Contempt of court: AGC seeks fine for activist Jolovan Wham, jail time for opposition party member

SINGAPORE — For questioning the independence of judges in Singapore, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) is seeking a fine of S$10,000 to S$15,000 for civil rights activist Jolovan Wham and a custodial jail term of 15 days for senior opposition party member John Tan Liang Joo.

In the High Court on Wednesday (March 20), their lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam asked for smaller sentences: A S$4,000 to S$6,000 fine for Wham, and seven days’ jail for Tan.

High Court judge Woo Bih Li adjourned sentencing to a later date, which has yet to be set.

The pair were found guilty of scandalising the judiciary last year, making them the first to be convicted under new contempt of court laws that came into effect in October 2017.

The AGC had taken action against them over Facebook posts that both had made.

On April 27 last year, Wham wrote on his Facebook page that Malaysia’s judges were more independent than Singapore's when it came to cases with political implications.

The AGC initiated contempt of court action against Wham over the post.

About a week after, on May 6, Tan posted on Facebook that the AGC’s move to prosecute Wham confirmed the truth of what Wham had written.

Justice Woo found that both posts had impugned the impartiality and integrity of Singapore’s judicial system, and posed a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined.

Wham is a social worker with the Community Action Network, while Tan was one of the Singapore Democratic Party’s candidates for Marsiling-Yew Tee Group Representation Constituency in the 2015 General Election. Tan has also held positions such as that of vice-chairman and assistant secretary-general in the party.

THE ARGUMENTS

On Wednesday, State Counsel Senthilkumaran Sabapathy said that an aggravating factor in sentencing for Tan was that he has previously been convicted for contempt of court.

Both the AGC and Tan’s defence agreed that a custodial sentence was warranted because of that.

In 2008, Tan was one of three men who got into trouble for showing up at the High Court wearing T-shirts that depicted a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s robes. A photo of them was also posted online. He was sentenced to 15 days behind bars.

State Counsel Senthilkumaran argued that the pair had a high level of culpability for demonstrating “an utter lack of regard for the authority of courts in general”.

They have so far refused to take down their “offending” Facebook posts as well, he noted, and the posts have been up for almost 11 months now.

Tan has indicated through Mr Thuraisingam that he would take down his Facebook post on Wednesday, but will not apologise.

Wham has said that he will not take his post down until after the appeal for his first conviction has concluded.

Mr Senthilkumaran asked that both men publish a notice of apology and remove the posts in question, as well as for Wham to pay S$8,000 in costs, and Tan to pay S$5,000.

Mr Thuraisingam, who represented both Wham and Tan, asked for a short custodial jail term of seven days instead of a fine for Tan.

This is because Tan cannot be a Member of Parliament — should he win an election — under the Constitution if he has served at least one year behind bars, or is fined at least S$2,000.

Under the new contempt of court laws, the High Court or Court of Appeal can impose a fine of up to S$100,000, and/or a jail term of up to three years for contempt of court.

Last month, Wham was convicted and sentenced to 16 days’ jail in the State Courts for a separate case.

He chose imprisonment over a S$3,200 fine for organising an assembly without a permit in 2016 and refusing to sign a statement he gave to the police on the case.

He also faces another five charges related to two assemblies he allegedly organised. They will be dealt with after the appeal.