Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Inc. v Attorney General of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 16 May 1988
• Date: 16 May 1988
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 135 of 1987
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) Inc's Application

[1988] SGHC 41

T S Sinnathuray J

Originating Motion No 135 of 1987

High Court

Administrative Law–Judicial review–Minister declaring foreign newspaper to be “engaging in domestic politics of Singapore” and restricting its circulation in Singapore–Application for certiorari to quash Minister's order–Scope of judicial review–Whether conduct of foreign newspaper amounts to “engaging in domestic politics”–Section 16 Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206, 1985 Rev Ed)

The applicant was the publisher of the Asian Wall Street Journal (“AWSJ”), which had published an article critical of the decision to establish the Stock Exchange of Singapore Dealing and Automated Quotation System (“SESDAQ”) in Singapore. In response to what it viewed as biased and false reporting, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) wrote a letter of complaint to the AWSJ. The AWSJ refused to publish the MAS letter. Subsequently, without any prior notice to the applicant or the AWSJ, the Minister for Communications and Information (“the Minister”) declared the AWSJ to be a foreign newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore under s 16 of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) and restricted its circulation to 400 copies per day. Pursuant to leave granted by the High Court, the applicant applied for orders of certiorari to quash the Minister's order on the grounds that: (a) the Minister had misdirected himself in law; (b) there was a procedural irregularity in that the Minister had not acted fairly; (c) that the Minister's decision was irrational; and (d) the Minister's decision was unreasonable.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) Where a statutory power of the kind found in s 16 of the Act was given to a Minister, it was the duty of the court to leave the decision of that fact to the public body to whom Parliament had entrusted the decision-making power, save in those cases where it could be shown that the decision was perverse. In the context of s 16 (1) of the Act, whether the conduct of a foreign newspaper amounted to “engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore” was a matter solely for the Minister, and not the court, to decide, unless it could be shown that the Minister exercised his power in bad faith or had acted irrationally or unreasonably in the Wednesbury sense (see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1947] 2 All ER 680): at [15].

(2) Any person or body of persons exercising public duties and having legal authority to make decisions affecting the rights of persons was subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. But the scope of the court's power to intervene by way of judicial review was confined to a review of the decision-making process, and not the decision itself. Even the findings of facts on which the decision was reached were generally not within the scope for review: at [20].

(3) The facts showed that in making his decision to declare the AWSJ to be a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, the Minister had considered all the relevant facts and had not taken into account any irrelevant facts. Although the SESDAQ article was per se an act of engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, the Minister had initially given the AWSJ an opportunity to put matters right by publishing the MAS letter. It was only when the AWSJ refused to do so that he made the declaration and restricted its circulation under s 16 of the Act. The Minister's decision-making process was not in any way flawed and his decision could not be impugned: at [41].

Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc, Re [1987] SLR (R) 627; [1987] SLR 505 (refd)

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223; [1947] 2 All ER 680 (folld)

Attorney-General v Zimmerman Fred [1985-1986] SLR (R) 476; [1984-1985] SLR 814 (refd)

Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 (refd)

Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 (refd)

Davis v Johnson [1979] AC 264 (refd)

Earl of Chesterfield v Sir Abraham Janssen (1750) 2 Ves Sen 125; 28 ER 82 (refd)

Leong Kum Fatt v AG [1983-1984] SLR (R) 357; [1984-1985] SLR 367, HC (folld)

Leong Kum Fatt v AG [1985-1986] SLR (R) 165; [1984-1985] SLR 265, CA (folld)

Puhlhofer v Hillingdon London Borough Council [1986] AC 484 (folld)

Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256 (refd)

Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206, 1985Rev Ed)s 16 (consd);s 3 (3)

Newspapers and Printing Presses Act1974 (No 12 of 1974)

Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act1986 (No 22 of 1986)ss 18A (1),18A (4)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 53rr 1, 2

Supreme Court Act 1981 (c 54) (UK)s 31

Louis Blom-Cooper QC and H E Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar) for the applicant

Tan Boon Teik and Jeffrey Chan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

T S Sinnathuray J

1 Pursuant to leave granted by the High Court on 12 August 1987 in Originating Motion No 33 of 1987, the applicants, Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc, the publishers of the Asian Wall Street Journal (hereinafter referred to as “the AWSJ”) move this court in Originating Motion No 135 of 1987 for orders of certiorari to quash: (a) an order declaring the AWSJ to be a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore; and (b) the decision restricting the sale or distribution of the AWSJ in Singapore to 400 copies until further notice made by the Minister for Communications and Information (“the Minister”) on 9 February 1987 under s 18A of the Newspapers and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 1986 (“the 1986 Act”), now s 16 of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap 206) (“the Act”).

2 In the grounds on which relief is sought set out in the statement filed pursuant to O 53 rr 1 and 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the facts are said to be these. The AWSJ on 12 December 1986 published an article under the byline of Mr Stephen Duthie entitled “Singapore Exchange Puzzles Financiers”. That article describes the background to the establishment by the Government of a new stock exchange for small firms known as SESDAQ (the Stock Exchange of Singapore Dealing and Automated Quotation System) and the reaction thereto by some members of the financial and commercial community of Singapore.

3 On 12 December 1986, the editor of theAWSJ received a letter of complaint from the Director of the Banking and Financial Institutions Department of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Mr Koh Beng Seng, in which the latter made allegations of bias and false reporting by Mr Stephen Duthie. Correspondence between the editor of the AWSJ and Mr Koh Beng Seng ensued. The editor declined to publish a letter in the AWSJ so long as it contained a personal and defamatory attack on Mr Duthie.

4 Then, without any prior notice to the applicants or the editor of the AWSJ, the Minister made an order, dated and gazetted on 9 February 1987, declaring the AWSJ“to be a newspaper engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore” under s 18A (1) of the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 1986 and an order restricting the distribution and circulation of copies to 400 per day under s 18A (4) of the said Act.

5 On these facts, it is averred in the statement that the Minister had acted wrongfully in the exercise of his statutory powers in a number of ways: one, that the Minister had misdirected himself in law; two, that there was procedural irregularity in that the Minister had not acted fairly; three, that the Minister's decisions were irrational; and four that they were unreasonable. These are the usual grounds on which an application for judicial review is made in England for relief by way of an order forcertiorari, in the exercise of the jurisdiction given to the High Court in s 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

6 At the hearing of the application last week, Mr Blom-Cooper for the applicants said that the issue for decision was whether the Minister had on 9 February 1987 validly exercised the statutory powers given to him in s 18A of the 1986 Act. He said that the decisions of the Minister were invalid and that they could properly be challenged under O 53 of the Rules of the Supreme Court: see Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc [1987] SLR (R) 627.

7 The submission was made for the applicants that the decisions of the Minister were flawed in five respects. Firstly, it was said that the facts did not exist so as to attract the statutory powers given to the Minister under s 18A of the 1986 Act. The argument was that there was no evidence that the AWSJ had at any time engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. Secondly, if the facts did exist to attract s 18A, the Minister did not properly direct himself in law. Thirdly, the Minister had taken into account irrelevant factors. Fourthly, in arriving at his decision, the Minister was in breach of his duty to act fairly. Fifthly, the Minister had, in any event, acted unreasonably in the sense that that word is used in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] 2 All ER 680. Finally, as regards the restriction of the sale and distribution of the AWSJ in Singapore, it was submitted that the Minister was in breach of the principle of proportionality.

8 On the other hand, the learned Attorney-General submitted that the main issue in this case was whether, on a proper construction of s 18A (1) of the 1986 Act, the decision of the Minister that the AWSJ was engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore, was a subject matter which the High Court, in the exercise of it supervisory jurisdiction, can properly inquire into by way of certiorari. I agree with him.

9 Before I consider the arguments on this issue, it is necessary that I first refer to the relevant legislation. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974 provides for the...