SINGAPORE — The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is investigating a possible case of contempt of court involving a fake news headline that suggested lawyer and People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Edwin Tong had influenced the outcome of the City Harvest Church case.

Mr Tong is the lawyer of church founder Kong Hee, who is among six former leaders convicted and jailed for misappropriation of church funds.

The fake headline was part of a doctored image that resembled the front page of Chinese tabloid Lianhe Wanbao.

Instead of Wanbao’s headline, “Outdated law ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties”, the doctored image stated: “PAP lawyer ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties”.

It was posted at least twice on a public Facebook group with a Chinese name that means “Policy Discussion Forum”.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam disclosed the investigation into contempt of court during his ministerial statement on Tuesday (Feb 5) in Parliament.

He said the Government disagreed with the apex court’s dismissal of prosecutors’ bid to increase the jail terms of Kong and his associates for criminal breach of trust, but respected the court’s decision.

The two posts in the 4,548-member Facebook group, put up last Friday and Saturday, have been shared 23 times.

“(The perpetrators made it) look as if a mass-circulation newspaper had done so, probably to give more credit to the headline…The suggestion from the faked title, is that the PAP MP was responsible for an unfair, unjust outcome. And the courts had let off the defendants lightly because of him,” said Mr Shanmugam, who also responded to MPs’ clarifications.

“AGC’s view is that this is a case of contempt, by scandalising the courts,” he said, adding that perpetrators will be dealt with “in accordance with the law”.

In a statement sent on Monday night. the AGC said it has written to the person who published the posts, Mr Neo Aik Chau. When TODAY checked the group on Monday evening, the posts have already been removed.

"Contempt of court in its various forms harms the proper administration of justice in Singapore," the AGC said. "AGC will take firm action against contempt of court, including institution of committal proceedings in appropriate instances.” 

Earlier in Parliament, Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency MP Gan Thiam Poh had asked what the Government can do about comments from the ground that the court “let off the rich”, or “worse… that it was handled by a lawyer who is also an MP from (the) PAP”.

Mr Tong, a Senior Counsel, had been acting for Kong since the trial began nearly five years ago.

Kong, 53, is currently serving a three-and-a-half year jail sentence, after the High Court reduced the imprisonment terms of all six former church leaders in April last year.

Launching an attack on Mr Tong is part of a “mob mentality to hound the lawyers”, said Mr Shanmugam.

“The fake headline (seeks) to intimidate (lawyers) into not acting in cases which the mob disapproves of. It’s quite shameful…I cannot see how any reasonable person will justify such faking as a legitimate expression of free speech. I have asked the police to take a serious view of those who scandalise the courts,” he said.

Also chiding those who have “abused” or ascribed “improper ulterior motives” to the judges after last Thursday’s verdict, Mr Shanmugam said: “It’s really a clear case of abusing the anonymity of the net…Just because you don’t agree with the judges doesn’t mean you have the right to abuse them and challenge their integrity. People who abuse judges, challenge their integrity, will be prosecuted if a case for contempt can be made out.”

The AGC will consider various factors in assessing whether to prosecute someone for scandalising the courts – such as who made the statements, how seriously they are likely to be taken and how widely they were published and circulated, he added.

Action must be taken so Singapore does not “go down the route (of countries like) the United Kingdom, where the press freely attacks the judiciary”, said Mr Shanmugam.

Stressing that accused persons have the right to engage a lawyer of their choice, Mr Shanmugam said: “Even a child rapist is entitled to his day in court and to be defended. It does not mean that we, or the lawyer defending the person, approves of child rape…Lawyers should not be made to feel that they will be hounded online if they take up cases.”

Mr Shanmugam, also a Senior Counsel, cited his own experience defending the International Herald Tribune (IHT) newspaper in a libel suit in 1995 launched by then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and then-Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He was already a PAP member then.

“By taking on the case, I was simply doing my professional duty… I thought the IHT had a right to counsel of its choice. They were faced, obviously, with particularly formidable plaintiffs and hoped to get counsel of their choice, and so I should help the IHT,” he said.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said at the time that the IHT’s decision to engage Mr Shanmugam had demonstrated “the highest tribute to the integrity of the counsel, and possibly reflected also on the integrity of the Government”, the minister recalled.