Goh Chok Tong
Singapore
“This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode: "The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame...”
“They are not just the headaches of the Prime Minister and his team. They are not just the headaches of the PAP. They are also the headaches of the Workers' Party and every Singaporean. On their own, the Prime Minister and his team cannot resolve them. They require us, the Members of Parliament, and the people, to work with them.”
“The national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, continues to work with partners such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) and the media to educate consumers on the responsible use of credit facilities and the factors consumers should consider before taking on debt. PROPERTY AGENTS' COMMISSION RATES 2.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2008, what is the takeup rate for the interim rental housing scheme that is provided to those without homes; (b) what are the reasons given for rejections under this scheme; (c) whether the rental rates were affordable; and (d) how many applicants had rejected the rental…”
“MAS is working with relevant government agencies and stakeholders to study the issue carefully, and to consider the various proposals that have been raised, including the feasibility of introducing a no-fault regime.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on (i) the use of sustainable alternative materials in the construction industry and (ii) the cost of construction materials in view of increasing inflation rates and rising oil prices; and (b) how will the high material and labour cost impact on…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,367 lines we hold for Goh Chok Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 28.
“So why not tell us in due course how he plans to totally eradicate poverty in Singapore? If he has a solution, he should in fact tell it to us.”
“No society has done so and I hope that the Member for Anson would be able to tell us how this can be done in Singapore. We have been asking him for his programme of action on many things.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson should have listened carefully to my reply. As a Government, we are committed to improving the lot of all Singaporeans. And as stated in the President's Address, we will pay special attention to those who are not able to keep pace with the economic progress of Singapore. When I said that we could not totally eradicate poverty, I also said that we have to be realistic. As a Government, we are committed to improving the lot of these people, but do not expect that total eradication of poverty can be achieved. 11.15am”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry is a member of this Government. His views are therefore not just personal views, but views which reflect the thinking and the philosophy of the Government. I do not believe when he said that the eradication of poverty is a mirage, he meant that we are not making the effort to eradicate poverty. What he meant, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that it is not possible in any society to totally eradicate poverty. We can make all the effort to improve the lot of the lower-income group, but the reality is, no matter what we do, there will always be a group of people who remain relatively poor in our society, and in any country for that matter. Take the United States for that matter. The US has been trying to eradicate poverty with welfare programmes, food stamps for the poor, welfare payments for the aged, but has it succeeded in totally eradicating poverty? And the United States is a much wealthier society than Singapore. We will make the effort. We will try to the best of our ability to keep the number as low as possible. But we have to be realistic. It is not possible to totally eliminate poverty from any society.”
“Then mothers can leave their children in good hands while they work. The Government's approach to the problem of the poor is therefore high economic growth, universal education and skill training, small families, home ownership, and working wives. It has in large measure succeeded, although it has not eliminated poverty altogether. Our experience has confirmed that welfare and generous handouts are not the solution to the problem.”
“I doubt whether it is wise for us to sit down and discuss with him because based on the experience over here, I have found the exchange not worth while. But the important point is that we want to create the opportunities to discuss this matter, to strike an accord with citizens, with Singaporeans. I think this is what we must do. What are the avenues? Besides the RCs, CCCs, we could have formal or informal exchanges. If Members like, and I am here addressing myself at Members other than Opposition Members, we can have a dicussion on TV. In fact, if the Member for Anson insists on having a debate, as he is insisting now, I think we can have Members here who may enjoy sitting down with him on a panel and discuss values over television. The Member for Queenstown is shaking his head. He does not want to be seen discussing with the Member for Anson. But it is a serious point. We want to reach out and discuss with all citizens on this. The Question having been proposed at half-past Four o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION PLANS FOR MASJID ANGULLIA 1. Encik Yatiman Yusof asked the Minister for National Development what is his Ministry's plan for Masjid Angullia at Angullia Park in the development of the area; and whether the mosque will be preserved for use by Muslim workers in the Orchard Road area or whether it will be demolished along with the other buildings affected by the redevelopment.”
“I can quote examples to the Member for Anson of western values which we must check, which we must toss overboard. And these values are the emphasis on self: me first, you last; me first, society second; the trend towards promiscuity, fun loving, free loving, kind of society. Those are values which we do not want to have. The values which we want to have are traditional values, values which bind us together as a cohesive society. We started off as a multi-racial society. Each one has got his own culture, his own language, his own religion. So what values do we want to have to ensure that we remain as such? These are values of tolerance, respect for each other's religion, respect for each other's language. We do not force Malays to speak Mandarin at home, neither do we force Chinese to speak Tamil at home. These are values of respect and tolerance for one another which we must continue to uphold in Singapore. They are part of the characteristics of our society. They are part of our character, a tolerant, disciplined, individual in a tolerant disciplined society. These are the values which we talk about. The Member for Anson wants to have a discussion on this. I am not sure whether we welcome that. But we certainly welcome a discussion with members of the public. Mr Jeyaretnam: You cannot argue with me.”
“It is not a stark choice between eastern values and western values. It is a rejection of western values or eastern values which are undesirable.”
“Again I am afraid Members of the Opposition, as manifested by the Member for Anson now, tend to distort and misinterpret the Prime Minister's words.”
“Coming back to values, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the choice is not between eastern values and western values.”
“If it is not defamatory or libellous, then he should repeat such innuendoes outside this House. An hon. Member: Repeat it outside. Another hon. Member: Yes, repeat it outside.”
“All I want to say is, if the Member for Anson does not believe that he has smeared innocent people -”
“Sir, I do not think we should be side-tracked into this.”
“The Member for Anson talked about dignity of human beings. Never in the last three or four years since December 1981 have I heard him talk about the duty and responsibility of the individual. A human being has got certain rights but he also brings with him certain duties and responsibilities to society. In other words, the emphasis is not just on the individual. It is on the larger unit, the individual's obligations to society. If the Member places so much emphasis on the dignity of the individual, so much respect for the individual, as a Member of Parliament, he should set a prime example as all of us should do. He should, for example, not use innuendoes to smear innocent people outside this House - Mr Howe Yoon Chong and a Howe family.”
“And every citizen, as the Member for Anson says. It is a matter which concerns every citizen.”
“Sir, on a very important point of clarification. The Member for Potong Pasir has completely misunderstood the meaning of the Prime Minister's statement, The Prime Minister was not at all concerned with the ability of the CPF to pay because that was never a question. He was concerned with the fact that Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, would have 20-25 years of good life after retirement at 55. How do we take care of that portion of a person's life when he retires at 55? Financial security is very important and the Prime Minister was addressing himself at the question of financial security for Singaporeans when they retire at 55. It has got no link whatsoever with the ability of CPF to pay. The Member for Potong Pasir should not belabour that point when, in fact, answers have been given in this House to prove that CPF has got the money to pay every cent of the CPF depositor whenever he wants to withdraw his funds.”
“Sir, this Government has nothing to be ashamed of. But we object to the manner in which questions are asked in this House. A question can be asked in a very innocent manner and it will get an honest answer. But to ask questions through casting a smear is unsuitable to hon. Members of this House. Some hon. Members: Hear! hear!.”
“Sir, I think there are two types of questions. The Member could have asked a simple question as to the reason for allowing a private pharmacy to be set up in the hospital and the reasons would be given. But to suggest that the pharmacy has been let out to a certain family, of whom I am not aware at all, and I do not think the Minister for Health is aware as to who got that particular premises for running the pharmacy, is to suggest that there has been some wrong - doing, and to cast a vague slur on the whole system. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are all aware of the technique employed by the Opposition Member for Anson, both in this House and outside the House, in casting a vague smear on the integrity of the system. He should know that under our system any premises to be tendered out, and I believe even without knowing the facts, that if a slot is to be let out to a private pharmacy it must be on a tender basis.”
“- on the honesty of the system. I stood up to say something because he might not know it, but when I was the Minister in charge, I pushed for the idea of having a pharmacy in the hospitals. The whole purpose of having a private pharmacy in the hospital, in addition to a Government pharmacy, is to allow the patient the opportunity to buy the drug either from the private drug store or from the Government pharmacy. This is to create competition for our own Government pharmacy. Nobody directs any patient to buy his drug from anyone. In the past he would get his drugs from the Government pharmacy. Now he has a choice. He can either buy it from the Government pharmacy or he can buy it from the private pharmacy in the hospital. There was no intention or idea whatsoever of creating business for any private individual. And I am surprised that the Member for Anson should, instead of asking an honest question, ask it in such a way as to create an impression in the public mind that somebody has some vested interest in the pharmacy. I think if he is gentleman enough, he should tender an apology to this House for having cast a slur that somebody could have benefitted from having a private pharmacy in the hospital.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I recall this letter but since it was written sometime ago, 7th September 1984, I am not in full possession of the facts. I believe a reply was given to this particular old gentleman from the Ministry of Defence. If my recollection is correct, I think he was pleading for some assistance on the ground that he was a very very old serviceman. He has rendered some service to the country, I think, before Singapore became independent, fighting the Japanese war and so on. And I think he was appealing for some medical benefits to be given to him as a result of his past service. A reply was given to him by the Ministry. I will not be able to quote exactly what the reply was. If the Member for Anson is interested, he could ask me a specific question and I will give him a full and detailed reply on this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am denying every allegation that the election has been held unfairly. I am denying any smear cast by the Opposition Member for Anson - that we have not run a fair and honest system in the election. The Member for Potong Pasir is not making the same allegation as the Member for Anson - that we have run this election in an unfair manner. Have we run the system in an unfair manner since we have the evidence in this House of the two Opposition Members speaking loud and clear for the system? We would not have them over here, if indeed any allegation of the Member for Potong Pasir or the Member for Anson was correct that we have run the system to our advantage. It is a system that is run by men of integrity. It is a system that will continue to be run by men of integrity.”
“Yes, I think they were asked by the Police to take down the posters, and the matter was left at that because the posters were taken down. But more importantly, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Parliament, we are expected to debate very earth-shaking matters on elections, such as people being intimidated, being assassinated in elections, but instead we have a heavy debate and are making heavy weather on stamps on posters. I think we have spent 10 or 20 minutes on this. So it is a tribute, whatever the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir may have said, to our system, that we are here to debate on a very minor matter, which is to ensure that elections should be run more orderly for the benefit of everyone, including the Members of the Opposition. The Member for Potong Pasir is not denying that the election system has been honestly run. He is not denying that. He has, after his election, praised the Returning Officer for his impartiality and for having run the system fairly and honestly.”
“By the candidate of the PAP against the candidate of the Workers' Party.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to that question is yes. I was told by the people who were running the Anson by-election that complaints were filed with the Police for excessive display of posters during the Anson by-election.”
“How would a person know that more than the required number of posters has been put up? It is by counting them. By going down to see. And that is exactly what we did in the by-election in Anson.”
“Not only is he brave but he has roared loudly about the Minister's pay, $21,000, being well-paid, and the quality of man that has been taken in. So perhaps he has recovered from the wounds, from the shock.”
“To make a speech on Ministers' pay. And today - An hon. Member: He is very brave now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at last the mouse has roared. There was a debate on Ministers' salaries yesterday for two hours. The Member for Potong Pasir sat down there quietly and had to be invited to make a speech.”
“The point was that such tactics were used. I am trying to illustrate the point that such tactics were used in the old days. Rules were therefore formulated when the PAP came to power to ensure that we have a clean and honest election campaign, and that is what the PAP has succeeded in bringing out. I agree with my colleague, the Leader of the House, that in a way, the Member for Anson has paid a great tribute to our system - when all he could bring up in Parliament this morning were the rules and regulations pertaining to elections.”
“Taxis, and other means of transport, were illegally used by candidates in the old days before all these rules were formulated. Voters were bribed to return candidates. The point was made that a member of the Workers' Party, who stood for election recently, made use of unfair tactics, gangster tactics, in the old days, and that point was not challenged.”
“- of gangsters by Lim Yew Hock, by M.P.D. Nair. I was surprised, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, of whom Mr M.P.D. Nair is a member, did not jump up to defend one of his colleagues when the Prime Minister said in this House that gangsters were used in the old days by candidates to intimidate voters. Mr Jeyaretnam: Not the Workers' Party. He did not mention the Workers' Party.”
“Do not forget. As I said just now, I had personally seen it with my own eyes, in Anson. Complaints were made to the police. To come to the point raised by the Member for Anson about these rules: why do we need them? I was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday and he gave us his experience. He went back a little bit into history. Before the PAP came to power in 1959, how were elections held. I remember distinctly that the Prime Minister mentioned the use of -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should answer the point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir first. In the by-election in Anson in 1981, I had personally gone down to Anson Constituency, and anyone could see that the number of posters was way beyond what was stipulated. When this rule was suggested by the Elections Office, we questioned them. Yes, they said that the rule could be infringed by anyone, not just the Opposition MPs. It could be infringed by some of the PAP MPs. It is for that reason that I agreed that to prevent any infringement, whether it be Opposition MP or PAP MP, the posters should be stamped.”
“It was thrown out by the court. A decision was taken by the court. The case was thrown out. Is the Member for Anson, being a learned lawyer, challenging the decision of the court for throwing out that particular petition? Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need for me to belabour the point that the Member for Anson, in typical fashion, is casting a slur on the system which has served us well and which has served him well.”
“And the honesty of the system. If he believes that the system was not honestly run and, in fact, if the system had not been honestly run, would he be sitting here in this House together with the Member for Potong Pasir? I recall vaguely that the Member for Potong Pasir, soon after his election in the last general elections, praised the honesty of the Returning Officer. Perhaps he could confirm this. But I believe he publicly stood up and praised the Returning Officer for having run the elections fairly and honestly. I do not hear the Member for Potong Pasir complaining, casting a slur, on the election system which has served us well. There was an allegation by the Member for Anson that a ballot box was lost in Telok Blangah. I do not think so. If indeed a ballot box was lost, I would be very surprised that the Member for Anson had not, he being a lawyer, taken this case to court and had a decision of the court on this. He will be the last person to leave the matter as it was. I think the Member for Telok Blangah did, in fact, pursue the matter in court and the case was lost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, in typical fashion, has tried to cast a slur on the integrity of the system. He knows so well that the fundamental pillar that holds up this place is the integrity of the men in charge of an honest system. He has raised this particular point, I believe, in last year's Budget debate, again casting a slur, casting a smear, that elections have not been honestly held. And yet the same Member, who was casting an aspersion on the election system, stood for election in the last general elections and he was returned.”
“As regards posters to be stamped, I think some candidates have put in more posters than the number stipulated in the rules. So the elections office thought that one way to control this is to have the posters stamped. The rules are to ensure orderly campaigning, orderly elections. And I do not believe they have interfered with the return of the Opposition candidate to Parliament. So I emphasize once again that it is the substance that we go for, not form. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister asks: has anybody complained? Has anybody protested? Well, we have been protesting. We protested in 1972 about the conditions under which political parties were participating in elections, the unfair advantage given to the ruling party. We asked then for an elections commission. There was a memorandum from six political parties at that time, I remember. He says, "What are your objections?" I will tell him that there are quite a lot. I could speak for an hour on them but I have only got 10 minutes at the most.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have thought that after yesterday's debate on Ministers' salaries, the main thrust of the argument as put forth by the Prime Minister would have sunk home, ie, for Singapore to survive, for Singapore to prosper, it is the integrity of the men and the integrity of the system that is paramount. We can have any number of election commissions. We can put it under anyone, Prime Minister's Office, or appoint an independent commission. But if the integrity of the men is questioned, then it will not work. We can look at the experience in other countries. There have been inquiries after inquiries. They have election commissions outside the Prime Minister's Office. But does it follow that the election results are necessarily fair? Has anyone in Singapore questioned the integrity of our system? Has anyone alleged that an MP has not been honestly and fairly returned in an election? Is the Member for Anson suggesting that he has not been honestly returned in Parliament despite the fact that the elections were held by the Department which is under the Prime Minister's Office? It is the integrity of the people who run the system that determines whether the system is honest or not honest. That is a basic fact. We should not go in for form. If we go in for form, we can have a com mission as suggested by the Member for Anson. But does form guarantee us an honest system?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson is challenging the constitutionality or otherwise of the appointment of Political Secretaries, as my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, has pointed out, the proper place to challenge this is outside, in the court, for a proper legal interpretation of the Constitution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I admitted just now I am no expert in law, but I believe that we run a system that is fair and open and can be challenged by anyone in Parliament and outside, in the court. The appointment of Political Secretary is not a new appointment. Political Secretaries have been appointed for years and, in my layman's approach, if there has been any wrongdoing in the appointment of Political Secretaries, that should have been challenged in court long ago by the Member for Anson when he was outside this House.”
“The AuditorGeneral and the Public Accounts Committee have been fearless in pointing out any infringement of any rules or laws in this Administration.”
“Sir, if he seriously believes in what he says, he does not have to get the assurance from the Minister. All he has to do is to make whatever statement he wants to make outside the House, and the answers will be forthcoming.”
“All he has to do is to go outside and repeat what he has said in this House, and he will get all the answers from the Minister for Defence. I invite him again to make that statement outside the House.”
“We want to make the home as comfortable for everyone living in it, as comfortable as we can within the constraints of land, labour and the resources. So I look forward to contributions from my colleagues in this House. I look forward also to suggestions and ideas from anyone who can help us to realize our goal of a better future for all of us. We cannot do this based on criticism alone. We need cooperation. We cannot do this just based on speeches alone. We need to come out with real programmes whereby we can implement. So over the next few months, my colleagues and I would want to arrange a series of discussions with Members here and with members of the public, to explore in stark terms the hard alternatives facing us, to debate over choices and to agree on the choice which we have got to make in order for us to have a good home, a good future, for ourselves and our children. Thank you. [Applause] 4.09 pm”
“As I suggested just now, we should bring this into Parliament and discuss it openly because it is not something which Ministers feel ashamed about. It is not just the Ministers' pay. It is the civil servants also. Yes, first we determine how much a Minister should be paid and then we go on to the civil servants. How much is a Super-scale civil servant worth? What about the SAF officer? How much is he worth? We could go right down the line. How do we reward people in Singapore? We have always run a system whereby we believe people must be rewarded in accordance with their ability and performance. And we also at the same time emphasize that people must be educated to their maximum potential and be given equal opportunities in education and in work. It is not just a question of quantum. It is a question of philosophy which we should discuss. I want now to move on briefly to what I regard to be the role of Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should not just provide feedback. Feedback is valuable. But that is not their only role. I was looking for bold, creative, ideas from Members here and from members of the public, to help us reach the goals of a better society by the year 1999. Yes, there were some ideas but not enough. Members of Parliament should discuss with their constituents, their friends, to generate bold, creative ideas so that we can work together to realize these ideas. Singapore is all we have. It is our only home. It is not a big house. In Australia, the house is very big. If there is disorder in a corner of the house, say, in Sydney or Melbourne, you can go to Perth. But in Singapore, if the house is in disorder, there is no corner where you can run to. All of us are living in the same home. It is our home.”
“" I could only guess that what the Member meant was that Ministers were paid $18,000 per month, divided by 30 days, it- works out to $600 a day. And indeed that was clarified later on, I believe, by the Member for Potong Pasir. But when he first put it across, he said that each time a Minister went for a walk-about, he was paid $600. But the real issue is whether we run a system whereby each person is paid his worth. I am not going to justify how much Ministers should be paid. It is important for us to discuss this, and I suggest that perhaps the Prime Minister would like to discuss this openly in Parliament. He is the one who decides how much Ministers should be paid. We should have a full-scale discussion in Parliament on this. I do not think anyone of us feels ashamed of our policy that each man should be paid according to his worth. I do not know how much lawyers charge for writing leners or petitions for clients. $200 per petition to, say, the ROV to have a bus licence reinstated, a two-page petition, an appeal? I checked. I think that is the going rate. $200 a letter of two pages; $100 per page. How long would it take a lawyer to write this letter? It depends on the lawyer. A good one could perhaps listen to the case and dictate the lefter off within half an hour or 45 minutes. A poorer one would take a liftle more time to write out such a petition. But let us assume that each letter takes just one hour to pen. Five lefters a day, that is $1,000. Eight letters a day, that is $1,600. Of course, you must deduct your overheads, your secretarial expenses. Who decides how much a lawyer should be paid? I think it is decided, again, by the market.”
“Several Members of Parliament have pleaded for some assistance for the business sector, for the small businesses, since times are bad. I suggest that we await the Budget speech tomorrow. The pleas, I am sure, have been well heard by the Minister for Finance. I would like now to move on to the speech by the Senior Minister yesterday. I felt rather saddened that the Senior Minister should have to stand up in Parliament and put down one of his old colleagues, one of our own colleagues. It is something which is unnecessary, but something which the Senior Minister felt he must do. The Senior Minister reminds me of the late Mr Hon Sui Sen. He is not a man who loses his temper very easily, especially in public. So when he had to put down a fellow colleague publicly, it is something which all of us do not rejoice in. Perhaps we laugh at the way he told the stories, the fables, the tales. But it is not something which we enjoy, and we hope that it should not be necessary for senior Ministers, or the Prime Minister, or for any one of us, to have to speak in that manner to our own colleagues in Parliament or even outside. Unfortunately, the question of Minister's pay has again been brought into the forefront. Why are Ministers paid $18,000 when there are poor people earning $500-$600 outside? Here again, I am reminded of the half-truth that was first put up by the Member for Potong Pasir - that each time a Minister went for a walk-about, he was paid $600. I was surprised 'to receive a telephone call from a journalist. He rang me up to ask, "Is it true that each time a Minister went for his walk-about, he was paid $600?" I was astounded, and said, "How could that be?”
“Perhaps it is something which we can look into in tbe longer term, as part of our move to bring certain sectors in the Government closer to the private sector. Who knows how much a taxi-driver should earn? Who decides how much he should earn? I think perhaps the market should decide. So let them as some American cities have, decide on the rates which they want to charge their passengers. And all that the Minister for Communications needs to do is to worry about the relationship between tax rates for taxis and motor vehicles and buses. In other words, operate a land transport policy through sening the tax rates, and the rest should be left to market forces. Here again, I emphasize it is only an idea. What I am trying to do this afternoon is to think aloud, set the direction in which I would like to see ourselves moving. And that is, a greater participation by the private sector in deciding things for themselves. We should extend this liberalization to the HDB. To give you my own experience in Marine Parade, there are many blocks of flats with a wonderful view of the East Coast Park, of the beautiful sea with the ships in anchor, and there are also certain blocks with flats facing the rubbish dump. Both types of blocks, both units in each type of block, went at the same price. I think it is grossly unfair that someone who has got the view of the sea, purely through the luck of the ballot, be allowed to pay the same price as someone who has been unlucky to be forced to live next to a rubbish dump. I would suggest that we should also look into the possibility of moving the HDB closer to the market. But I emphasize that the 3-roomers and the 2-roomers will always be paid special attention because our declared objective is to ensure that every Singaporean owns his own home.”
“So I have sympathy for the plight of the motorist, but this is a national problem which we are faced with, It is a dilemma. How do we resolve this? I would welcome any suggestions from members of the public, from the motoring public, who have got good ideas on how to resolve this dilemma - how to curb car population growth. I am sure my colleague, the Minister for Communications, will welcome constructive ideas. Strange as it may seem, knowing the role played by some taxi-drivers, I also have some sympathy for taxi-drivers. This is purely because the system which is being operated now works against them in terms of adjustment of fares to allow them to catch up with the general increase in income. Hawkers can immediately raise their prices to catch up with inflation or to catch up with increases in wage levels. Taxi-drivers must wait for the fares to be changed, and this takes time because figures must be looked into, the interest of the taxi-drivers and the interest of the passengers must be weighed. In the meantime, the only way for them to earn more is to drive longer distances, longer hours. I can understand why they feel that they are losing out in the general prosperity of Singapore. So when figures are given to prove that taxi-drivers will suffer a loss in income as a result of whatever changes, I dismiss them because I think the Minister for Communications will be a fool if, instead of allowing taxi-drivers to earn more, he makes them earn less. It does not make sense. In America, in some cities, I understand that the taxi operators themselves decide on the fares they want to charge. Although metered, they decide on the rates, the fares which they want to charge.”
“If you openly declare that you are not going to be loyal to the ruling Party, disloyal to the ruling Party, it follows that one of your objectives must be to look for opportunities to bring down the ruling Party. "No sane person will destroy what we have built up." That was stated clearly by the Member for Potong Pasir. But I can tell him and Members of the House that unsound ideas can also bring down a country. We do not require insane persons to be in charge to bring down a place. Unsound ideas themselves can bring down the whole edifice of a country. When the Member for Potong Pasir was expounding on rearing chickens as an unemployment insurance, as a means to fall back on during wartime, I noticed that the Member for Anson was covering his face. Maybe he was tired but he did cover his face for a while. Switching on to another subject, I know that motorists and taxi-drivers are somewhat apprehensive at this moment, extremely agitated with rumours of impending increases in taxes and so on. Personally, I sympathize with the motorists. Our objective is to create more wealth in the country, in the society. We have succeeded in giving most Singaporeans a home. So what is the next thing which they would like to have? I think it is a car. And here, we are giving people more wealth and yet we are making it difficult for them to own a car. I think it is a dilemma in which we are caught in. How do we resolve this? I think it is for the people to decide whether they want to have a city with limited roads full of traffic jams, to allow traffic jams to build up and then tackle the problem. Or we should anticipate traffic jams before they are built up and tackle them.”