Everything You Need to Know About The Conclusion of TOC Chief Editor Terry Xu’s Court Case

The Chief Editor of the socio-political site The Online Citizen (TOC), Mr Terry Xu, has been fined $18,000 for contempt of court.

Here’s what led to this verdict.

What Happened

On 27 April 2021, an article titled “Open letter to Singapore’s Chief Justice concerning omissions in ‘Opening of Legal Year 2021’ speech” was published on both TOC’s website and Facebook. 

The article reproduced content from a blog post written by an Australian citizen, Ms Julie Mary O’Connor, which questioned the fairness of Singapore’s justice system while referencing Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s speech at the 26th Goff Lecture on 9 November 2021.

The article mentioned the case of Mr Li Shengwu, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (PM Lee) nephew, who got fined for contempt of court after expressing similar views about Singapore’s court system in a Facebook post. 

Other cases involved Ms Parti Liyani, a domestic worker from overseas who was cleared of theft charges against her ex-employer, and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, who was convicted of professional misconduct in relation to her management of the estate of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

As a result of the article’s publication, Mr Xu was found guilty of contempt of court for allegedly scandalising the judiciary and interfering with ongoing court proceedings.

Why He Was Charged with Contempt of Court

While the article was technically not an original work by TOC, Mr Xu is still held responsible for contempt under the Administration of Justice Protection Act. 

According to the act, a person is held accountable for contempt even if they did not create the material that is deemed to be contemptuous.

Justice Hoo Sheau Peng’s 40-page verdict on 6 April 2023 found that the article questioned the impartiality, propriety, and integrity of the courts by insinuating that they favoured individuals with wealth, power, and influence.

In addition, the article advanced the narrative that Singapore’s judges lacked the courage to seek or establish the truth and that the courts were complicit with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) in politically persecuting certain individuals.

This insinuated that they were deciding cases based on political considerations rather than on their merits.

Consequently, the Attorney-General contended that the article and accompanying Facebook post did not constitute fair criticism and requested that Mr Xu plead guilty to contempt of court and pay an $18,000 fine for publishing the article on both TOC’s website and Facebook.

Unsatisfied with Charges Made Against Him

Mr Xu contended that his constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, as per Article 12(1) of the Constitution, had been violated by the Attorney-General’s decision to prosecute only him without investigating Ms O’Connor. 

However, the court ruled that Mr Xu did not satisfy the legal criteria for demonstrating that the Attorney-General’s actions had resulted in differential treatment for him as compared to another person in a similar position.

The court further explained that Article 12(1)’s principle of equality demands that individuals in comparable circumstances be treated similarly.

Nevertheless, Justice Steven Chong noted in his ruling that Mr Xu’s treatment could not be equated with Ms O’Connor’s treatment because there were distinguishing factors between them.

A key differentiating factor was that Ms O’Connor resides overseas, making it harder for Singaporean authorities to investigate and prosecute her, in contrast to Mr Xu, who is within Singapore’s jurisdiction.

Relevancy of TOC as an Alternative News Platform Increased Mr Xu’s Responsibility in His Crimes

Another differentiating factor was that the publication of the article on TOC’s website and Facebook page was likely to have a greater impact than Ms O’Connor’s publication on her blog. 

The court noted that TOC had a significant audience and reach as an established alternative news platform in Singapore, which gave Ms O’Connor’s allegations wider circulation and greater journalistic legitimacy.

The court also emphasised that the Attorney-General has a duty to act in the public interest and that the difficulty of investigating and prosecuting Ms O’Connor was a relevant factor in assessing that. 

Based on these considerations, the Court of Appeal found the Attorney-General to be justified in pursuing contempt proceedings against Mr Xu, thus rejecting his arguments to stop contempt proceedings against him.

Not the First Time TOC Faced Trouble with the Law 

Mr Xu and his publication have had numerous run-ins with the law, including a defamation suit brought against him by PM Lee over an article published on TOC regarding the Lee family’s home. 

The article repeated accusations made by PM Lee’s sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, and his brother, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, that PM Lee had misled his father regarding the status of their family home. 

PM Lee’s lawyers sought damages of up to $400,000 and an injunction restraining Mr Xu from further disseminating the allegations.

In addition, Mr Xu and his fellow TOC writer, Mr Daniel De Costa, were arrested for a separate charge of criminal defamation for publishing a defamatory article in September 2018.

Mr Xu was found guilty in November 2021 for defaming members of the Singaporean Cabinet by publishing a letter written by Mr De Costa that alleged “corruption at the highest echelons” within the Cabinet. 

Mr Xu was sentenced to three weeks in jail in April 2022, while Mr De Costa received a sentence of three months and three weeks in May of the same year.

Lack of Remorse Shown Solidified His Charges

Despite facing multiple charges for similar offences in the past, Mr Xu appears to have not learned his lesson. In this most recent case of contempt of court, Justice Hoo noted that Mr Xu had “shown a complete lack of remorse for his actions.”

As the Chief Editor of TOC, a website that claims to be “Singapore’s longest-running independent online media platform”, he failed to exercise responsible journalism and instead published unfounded accusations against the courts.

Justice Hoo further emphasised his indifferent attitude, noting that Mr Xu had kept the TOC article and Facebook post up even after receiving a letter of demand from the AGC. Additionally, she noted that Mr Xu’s ultimate decision to remove the article and post was “selective and belated”.

Despite Mr Xu’s assertion that he had no intention of republishing the contemptuous material, Justice Hoo did not accept it, given his behaviour so far.

As a result, the judge ordered him to fully delete the article, including its title and a statement that had replaced the content. 

He was subsequently instructed to pay the fine of $18,000 within a four-week period or face a ten-day imprisonment sentence. Additionally, he was required to pay $12,000 in costs to the Attorney-General.