By Andrew Loh
The report in the 24 June edition of the Straits Times, titled “Contempt of court: AGC can decide over prosecution”, misses the main points which members of the public have asked.
The AGC, in that report, was responding to questions raised about its treatment of the case involving Lynn Lee.
Lee had published a video of an interview she had done with 2 of the former Chinese SMRT drivers who were part of a group which had gone on strike last November. The two men, in that video, had alleged physical abuse by the police.
The video was posted on Lee’s website Lianain Films in January, while the men’s case for participating in an illegal strike was before the courts.
On 14 June, after its investigations into the assault allegations by the drivers, the AGC chose not to proceed with legal proceedings against Lee.
Instead, it issued a warning letter to her, and declared her guilty of “having committed contempt of court” by publishing the video interview.
“AGC has completed its review of Ms Lee’s conduct and has assessed that Ms Lee’s conduct amounted to contempt of court by creating a real risk of prejudice to the criminal proceedings which were pending then,” the statement by the AGC said. “This form of contempt is known as sub judice contempt.”
In the abovementioned Straits Times report, the AGC explained why it had prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to prosecute Ms Lee, and that in issuing a warning to her “there had been no ‘usurpation of judicial power’ and it had not ‘overreached’”.
The AGC also addressed concerns that “journalistic activities” will be stifled as a result of this.
“The AGC’s determination that Ms Lee has committed contempt of court is not the judgement of the court,” it said. “Similarly, the issuance of a letter of warning does not represent the imposition of any punishment on Ms Lee. This can only be done by our courts.”
The AGC’s clarifications on the various issues, while welcome, are nonetheless not the main concerns of some members of the public.
The issues which the AGC has failed to address are:
1. Can the AGC pronounce or declare someone guilty of an offence without having that person charged for the offence, and for that person to be given the right to defend herself in a court of law?
2. Is it right, whether legally or morally, for the AGC to issue such a judgement to the media and publish it on its website, which then gets reported widely? Would this not be potentially damaging to the person involved, in terms of her reputation, for example? In effect, is this not subjecting her to public perception – coming as the judgement is from the august chambers of the Attorney General – that she is in fact guilty of an offence or a crime, even if she is not charged for it and found guilty by the courts?
3. Given that the AGC itself now says its “determination that Ms Lee has committed contempt of court is not the judgement of the court”, how is it then that the AGC finds it fit to pronounce her guilty and to have this propagated through the media and its website?
4. The AGC, in the Straits Times report mentioned above, does not explain the recourse someone such as Lee has, if she were to defend herself from the charges of the AGC contained in the warning letter. What recourse does any ordinary Singaporean have in such a situation?
5. Why were the drivers allowed to return to China if, as the AGC said, the allegations were serious ones?
Also, the AGC failed to explain how Lee had “crossed the line” while others who had also reported on the then ongoing trial had not. The AGC would only say, “Her actions had the possibility of influencing the decision and affecting fair trial.” How?
Some have also raised the question of why remarks by the Prime Minister and the Law Minister on separate occasions on two different ongoing court cases then – in 2010 and 2013 – do not constitute contempt of court. [See here.]
To the average layperson, it is indeed puzzling why a case such as Lee's is seen to be guilty of contempt of court (according to the AGC) while those of the Prime Minister and Law Minister are not.
It is also worth noting that the veracity of the two former SMRT drivers’ allegations has not been proved to be untrue by the courts as well. It is the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) which conducted an internal investigation into the allegations, found them to be untrue and declared them to be so; and that it was the MHA, together with the Manpower Ministry, which had - in April - issued "a strongly worded statement", "saying civil advocacy groups are exploiting the case 'for their own political purposes' in the 'guise of protecting vulnerable foreign workers'".
There were no independent investigations, or even a detailed explanation of why the MHA found their allegations untrue or unsubstantiated.
“[Just] because the MHA has said the two drivers’ allegations are baseless doesn’t mean people have to believe they are baseless,” writer and activist Alex Au wrote.
“Instead, all we have at the end of this shoddy process is a one-page statement denying that anything went wrong, yet containing within itself clues that both the process of investigation and its outcome statement were little more than a determined exercise in protesting innocence.
“I don’t believe it had been done right. And so long as I have no confidence in that investigation, I can only see it as a travesty of justice to accuse Lynn Lee of contempt of court.”
The way Lynn Lee is treated should concern Singaporeans – and the AGC has many questions to answer.
Otherwise, if the AGC alone can ascertain and then pronounce someone guilty unilaterally – without going through the courts – and to have such a unilateral and opaque judgement propagated through statements to the media and made available to the world on the Internet, then what is the recourse to the average citizen who might be so accused by the AGC?
Can the AGC be, in effect, the judge, jury and executioner, all in one?
Finally, it is worth noting that the AGC had been informed by Lee prior to her posting the videos online, as Lee says in her response to the AGC's warning letter:
"I think it is important to highlight that the AGC was informed about my interviews and about He and Liu’s allegations prior to the posting of my videos. I sent an email on the 27th of January explaining what I had been told and asking for comment. If publication of the clips amounted, in the AGC’s opinion, to sub judice contempt, they could have written then to tell me to refrain from making the material available to the general public. However, they never replied or acknowledged my email."