COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FIFTH REPORT)

Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I call upon the Leader of the House to move the motion, I would like to inform hon. Members that Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, had instructed the Clerk of Parliament to write to members of the Executive Council of the Workers' Party pointing out to them that as publisher of "The Hammer" each and every one of them is jointly and severally liable for the article headlined "Jeya denied fair hearing" which appeared in the January/February 1987 issue of "The Hammer".

They were also asked whether they had anything to add to the submission signed on their behalf by their Chairman and their Secretary-General. Their replies are before hon. Members. (Cols. 1317 - 1326) Members - Letters from Workers' Party Executive Council Members (Cols. 1317 - 1326)

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fifth Report contained in Paper Parl. 9 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Parliament impose on the Editor of "The Hammer", Mr J B Jeyaretnam, a fine of $10,000;

(2) that Parliament impose on the Publisher of "The Hammer", the Workers' Party Executive Council, a fine of $5,000; and

(3) that the Printer of "The Hammer", Mr Teo Sing Lim, be reprimanded and warned by the Speaker in writing.

Sir, this House was informed by Mr Speaker on 18th March 1987 that he had received a letter from Mr Dhanabalan complaining about an article appearing in "The Hammer" of January/February 1987 with the heading "Committee of Privilege Hearing/Jeya denied fair hearing". Having been satisfied that the complaint prima facie affected the privileges of Parliament, the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee have now submitted their report to this House.

The article in question was written by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam who is also the Editor of "The Hammer". The Publisher of "The Hammer" is the Central Executive Council of the Workers' Party and the publication is printed by G.T. Printing and Trading (Pte) Ltd whose managing director is Mr Teo Sing Lim.

The Committee found that the article and its headline is a gross distortion of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. The headline of the article, "Jeya denied fair hearing", clearly conveyed a biased and perverted impression of the Committee's proceedings.

There is no question that Mr Jeyaretnam had been given more than ample opportunity to question the witnesses. His failure to derive satisfaction from the proceedings was due to his own inability to produce evidence that there was executive interference in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. Despite repeated goading by Mr Barker and the Chairman to ask three specific questions of the Prime Minister, Mr Jeyaretnam failed to do so. There is no doubt that when the Committee closed on 12th September 1986 the Chairman had ruled that that part of the proceedings was concluded which meant that the cross-examination of the Prime Minister had ended.

The Committee, in its Second Report, had already expressed the view that false reporting of proceedings of Parliament and its Committees will be regarded as contempt of Parliament. The principles laid down in that report are equally applicable in this instance. While any reports of the proceedings of the Committee or of Parliament may not be verbatim reports, any published accounts of the Committee's proceedings must not be false, perverted or biased.

The Committee found that the article did not present a fair, truthful and balanced reporting of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. The article in question also contained serious omissions and distortions calculated to give readers a false impression of what really took place. It is irresponsible reporting and without regard for the dignity and decorum of the Committee of Privileges. Parliament cannot allow unjustified and inaccurate accounts of its proceedings or of its Committees. The Committee therefore found the Editor, Mr Jeyaretnam, and the Publisher, the Workers' Party Executive Council, and the Printer guilty of contempt of Parliament.

This is the second time that Mr Jeyaretnam had written articles in contempt of Parliament and of its Committees. Just barely a few months ago, he was fined by this Parliament $5,000 each for writing and publishing five newsletters which distorted the proceedings of the Privileges Committee. For this second contempt for a similar offence, the Committee recommend that he be fined $10,000.

The Workers' Party Executive Council should also be severely punished as they know or ought to know that the Committee take a serious view of contempt of their proceedings. As Publisher, the Workers' Party Executive Council members are jointly and severally liable for the action of its Editor. The Committee recommend that the Publisher be fined $5,000.

As for the Printer, Mr Teo Sing Lim, the Committee are of the view that he can print anything for anybody, including opposition parties. However, he is liable for what he prints. He should ensure that his action does not violate any law, including the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. The Committee are satisfied, however, that he did not intend to commit contempt of Parliament and that he had deeply apologized for his error. Taking into account his unreserved apologies and the fact that this is his first offence, the Committee recommend that he be reprimanded and warned by the Speaker in writing.

Sir, I urge this House to accept the recommendations of the Committee.

Question proposed.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we read a piece of news or an article, the most important thing that catches our eye is its caption or heading. About this article, the heading is "Committee of Privilege hearing/Jeya denied fair hearing". I am of the opinion that any reader when reading this kind of big character caption would not have mistaken the real meaning the caption intended to convey as the meaning of the caption is very clear and direct. Any reader after reading this caption would have a clear impression that the Committee of Privileges had not given Mr Jeyaretnam a fair hearing. This kind of heading, to Parliament and to the Privileges Committee, is a kind of attack. If this attack were based on facts or through evidence, then we could say that the Privileges Committee and even the Parliament itself would then lose its honour, image and credibility because it had not been able to deal with the matters like this fairly. Then it would lose the confidence of the people. If Parliament lost the confidence of the people then the foundation of democracy would be shaken. Therefore, any attack or allegation against Parliament or its Committees should be regarded as a serious matter to be dealt with with all seriousness in order to find out the facts and truth of the matter so as to ensure the confidence of the people on the Parliament.

If there is no truth or factual ground to the attack or allegation or if it is a distortion of facts then it would become a malicious attack or slander causing harm and damages. Then the matter should be pursued and dealt with with all seriousness. When a person has attacked or inflicted such harm to another person he can say that it was done unintentionally. Mr Jeyaretnam was trying to make use of this argument as defence to justify himself and his party organ. His reason given was that the heading to this article should be in inverted commas, namely, it was quoted from him but in the printing process the quotation marks were omitted; so that was a mistake unintentionally done and not on any purpose. This argument is hard to accept, just as the Fifth Report of the Privileges Committee has pointed out that the typesetting, laying out and headlining, etc were done by the Editor and the publishers concerned, and not by the Printer. So people could not believe that it was done inadvertently or unintentionally by a lawyer who is also the leader of a political party. In fact, whether there was quotation or no quotation, the heading or caption would give a wrong image or message to the readers that Parliament or the Privileges Committee has been unfair. Other than the heading of this article, there are also other imbalanced and untruthful reports in the article. The Report has clearly enumerated them in detail. Therefore, I would not like to repeat here.

Even though the Editor and Publisher argued in their defence about the omission of the inverted commas, they still did not admit the intention to express contempt of Parliament or the Privileges Committee. In other words they did not express remorse. Mr J B Jeyaretnam himself even insisted by his argument that he had not been given a fair hearing by the Committee, against all evidence to the contrary. Mr Jeyaretnam himself was not only given ample opportunity to question the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and other witnesses but also had ample time to give his concluding arguments. Therefore, to sum up, Mr Jeyaretnam's claim and allegation that he was not given a fair hearing is entirely without factual foundation. Therefore, this constitutes an act of smirching and contempt of Parliament.

Sir, we should stress that the dignity, integrity and the credibility of Parliament should not be allowed to be smirched and tarnished. If anybody should commit the act of contempt or smearing the image and credibility of Parliament, then such a person should be punished. It would be an inexcusable action, if it is done knowingly and deliberately. What should be pointed out is that it is not the first time that Mr Jeyaretnam had committed this kind of contempt or smirching of Parliament. It is a second time and repeated action. He repeatedly committed contempt of Parliament. What is his motive? Some people could say that his intention has been too obvious to mention. He has repeated records of contempt of Parliament. Therefore, on this occasion, the punishment on him should be re-doubled. So I agree to the recommendation of the Privileges Committee to impose on him a sum of $10,000; in other words double the sum of $5,000 last imposed on him.

I remember that this year on 27th January when we were debating on the Second Report of the Privileges Committee, the Member for Potong Pasir had argued that the fine imposed on the former MP by the Privileges Committee was too high. On every count, the fine was $5,000. Added together, it would be $25,000, a very heavy fine; too punitive a deterrent. And at that time he also argued that Mr Jeyaretnam was no longer in Parliament so he could not imagine that Mr Jeyaretnam could commit the same act again. But, unfortunately, his judgment has now been proved to be wrong. Anyway, the question now is, on this occasion, would the Member for Potong Pasir again think the $10,000 fine recommended by the Privileges Committee too heavy, or would he give a comparison that is the same as the one used by him at one of the last Parliament sittings, that is, using a big hammer to kill a fly?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Most of the speakers on these matters concerning the Committee of Privileges do not seem to go into the issues. They go on a rambling speech, talking about smearing. I wonder where does the Member for Braddell Heights get his evidence from in regard to the former Member for Anson about smearing Parliament. We are here to see whether or not he is guilty of gross distortion and of false and perverted reporting. They do not seem to go to the main issues but go off the tangent and hit at a person who is not present and is unable to defend himself. If we are here setting this kind of a standard, I think it is not going to speak very well for Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was shown copies of these letters received from several of these members of the Executive Committee of the Workers' Party. I notice that three of them - Mr Chiang Seok Keong, Seow Yong Chew and Madam Wee Kia Eng - have tendered their apologies unreservedly. So they are on par with the printer, Mr Teo. Their status as regards this particular item that was printed in The Hammer is exactly the same as that of the printer. So if this House agrees with the Report of the Select Committee which I am dissenting (and I am sure they will), then these three members of the Council should suffer the same penalty as Mr Teo, just a reprimand, because they have no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of that article. They do not read English. Probably they did not even know it was published, and they are completely innocent. The reason why they were put in together with the other members of the Central Committee as publishers was, as it is given in the Report, that they have not tendered their apology unreservedly. They have done that now. There is a new situation, a new circumstance has arisen. Therefore, I would urge this House that they should be treated on the same standing as the printer, Mr Teo. If you treat them otherwise, I think it would be very unfair to them. There will be an injustice perpetrated because they have done exactly what Mr Teo has done - apologize unreservedly, in print. We have got it here in the House and also they are completely innocent parties. They had no knowledge of the article. They had not been informed. It was done very quickly and I think they are even in a better position than the printer because the printer knew that that article had been printed but these three Central Executive Committee members did not even know that that article was printed at that point of time. Therefore, I think this House should treat them on the same standing as the printer, Mr Teo.

We have in this House convicted Mr Jeyaretnam of making allegedly false reports and found him guilty. Probably he will be found guilty again. Now, we are going to set a precedent for all newspapers - I would say they have to publish almost verbatim reports. Because you will note that, in the second charge, he was guilty mainly of omissions. It will have omissions because if you look at the article - and I roughly estimate the number of words in that article is about 550 - I think newspaper publishers and editors in this House would know that for a whole day's hearing comprising probably a few thousand words, you cannot have everything in one article alone. There will be omissions, and he has said so. Mr Jeyaretnam has said so. It is not a verbatim report.

The other thing is this: has he committed a gross distortion? The definition of "gross", according to Mr Jeyaretnam, is a completely wrong picture of the proceedings on that day. It is the same. "Gross" means the whole. The whole thing is wrong. The whole report is wrong. Can you find that of this article in the January/February issue of this Hammer? Can you say that - that it was completely wrong? If this House can say that, then he is guilty. If you cannot say that, he should not be found guilty. He should be let off. So you are going after him just because of one headline. That is all. Just because he published one headline, "Jeya denied fair hearing", all right, he is guilty. But what about the other contents in the article? Nothing was mentioned. It should be brought and read together with the headline. You cannot just see the headline alone. I think any reasonable person would want to read what is in that article and not just read the headline alone. You cannot convict a person just because he has published a headline that was misleading. You have to look at the article as a whole. And there will be omissions. He was being hauled up to the Committee of Privileges because he had left out certain things. And Mr Jeyaretnam has said so - this report of his comprised only of one day's proceedings, 18th December. It does not include the whole proceedings, the other four days of the proceedings were not included in that report. And he has said so. So how can you find him guilty?

I would urge Members not just to vote blindly but know exactly what they are voting. I am afraid under the PAP-type of voting, everybody just votes according to what he has been told to do. If we can have a show of hands, how many of you have read all this and know exactly what the issues are, before you commit this man to pay huge sums of money. I think you must have conscience because this is something which a man will suffer and I do not know how the Committee arrived at such a big sum of money.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Were you not there?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I objected to it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: But you know.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What can I do? Whenever I agree, they say, "Let's take a vote." And I will be outvoted, one to seven, every time, without fail. Almost it is a mechanical thing.

Mr Dhanabalan: You do not agree. But it does not mean you do not know.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But I did say that there should be reasoning, the facts should be brought out and properly argued before a decision is made. We should not just vote and see who has got more votes and get the thing or whatever is required passed for the day. We are dealing with a serious matter and I think it should be dwelled on at length before we make a decision.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge this House to look at it rationally and see whether or not it is a gross distortion, to see whether or not it is a false and perverted reporting of the Committee's proceedings, which again is misleading because this report is only for one day and it is not for the whole of the Committee's proceedings. I think this should be explained to all of you. So for an article which is about 500-odd words, you are saying that he has committed gross distortion. Can he really do that with a small article just like that? I think if you look at it, probably all of you should vote that he is not guilty and he should not pay any of the fine at all.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe the hon. Member for Potong Pasir in his opening remarks accused me of smearing. Can he repeat the exact words?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, would you like to respond?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I believe the Member for Braddell Heights did use the word "smear" - I have got it in my notes here - of Mr Jeyaretnam's article. That is what he is saying. But there is no such thing in the report. What we are asked to find is not a question of smear. What we are asked to find is whether or not there is gross distortion, whether or not there is false, perverted or even a biased report. That is what we are in this House for. So I hope the Member for Braddell Heights will be more exact in his words.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: Please repeat whatever I said.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the article in question read in its entirety, paying attention to the headline, is indeed a gross distortion of the proceedings of Parliament. But before I go on to say a few words to support the findings of the Committee of Privileges, can I just take a few minutes to demolish the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, although I do not enjoy doing it because ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: By all means go ahead.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: --- he is not a very strong debater. You cannot compare Mr Teo Sing Lim, the printer of the Hammer, with three miserable members of the Workers' Party Council for a start. The point is that the Workers' Party Council is guilty of contempt and the Workers' Party Council is represented by Mr Jeyaretnam who holds the permit. And his co-editor, if the Member for Potong Pasir can remember in the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges, is Mr Wong Hong Toy. We are holding all these members jointly, severally responsible for that misleading article in the Hammer.

The Member for Potong Pasir says you cannot represent everything in 500 words. We are not saying that at all. What we are saying is that whether it is one word, one sentence or a voluminous book, the point is that there was a distortion of the truth. In fact, I would say Mr Jeyaretnam very concisely distorted the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. "And can you say", he asked, "that Mr Jeyaretnam is completely wrong in that little short article in the Hammer?" As I said, read in its entirety, the whole article is distorted. And if distortion is not wrong, then what is wrong?

"He doesn't know", says the Member for Potong Pasir, "how the Committee arrived at that huge sum of money." And claimed that he was there but they all did it by vote. We did it by vote because the Member for Potong Pasir agreed that the Workers' Party Council together with Mr Jeyaretnam were guilty. He said, "They are liable", if I can remember his words. "They are liable. There is no doubt about the fact that they are liable." That is what he said. And then he went on, to use what the Chinese would say, tau chia huan chia. We are not there to bargain on fines. We already knew that earlier on in the 2nd Report if I can remember that a fine of $5,000 was already approved by Parliament for each letter that Mr Jeyaretnam issued to his constituents. Here is a second offence. So it is very easy to set the quantum of fine.

Why should we not do it by vote? Because if we do not do it by vote, we will be sitting in the Committee meeting just talking about $1, $2, a huge sum, whether it is deterrent enough and so on and so forth. I will establish later on that there must be some deterrence in the fines for such offences.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will now just take a few minutes to persuade my fellow Members of Parliament to support the Report of the Committee of Privileges. First, I think we have to accept that Mr Jeyaretnam, the ex-MP for Anson, many times in this House maintained that Parliament is the highest court of the land. And I think the Member for Potong Pasir also has in this House maintained that Parliament is the highest court of the land. If Parliament is the highest court of the land, then surely it does not need a senior lawyer to also accept that there must be honour, there must be respect, there must be decorum, accorded to such a supreme institution such as this Parliament.

Furthermore, it is very surprising though but may be not to Mr Jeyaretnam, but Mr Jeyaretnam should realize that it is downright despicable to represent the proceedings of Parliament through devious writings and speeches. Yet he goes on dishonouring Parliament, he goes on disrespecting Parliament, that very institution that he refers to as the highest court of the land, for whatever reason I do not know.

What is appallingly unbelievable is the fact that only last year he attempted to discredit Parliament and only at the beginning of this year he was fined. He was fined $5,000 for every letter that he issued to his constituents. Yet he was not deterred. He and his Workers' Party Council published the January/February '87 issue of the Hammer and in one of the articles he designed again to mislead Singaporeans on the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. If that is not shocking, I do not know what is shocking.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I really cannot understand Mr Jeyaretnam. The Government has given him ample opportunities. In fact, the Government has in a way gone through all the trouble, even moving heaven and earth, so to say, simply to give him those opportunities, the time, to justify his accusations against the Government. Various witnesses were called to the inquiry. The Attorney-General attended. As regards the Chief Justice, I was told by my friends that no country in the world, in fact, if there ever were countries it must be very few, where the Chief Justice could be produced for an ordinary Member of Parliament to quiz. He graciously appeared. The Prime Minister and I am sure we all can recall that Mr Jeyaretnam did not have the Prime Minister in his list of people he wanted to call up. It was the Prime Minister who magnanimously volunteered to go into the witness box for Mr Jeyaretnam to quiz. Ample time was given to him, ample opportunities were given to him. What did Mr Jeyaretnam achieve? Just one result. He wasted everybody's time. What he did not achieve is that he did not make out a case. He did not prove his accusations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, despite all the opportunities given to him, all the time given to him, despite the fact that he had only been punished recently, he persisted to mislead Singaporeans. Sir, the Fifth Report of the Committee of Privileges has made it patently clear that Mr Jeyaretname is non-repentant and will not be repentant at all. And for this reason, I would urge Members of this House to disregard what the Member for Potong Pasir has said and to support the Fifth Report of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to clarify what the Member for Mountbatten has said? If we get his speech and publish outside, I think a complaint will be made against him. Because he has omitted many of the things that I said. He only quoted what I said, "They are liable. There is no doubt about that." This is at page 8 of the verbatim report. But if you go down the line, I did also say things which he failed to quote and it should be a subject of complaint. He has left out many of the things which I said and he did not quote. I think he should also be the subject of a complaint by the standards that we are setting today. [Interruption] Of course, I said:

'If you look at his defence, he has a complete defence. We haven't gone into the law. He has discussed about the law.'

I said:

'But the law is that there can never be any contempt if it is an open hearing.'

This is what Mr Jeyaretnam said. He said, "If it is an open hearing, there can never be a contempt."

I said:

'We have to find him guilty in the terms referred to us by Parliament.'

I said:

'He is not guilty. He has got a good defence, in my opinion.'

I quote:

' Mr Wong Kan Seng: We have agreed to $5,000.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I disagree with that.'

Do you want me to go any further? I said a lot of things which are recorded in the verbatim report. Why do you not bother to quote all these other things that I said?

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not normally like to waste time but because I have now been accused, then of course I have to defend myself. Yes, I am looking at page 8 of the verbatim report. Mr Chiam See Tong said:

'They are liable. There is no doubt about that. I think on that point we all agree.'

I cannot read it and understand it in any other way. If Mr Chiam says that he has got a case, let us go back again. They all agreed. We went on to the stage where we were talking about how much fine to impose. It is a different thing altogether. The Committee proceeded. We went on to talk about ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Turn to page 9.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: We went on to talk about the quantum of fine to impose. And, of course, he would try to tau chia huan chia, trying to reduce the fine. So he said Mr Jeyaretnam had a good case. And he forgot now to quote or at least refer to Mr Barker who said that the quotation from Erskine May which Mr Jeyaretnam submitted was irrelevant. And that is why I did not bother to quote it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Turn to page 9, page 10 and the rest.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think one point I would like to make quite clear to the Members here as well as to those who are going to sit in future Committee of Privileges is that when we sit as Members of the Committee of Privileges, we are there to do a job. There is a duty for us to make sure that the standards of parliamentary conduct are not abused. That is why we are there in the Committee of Privileges. We are not there to represent a particular party, PAP, SDP or whatever. We are there to ensure that Parliament must have the highest standard of conduct. Then we can make the parliamentary system work, then we can be proud representatives of the people.

Earlier on I referred to the curious arguments of Mr Chiam. I do not want to belabour the point, but I cannot avoid saying that when he tried to plead for the three so-called ignorant, illiterate and innocent members of the Executive Council of the Workers' Party, he was actually saying that the Workers' Party Executive Council comprised a group of stupid people. I hope they are not. I hope they are, like the People's Action Party Executive Council, Executive Committee, comprised people who know what they are doing. Similarly with the SDP. But it is not my job to warn these people or to tell them what they should do. When they applied for the permit to print "The Hammer" they signed the application which clearly states that they are "jointly and severally liable together with the principal applicant". That is what they have committed to do. Therefore, they cannot subsequently say, "Oh, I am sorry, I do not know all these things. I am not responsible." But at least they have the courage to say they accept the decision collectively. They accept collective responsibility.

I must also say that it is with the Speaker's indulgence and his kindness that the Clerk of Parliament wrote to the remaining members of the Executive Council. There is no need for Mr Speaker to do that because earlier on on 10th April Mr Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Executive Council stated very clearly that he together with his Chairman, Mr Wong Hong Toy, would appear on behalf of the Executive Council. In other words, they, Mr Wong Hong Toy and Mr Jeyaretnam, represented that group. Whether they internally discussed what was to be brought up at the Committee of Privileges or not, that is the internal workings of the Workers' Party which I have no business to interfere. But I would assume that they would have done so. If they did not and they just went on and represented the whole Executive Council without consulting them, then of course they would form their own conclusions.

Surely Mr Jeyaretnam is not the last word in the law when he defined what is "gross" misrepresentation. Because if he were ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: How do you define it?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Jeyaretnam has made a definition. We disagreed with that. The whole Committee together with the Chairman disagreed with that. It is only you who disagreed with our view.

The Member for Potong Pasir also said that we should treat the three members on the same footing as the printer. Surely not. Surely as a lawyer he knows the difference between those with collective responsibility as a publisher and the responsibility of a printer. Besides the printer categorically right from the beginning said that he was very sorry for what he did and even when he was called upon before the Committee he also tendered his apologies unreservedly. And for his contrition the Committee decided that he be given a warning and a reprimand, instead of fining him.

We have argued about this point. But since the Member for Potong Pasir raised this, I would just bring it up again. When we were voting on the reprimand for the printer, Mr Teo Sing Lim, the Member for Potong Pasir abstained and yet he voted against the first two punishments for the Editor and the Workers' Party Executive Council. That is indeed curious.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fifth Report contained in Paper Parl. 9 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Parliament impose on the Editor of "The Hammer", Mr J B Jeyaretnam, a fine of $10,000;

(2) that Parliament impose on the Publisher of "The Hammer", the Workers' Party Executive Council, a fine of $5,000; and

(3) that the Printer of "The Hammer", Mr Teo Sing Lim, be reprimanded and warned by the Speaker in writing.