A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY

By Michael S. Serrill.

The defense argued that the article never mentioned Singapore. The prosecution insisted that ``reasonable readers'' would know exactly what the piece was all about. In the end, a Singapore court last week found a U.S. scholar and executives of the International Herald Tribune guilty of contempt for impugning the integrity of the judiciary. Judge Goh Joon Seng imposed a $6,900 fine on economist Christopher Lingle and smaller levies on the newspaper's publisher, its Asia editor, distributor and local printer.

The dispute arose last October, when the Herald Tribune, which is headquartered in Paris and jointly owned by the Washington Post Co., the New York Times Co. and Whitney Communications, published an article by Lingle on its opinion page. Lingle, then a senior fellow in European studies at the National University of Singapore, wrote that ``intolerant regimes in the region reveal considerable ingenuity in their methods of suppressing dissent.'' Among several methods he listed was ``relying upon a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians.'' The statement did not mention any country by name.

Attorney General Chan Sek Keong contended that Lingle was clearly referring to Singapore. At last week's trial, Chan cited cases in which opposition politicians had been sued for libel by government officials and had in some instances been driven into bankruptcy. The article, he said, had to have referred to Singapore.

Michael Richardson, the Herald Tribune's Asia editor, told the court he thought the article referred to China, North Korea and other communist or military regimes. Judge Goh, however, said he had ``no doubt'' that the reference was to Singapore and found the defendants, including Herald Tribune Publisher Richard McClean and a local printer, Singapore Press holdings, guilty of contempt for ``scandalizing the judiciary.''

Lingle was not present to hear the verdict. He resigned from the Singapore fellowship in mid-October after initial questioning by police and returned to the U.S. to seek another academic post. From his home in Atlanta, Lingle last week described the court case as a ``cynical political move.'' He added, ``It seems to me that my commentary could not scandalize Singapore's judiciary.'' He said he hoped to return to Singapore someday, but not until he was satisfied that the climate for individual freedom had improved.

In Attorney General Chan's opinion, the case was never about freedom of speech. ``Lingle sees it as an attempt to intimidate him,'' he said at the trial. ``It is nothing of the kind. He has simply committed contempt of court by alleging the Singapore judiciary is compliant.''

In recent years, Singapore officials have been vigorous in responding to what they considered unfair coverage of the country in foreign newspapers and magazines. In some cases, the government has moved to temporarily limit local circulation of foreign publications, including, at one time or another, those of the Economist, Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review and Time. Some journals have had their circulation curtailed for refusing to print detailed government responses to critical articles about Singapore without editing them.

With reporting by WILLIAM DOWELL/HONG KONG AND STACY PERMAN/NEW YORK