AG v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan: Freedom of Speech & Contempt of Court

In Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John, the High Court of Singapore heard Originating Summonses Nos 510 and 537 of 2018 on 17 July 2018, with judgment reserved until 9 October 2018. The Attorney-General sought an order of committal for contempt of court against Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016, concerning Facebook posts. The respondents challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it infringed on their right to freedom of speech. The court found the Act constitutional and convicted both respondents for scandalising contempt.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Respondents convicted for scandalising contempt under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.

1.3 Case Type

Constitutional

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court examined whether Facebook posts by Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and Tan Liang Joo John constituted contempt of court, balancing freedom of speech.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Attorney-GeneralApplicantGovernment AgencyJudgment for ApplicantWon
Senthilkumaran Sabapathy of Attorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Ng Yong Kiat of Attorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Francis SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Sheryl Janet George of Attorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Wham Kwok Han JolovanRespondentIndividualConvictedLost
Tan Liang Joo JohnRespondentIndividualConvictedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Senthilkumaran SabapathyAttorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Ng Yong KiatAttorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Francis SCAttorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Sheryl Janet GeorgeAttorney-General’s Chambers (Criminal Justice Division)
Chooi Jing YenEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Suang WijayaEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene Singarajah ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Choo Zheng XiPeter Low & Choo LLC
Priscilla Chia Wen QiPeter Low & Choo LLC

4. Facts

  1. Wham published a Facebook post stating that Malaysia's judges are more independent than Singapore's for cases with political implications.
  2. Tan published a Facebook post stating that the Attorney-General's Chambers charging Wham for scandalising the judiciary confirms what Wham said was true.
  3. Both Wham and Tan published their posts under the 'Public' setting on Facebook.
  4. The Attorney-General commenced actions against Wham and Tan for scandalising contempt under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.
  5. Wham's Facebook post was followed by 7,177 Facebook users.
  6. The Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 came into operation on 1 October 2017.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Attorney-General v Wham Kwok Han Jolovan and another matter, , [2018] SGHC 222

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 enacted
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 came into operation
Wham published a post on his Facebook profile
Attorney-General filed an application for leave to apply for an order of committal against Wham
Tan published a post on his Facebook profile
Attorney-General filed an application for leave to apply for an order of committal against Tan
Applications for leave granted
Summonses filed for Respondents to be punished for scandalising contempt
Parties heard on both summonses and judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Freedom of Speech
    • Outcome: The court held that s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 is consistent with Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Scandalising Contempt
    • Outcome: The court found that Wham and Tan committed scandalising contempt by intentionally publishing posts that impugned the integrity and impartiality of the Singapore courts and posed a risk to public confidence in the administration of justice.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order of committal for contempt of court

9. Cause of Actions

  • Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

  • Constitutional Litigation
  • Criminal Law

11. Industries

  • Law

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Shadrake Alan v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 778SingaporeSeminal case on scandalising contempt at common law; summarized applicable principles for the 'real risk' test.
Au Wai Pang v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2016] 1 SLR 992SingaporeAffirmed the approach to the law on scandalising contempt as set out in Shadrake Alan.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and anotherHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582SingaporeInterpreted Art 14(2) of the Constitution regarding permissible restrictions on freedom of speech.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 52SingaporeAddressed Parliament's power to impose legislative restrictions on freedom of speech.
Attorney-General v Shadrake AlanHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 445SingaporeDiscussed the question of 'real risk' at common law.
AG v Wain Barry J and othersHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 85SingaporeDiscussed the 'inherent tendency' test for scandalising contempt.
Attorney-General v Tan Liang Joo John and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1132SingaporeAddressed the applicable principles for fair criticism.
Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat and another caseUnknownYes[2017] 3 MLJ 561MalaysiaDiscussed the constitutionality of s 40D of the Land Acquisition Act 1960 (Act 486) (M’sia).
Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor and other mattersUnknownYes[2017] 1 SLR 173SingaporeDiscussed the constitutionality of ss 33B(2)(b) and 33B(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed).
YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim v Menteri Dalam Negeri, Malaysia, YB Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar & OrsUnknownYes[2016] 6 MLJ 352MalaysiaConsidered the validity of an arrest and detention made by the police under s 73(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960 (Act 82) (M’sia).
Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525SingaporeConsidered the legality of detention orders made by the Minister of Home Affairs under s 8(1) of the Internal Security Act (Cap 143, 1985 Rev Ed).
Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad v Public ProsecutorUnknownYes[2014] 4 MLJ 157MalaysiaConcerned an organiser who failed to notify the relevant authority of an assembly within the time required under the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (Act 736) (M’sia).

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No 19 of 2016)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Scandalising contempt
  • Freedom of speech
  • Public confidence
  • Judicial independence
  • Facebook post
  • Risk test
  • Fair criticism
  • Integrity
  • Impartiality

15.2 Keywords

  • Contempt of court
  • Freedom of speech
  • Facebook
  • Singapore
  • Administration of Justice (Protection) Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contempt of Court90
Constitutional Law80
Freedom of speech70
Civil Practice30

16. Subjects

  • Constitutional Law
  • Contempt of Court
  • Freedom of Speech
  • Criminal Law