Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Supporters of Yawning Bread blogger speak out over court action

SINGAPORE — Nearly 170 individuals, including civil activists and academics, have issued a joint statement expressing concern that permission has been granted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to take contempt of court action against blogger Alex Au over one of his posts published on his blog Yawning Bread.

SINGAPORE — Nearly 170 individuals, including civil activists and academics, have issued a joint statement expressing concern that permission has been granted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to take contempt of court action against blogger Alex Au over one of his posts published on his blog Yawning Bread.

Among them are former Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, academic Cherian George, Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics Director Jolovan Wham, MARUAH President Braema Mathi, actor Lim Kay Siu, film-maker Ken Kwek and former Singapore Democratic Party member Vincent Wijeysingha.

“The right of free expression is enshrined in Article 14 of our Constitution. We believe that robust public debate is necessary for national progress. The AGC’s action, however, reflects an overzealous desire to police public opinion,” they wrote.

“If Mr Au had erred, then his claims should be rebutted in public. This would enable Singaporeans to make up their own minds.”

The AGC was this week given permission by the High Court to proceed with contempt of court action on one of Mr Au’s blog posts — 377 Wheels Come Off Supreme Court’s Best-Laid Plans — published on Oct 5. It has 14 days to file an application with the court for what is known as an order of committal. Thereafter, court papers will be served on Mr Au and a hearing date will be scheduled.

The statement said: “We agree that it is important to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. However, this cannot mean that our judges should not be subject to scrutiny.”

By going ahead with the action, the AGC could weaken public confidence, it said. “It also implies that the public is not allowed to form opinions on judicial processes.”

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.