Also, contrary to what the attorney general has alleged, The Wall Street Journal Asia has not engaged in a 'campaign' of any sort against the Singapore judiciary. We will in the future continue to defend the right of The Wall Street Journal Asia to report and comment on matters of international importance, including matters concerning Singapore.'
The first of the editorials, titled 'Democracy in Singapore,' concerned comments made in a Singapore court as damages were being assessed against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the two lost a defamation suit brought by Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article the Chees published in their party newsletter that the court said implied corruption on the part of the government.
The Singapore attorney general also complained about a letter to the editor written by Mr. Chee and a Journal editorial that cited a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute on 'human rights, democracy and the rule of law' in Singapore.
In his ruling, Judge Tay said a higher fine was being levied than in other similar cases both because of the company's immediate conduct and because of previous instances of contempt, in 1985 and 1989.
Another Dow Jones publication, The Far Eastern Economic Review, was in September held to have defamed the elder Mr. Lee and his son, the prime minister, in relation to an article concerning Mr. Chee.
The court's ruling stated that the test for determining contempt of court is whether there is an 'inherent tendency' to interfere with the administration of justice. The test used in some other common-law countries -- whether there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice has been impaired -- was relevant in determining the punishment, the Singapore court found.
The court fined Dow Jones Publishing Co. (Asia), a subsidiary of News Corp.'s Dow Jones & Co. unit and publisher of The Wall Street Journal's Asian edition, 25,000 Singapore dollars (US$16,573) -- the highest amount ever levied for such a case in Singapore.
The ruling related to two editorials and a letter to the editor that the attorney general said were guilty of 'scandalizing the court' by impugning the integrity, impartiality and independence of Singapore's courts.
The published items 'contained insinuations of bias, lack of impartiality and lack of independence' on the part of Singapore's judiciary, wrote Judge Tay Yong Kwang in the ruling.
Dow Jones expressed disappointment with the decision. 'Dow Jones is extremely disappointed with the ruling of the High Court and strongly disagrees with the court's analysis that the editorials and letter to the editor constitute contempt of court,' a Dow Jones spokesman said Tuesday. 'Also, contrary to what the attorney general has alleged, The Wall Street Journal Asia has not engaged in a 'campaign' of any sort against the Singapore judiciary. We will in the future continue to defend the right of The Wall Street Journal Asia to report and comment on matters of international importance, including matters concerning Singapore.'
The first of the editorials, titled 'Democracy in Singapore,' concerned comments made in a Singapore court as damages were being assessed against Chee Soon Juan, head of the Singapore Democratic Party, and his sister and colleague, Chee Siok Chin. In 2006, the two lost a defamation suit brought by Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an article the Chees published in their party newsletter that the court said implied corruption on the part of the government.
The Singapore attorney general also complained about a letter to the editor written by Mr. Chee and a Journal editorial that cited a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute on 'human rights, democracy and the rule of law' in Singapore.
In his ruling, Judge Tay said a higher fine was being levied than in other similar cases both because of the company's immediate conduct and because of previous instances of contempt, in 1985 and 1989.
Another Dow Jones publication, The Far Eastern Economic Review, was in September held to have defamed the elder Mr. Lee and his son, the prime minister, in relation to an article concerning Mr. Chee.
The court's ruling stated that the test for determining contempt of court is whether there is an 'inherent tendency' to interfere with the administration of justice. The test used in some other common-law countries -- whether there is a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice has been impaired -- was relevant in determining the punishment, the Singapore court found.
沒有留言:
張貼留言