Alex Au found guilty of contempt of court over post
Blogger Alex Au Wai Pang’s sentence will be decided at a later date. TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — Blogger Alex Au Wai Pang has been found guilty of contempt of court for one of two articles the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had taken him to court for.
By alleging that hearing dates were manipulated for two challenges against the constitutionality of a law criminalising homosexual acts so that Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon could preside over one of the cases, Au was suggesting judicial partiality, which poses or would pose “a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore”, ruled Justice Belinda Ang.
Au’s second article criticising a court’s dismissal of a gay man’s suit against his former employer for discrimination, however, did not cross the line because he had not insinuated that there was “some sort of systemic bias that had no bearing on the merits of the case”, the judge added in a 65-page judgment released yesterday.
The 61-year-old blogger’s sentence will be decided at a later date, the judge said. As of press time, attempts to reach Au were unsuccessful.
Defence lawyer Peter Low said he will seek Au’s instructions on the implications of the judgment before deciding whether to appeal against the decision.
The AGC had taken court contempt proceedings against Au for the two articles published in October 2013 on his Yawning Bread blog, arguing that they were not fair criticism and risked undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
In the earlier article, Au wrote that the court’s “strange calendaring” had allowed a gay couple’s constitutionality challenge against Section 377A to be heard first although they had launched the bid after a similar contest by Mr Tan Eng Hong, 51, who was caught having oral sex with a man in a public toilet.
Rejecting defence lawyers’ argument that his actions were in good faith and his comments were fair, Justice Ang found that Au had not shown any rational basis for the allegations and/or insinuations in the article.
Au was, instead, suggesting that CJ Menon had a vested interest in upholding Section 377A.
Although she disagreed with the AGC’s argument that Au was accusing the Supreme Court, as a whole, of being biased against homosexuals, the judge said Au’s contentions accuse CJ Menon of being partial on the two challenges, as well as impute impropriety had taken place.
The article, therefore, poses or would pose a real risk of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore and Au is guilty of scandalising contempt here, she said.
In his second article, published a week later, Au criticised a court’s decision to strike out a suit brought by a gay man who claimed he was harassed into resigning because of his sexual orientation.
Although the AGC had argued that these comments, when read collectively with the earlier article, would lead ordinary readers to think the judiciary was biased in relation to cases touching on or pertaining to homosexuality, Justice Ang ruled that Au’s criticism was not that the suit was wrongly thrown out on account of the plaintiff’s sexual orientation.
Rather, his criticism stemmed from his sentiment that the court based its decision on purely contractual arguments rather than considering that sexual orientation was unrelated to the job that he was hired to do.
The judge added: “I ... do not agree that it is tantamount to an attack on the Singapore judiciary’s competence or an allegation of bias on the part of the Singapore judiciary against homosexuals.”
