J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 53 of 82.
“All I was shown was a letter from the company saying, "It has been decided to terminate your services by offering you a month's salary." The management did not have to spell out its reasons because, under our Employment Act, you can just throw a worker out by giving him four weeks' wages, and tell him, "You cannot ask any question. Get out."”
“Is he replying on behalf of the Minister, or is he making a speech?”
“It was intended to afford some protection to our workers, but it does not. It is an empty section. I would ask that the Ministry give very serious consideration to strengthening the position of our workers by amending Section 14. 1 would ask the Ministry to consider introducing an Unfair Dismissal Act, which is now the law in a number of countries, where if a worker feels that he has been unfairly terminated, even by the grant of a month's wages, he can go to a tribunal and complain about the unfair dismissal. And then the tribunal will order his reinstatement. It is no good saying again the Minister can do this because I have said, time and time again, the appeal to the Minister in many cases is just an exercise in futility. May I finally finish by saying, Mr Speaker, about this man, why the company got rid of him? Because he was, in the eyes of the company, a trouble-maker. He was somebody who was concerned about his fellow workers' benefits, their welfare and their rights. And so, between the union leadership and the company, this man has lost his job. Is this how we are going to treat our workers?”
“Somebody was complaining to me the other day about elections to union leadership. Persons who want to serve the union and the workers and wish to stand for office in the union leadership suddenly find themselves transferred by the company to another place, depriving them of any opportunity to gain office in the union leadership. And I am told the same members find themselves back in office year after year. All management-orientated. So what is the Government going to do about this state of affairs? Is it not time our workers have a break? I have spoken about the amendments that have been made to the Industrial Relations Act, to the Employment Act, which took away all the rights of the workers and have reduced them to the position of serfs. These amendments were made at a time when there was fear felt about Singapore's economic progress and the workers accepted the amendments. But now that we have come out of the uncertainty, the Government says we have made economic progress can anything be done now to restore the workers to their rights which they did possess at one time, and even before this Government came tO power in 1959? Today, our workers are but the playthings of employers and the union leadership. I have complained times without number about the complete helplessness of our workers. I would ask whether the Government now intends to repay a little bit of the debt that we Singaporeans owe our workers. They have contributed not a little to the prosperity of Singapore and I think they deserve a little more than what they have got from this Government. I have referred to Section 14 of the Employment Act not once, not twice, but several times. I think the Ministry should take a closer look at Section 14 of the Employment Act.”
“We do not agree we can do anything about your case because, after all, you were reading the Reader's Digest, weren't you?" That was one incident. 3.30 pm A month later, he got another warning letter, and this came about for this reason, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was an accident at the workplace and after the man had been conveyed to the hospital, some of the workers gathered round to see what had gone wrong, and he seeing them just went to inquire what was wrong and, hey presto, the next minute he had another letter saying, "You have been warned not to form groups of people." And a month later, he had a letter: it has been decided that your services should be terminated; here is a month's salary, take it and go. This man has had some years of employment with the company, and the company obviously was building up towards terminating his services. So they had to find excuses or causes for his termination. No doubt they gave him a month's salary which is the sum allowed under the Employment Act. This poor man has appealed to the Minister for Labour to ask him whether he would do something about this which he considered a most unfair dismissal of him. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a dismissal, notwithstanding the man was offered a month's wages. I have not been able to speak to him today, but I do not think he has had any reply from the Minister for Labour yet, and that was two months ago when he appealed. So this is the situation which our workers find themselves. They have no protection against the employer. The unions are not there to protect them. Is it any wonder, Mr Speaker, that the unions are losing their members? I see concern Voiced in the Press over dwindling membership of unions. Union leadership today, Mr Speaker, Sir, is management-orientated.”
“Sir, I am moving away from the CPF to a subject which is very near my heart. I have spoken on this time and time again, and that is, the pass to which our workers have been reduced by this Government which came to power on the backs of the workers. It promised the workers that it was their Government which was going to bring justice to them in this land. Perhaps I will illustrate the pass to which our workers have been reduced, by a case example. An employee in an engineering company brought to my notice the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment. It happened in this way, Sir. He was at work which required two people to do the work at the same time. He had a colleague working with him at this job that was assigned to them. After two or three hours of work, the colleague decided that he had to take a little break to have a smoke. They stopped working for a few minutes and the colleague went off to have his little smoke. This man does not smoke and so he took out the Reader's Digest which he had in his pocket and was browsing through it, The Works Manager then suddenly saw him browsing through the Reader's Digest and, hey presto, within the next hour or so he got a letter warning him that he was found reading the Reader's Digest during his hour of work. This poor man protested that there was nothing for him to do because his colleague had gone off to have a smoke and he could not do the job himself and so he was just browsing through this magazine. That would not do for the Works Manager and, he was told, he was warned. This man appealed to his union and I see there was a letter from a Member of Parliament replying to this, and the answer was, "Oh, no.”
“The employer can be prosecuted under the Criminal Law. Do you know that?”
“On a point of clarification. Will the Hon. Minister say what the employee can do in those circumstances? He suggests banging at the door. The next minute the man will be dismissed. What is he really suggesting?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of myself and my colleague on the Opposition Bench, may we express our own shock at the news that have just been told to us. Sir, my colleague and I had lunch with the President about six weeks ago and we little suspected that this was to come. We wish to express our concern for his health and wish him a speedy recovery. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." -[Mr S. Dhanabalan.] Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen minutes to Five o'clock pm. [Copies of Tables distributed to Members.] - AVERAGE TAXI DRIVERS' GROSS TAKINGS PER MONTH, AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (One shift taxis), AVERAGE TAXI DRIVER'S MONTHLY COLLECTION WITH VARIOUS DEMAND SCENARIOS (Two shift taxis) (Cols. 1689 - 1692)”
“May I inform the Minister that he should be aware that the law is that anyone over 21 should be free to marry without anybody's permission. 4.00 pm”
“You cannot impose a condition unless the law says so. That is elementary.”
“Where is the law? You do not understand.”
“On a point of clarification. Would the Minister of State say under what law you have got to get permission from the Commissioner for Employment?”
“I addressed it to the Immigration Department and it should be referred to you.”
“It seems that it never reaches the Minister.”
“May I just inform the Minister that in one of these cases, as I told him, the couple were married in Singapore in the Registry of Marriages. So they had the permission of the Government, and yet the wife was sent out. So what do you do in that case? And does the Government deny that the Government does confer permanent residence and even citizenship on people who are prepared to lend it money without any further questions?”
“May I ask the Minister by way of clarification, please. How long do you intend to keep these families apart? If it is the intention to keep them apart permanently, well, say so, so that I can tell them that there is no hope for them living together.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification because I do not want the Minister to take up too much time with irrelevancies and not answer my questions. I am talking about families, not people who are applying to come in here. So will he please deal with families?”
“He has been allowed to live here on permits which are extended from time to time, but he has been denied permanent residence, although they have invested quite a bit of money here. But he was told apparently, "If you have got a million dollars, then we will consider granting you permanent residence." As I asked the Prime Minister sometime ago, "Is it only money that this Government is interested in?", not in human beings, in persons, not concerned with their feelings. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak on my other amendment which is Citizenship Registration of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Again, the story is the same. I have brought up in this House cases of people who have lived here, who have given their life-time to this country, who have worked here. I have mentioned the case of the man in the Ministry of the Environment who has worked for 29 years, 30 years. They are still being kept out of citizenship. Again, the Constitution sets out what are the minimum conditions before citizenship may be granted. They qualify in all respects. They have no convictions. They have lived here for the requisite period of time. There is nothing known against them and yet, time and time again, they are refused citizenship. We heard a lot after the elections about how this Government proposes to be less austere and is going to wear a human face. But I cannot detect any change in the Government policies towards these people. May I know: will there be any change or are we going to continue along the same road? Are human dignity, decency, going to count for anything in future? Or will they be disregarded as they have been over the last 25 years?”
“Will they ever be able to live together in Singapore, or do they have to apply to the courts for a dissolution of their marriages? If so, would the Minister suggest on what ground they should apply for a dissolution of marriage? Should they say, "We have been separated apart by decree of the Government. So will you please now dissolve the marriage?" because that is not a ground for dissolution under the Women's Charter. The ground is where either party voluntarily deserts the other, or where the parties live apart. Here, they are forced to live apart, against their will. The other problem, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the question of permanent residence qualifications. Again, there are a number of people who come to me whose wives, although they live here, have not been granted permanent residence. As I have pointed out, under the Constitution where a wife has lived in Singapore for two years with the husband, a Singapore citizen, she may be granted citizenship. Here, permanent residence has been refused, making it very difficult for the family when it comes to applying for HDB accommodation or for other benefits. These people feel very bitter because of pronouncements that we have heard here and outside about the Government's intention to attract graduates and people with money into this country. Whereas these people who have not got the money, who have not got a degree, are treated as dirt, less than human beings. What have they done to deserve this treatment? Somebody told me the other day that he applied for permanent residence because his wife is a Singapore citizen carrying on business and he is helping his wife in the business.”
“But here we have families - it is not just these four or five; I am sure there are several more. I have many more who have come to me over the last three years but these are the most recent ones, where the families have been kept apart as a result of Government decisions. Does this not make nonsense of the oft-repeated Government pronouncements about family life and about Asian values? May I ask, is it an Asian value that the Government should separate families? I hope I am not going to be told that these are only a few in number. You do not play this game by numbers. If family life is sacred and you value family life, it must be valid for one family as it must be valid for a million families. There are, besides this man, Mr Speaker, Sir, others. One was married in Singapore in the Registry of Marriages, and his wife was sent back. She must be a Malaysian. She was sent back on the 10th January this year. Another one, a wife, was sent back on the 2&h March, 1984. And somebody else was sent out of Singapore on the 22nd October, 1983. So will the Minister say how long he intends to keep these families apart? It is not just a husband or a wife who is sent back. There are cases of children who have been sent out or who have been asked to leave Singapore. Why is it necessary, I ask, and I asked this several times before, to break up families like this? You take a member of a family unit and you send him out or send her out, and in some cases it is children who are not able to look after themselves. Could I ask the Minister to give a direct answer to this question without any equivocation, so that these families may know clearly what the Government's policy is as regards them?”
“I have two amendments Nos. (16) and (17) in respect of subheads QJ-02 and QJ-04. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am, as I am sure the Minister will understand, taking up the cause of fractured families. But before I speak on that, may I say that my firm has made representations on behalf of people from time to time on immigration matters. But I have no personal pecuniary interest in any of the matters that I am raising this afternoon. All of them have come to me as an MP. Sir, I have about four cases here. They are not the only cases that have come to me, where as a result of the immigration policy, the families have been separated. In some cases, it is the wife who has been sent out and, in some cases, it is the husband who has been sent out. I have the case of a man who has worked in Singapore, he is a citizen and he has worked as a postman for 20 years. He is living in my constituency in Maxwell Road quarters for postmen. In 1983 he married somebody in Batu Pahat before the kathi. He then discovered that apparently she had previously been working in Singapore on a work permit. And so she was sent back in October 1983. This man is now left living alone while she is probably in Batu Pahat, and he having to look after the children. He is very bitter about it because he says the TAS has asked him to move out of the quarters. And the HDB says that it is not going to give him a flat because he is only a single Singapore citizen. What he wants to know, and what I do want to know from the Minister, is: how long does he intend to keep these families apart? Sir, we hear ad nauseam from this Government about family life and about the need to keep families together. We heard that this afternoon from the Minister for Communications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now move my amendments?”
“I was told that sergeants are paid Division II salaries but they are placed in Division III. And so they missed out on the benefits for Division II officers.”
“The point is that they have been acting for too long.”
“Sir, amendment (2) deals with the Police programme, and it is under that that I wish to say a few words. I wish to raise the dissatisfaction that is being felt by a number of junior officers who, I understand, have been acting in higher posts for a very long time. I suppose it is cheaper for the Government to pay them acting pay but it is, I am told, causing no little dissatisfaction among these officers. May I know from the Minister whether that is the position, that a good number of officers have been acting in higher posts for long periods? Secondly, the position of sergeants. I understand sergeants are paid Division 11 salary but they are placed in Division Ill in the establishment. They feel that this is unfair to them because they say they miss out on the benefits that are accorded to Division 11 officers, although they are paid the same salary. Will the Minister please clarify this? Another matter is the dissatisfaction that junior officers with HSC and Police experience feel in comparison with NS officers with similar qualifications. They say, they suffer in the promotions. They are not automatically promoted to the rank of Inspector and above, whereas NS officers are. Will the Minister please clarify? Finally, Sir, moving from personnel to equipment, I would like to know whether the Police vehicles on the road are kept under constant maintenance and supervision to see that they are fully road-worthy. I am told that there are a number of vehicles which should not be on the roads.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I see the next amendment* is in the name of the Member for Clementi but he is not here. May I just speak very briefly under this amendment although my name is not listed here?”
“Why should he? He does not want to. Why should he?”
“May I just clarify because I think the Minister has misunderstood my pleas. In the case of these yellow top taxi operators, I have been told that a father cannot even transfer it to his son. And the Minister is talking about syndicates. I do not know how syndicates come into this. I am talking about genuine cases. Why are you puffing a total ban on the transfer of yellow top taxi plates? Is it the intention to drive everyone into the arms of the NTUC, as I asked earlier? Secondly, about this man who is unable to get his vocational licence. As I mentioned, he is very proficient in Malay. He says he can pass the Malay test any time if you would like him to pass a second language. Why cannot he be allowed to do that?”
“Sir, I know you have said that he has used up his time, but he has not answered the two pleas that I made, (1) on behalf of the yellow top taxi operators, and (2) this man who is being forced to take his test in Mandarin before he can get his taxi driver's licence. Could he say something about those two pleas?”
“The answer is, "Would you like to do it?" An hon. Member: He is exactly like a mouth-piece!”
“Point of clarification. May I offer as advice to the Minister on that. I am glad he welcomes suggestions from Members. But why does he not appoint a committee to look into this? They can take evidence from the public outside. There have been letters in the press offering lots of suggestions.”
“Sir, let us assume that with the passage of time the taxi drivers will manage to overcome their initial disgruntles. What about the commuters, those over 50% of the population who draw $500 a month and who once a while would like to take a taxi to the zoo, to places of importance, to the beach with their family and maybe friends from neighbouring countries, being or bring the sick to the clinics or hospitals? Sir, to them the taxi will no longer be a car with another name. It is going to be a limousine with another name. Maybe that is the price one has to pay for a chauffeur-driven limousine to one's door-step. Sir, we must also look into the problem of taxi drivers who are 45 years and above, who may find it quite difficult compared with their younger counterparts who, being more vigorous, are able to be on the road for long hours. They must take into account the safety of their passengers. The problem will multiply if we were to take the suggestion made by the Member for Potong Pasir to increase the speed limit. If an accident happens, please do not blame the car because there is nothing wrong with the nut that built the car, but everything is wrong with the nut behind the wheel.”
“Sir, pricing cars out of the reach of many may be the solution, but to those who have already owned a car, this prized possession is difficult to part with. They will keep on paying, and people may say it fits with the image of PAP - Pay and Pay. Personally I resent this connotation because I would like to say that for the past 25 years we also Provide And Provide - schools, hospitals, jobs, social amenities, etc. In this case, an efficient public transport system, buses, taxis, and later on the MRT, must be the right solution. I am looking forward for a change, or may I say, a drastic change with the advent of the MRT. Sir, I was indeed glad to read of a taxi driver when he commented in the Monitor last week. Said he, and I quote: 'I am not shy to say that the Government is doing the right thing. Only idle taxi drivers will suffer from the new diesel tax. Now they can no longer earn a little bit and park their taxi somewhere and relax. Every driver now has to work hard. This is because it will make more taxis be on the road.' Finally, he said that drivers will earn more with the new taxi fares despite the diesel tax increase. I hope this is not a lone voice in the wilderness because generally the reaction is unfavourable. This is understandable. Maybe at this juncture the Minister for Communications and Information would like to enlighten the House by making a comparison with other drivers, like the ambulance drivers, the bus drivers, lorry drivers, so that it can show how better-off our taxi drivers are. And maybe in the future the Minister may like to consider letting the market forces dictate by floating taxi fares. Let the companies make their own decision. If they overprice, let them face the consequences.”
“I hope that the Minister will consider this matter and accept the suggestion as proposed. There is one other suggestion I want to raise. If the Government wants to discourage the people from taking taxis and to take buses instead, then the Government should keep on improving the bus services in Singapore. Honestly speaking, our public transport service is far from perfect. Our MRT has not been completed. Taking buses is the only mode of transport for the non-car owners in the middle and lower income groups. Unless we keep on improving the standard of our bus services, our people will be greatly inconvenienced. I hope that the Minister would closely consider this matter of public transport. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Mr Speaker, Sir, being a small country, we cannot afford to have a population explosion, nor an explosion of the car population. Our land is small. Every Singaporean by now fully understands this. But many people are looking for a better solution, not just the measure that would be misconstrued as revenue-generating solution. "Why must car owners be punished every year?" they asked. There must be a saturation point. Sir, I would like to offer some suggestions. (1) Maybe the Minister could produce the projection of the target figure for the next 10 to 15 years, say, to the year 2000. (2) How many new cars should be allowed each year? (3) Find a system or solution of allotting new cars to new owners, maybe even by ballot. (4) Increase the fee for entering the CBD and/or restrict cars entering into the CBD during the evening peak hours, say, 4.30 pm to 6.00 pm. (5) Tax heavily those who own more than one car, including company cars.”
“More importantly, the taxi drivers are not getting any CPF contributions. At their old age they may be penniless. And since they do not have any contributions in the CPF, that means they do not have a Medisave account. What happens if they are sick? Since they have no Medisave account to defray their medical expenses, and they will then become a burden to the society as well as to themselves. Recently we read many articles in the papers regarding the increase of taxi fares and taxi-drivers' income. Many valuable suggestions were proposed. One suggestion is worth our consideration, and that is, that part of the tax taken from the taxi drivers be treated as their CPF contributions to enable them to have a Medisave account. Actually the purpose of imposing this diesel tax and raising the taxi fare is not to increase the revenue of the Government. It is to solve the problem of shortage of taxis, making owning a taxi to be almost as expensive as owning a private motor car, If that is the case, then I would urge the Minister for Communications and Information to seriously consider this suggestion and to discuss with the Minister for Finance to reduce the diesel tax from $6,600 to $3,300 and to set aside the other half as CPF contributions and Medisave savings for the taxi drivers. If the Minister for Finance does not agree to a 50% reduction, even a 30% reduction will do. If the Government can accede to this request, it will not only solve the problem of taxi fare and the demand and supply of taxis, it will also benefit the taxi drivers so that they may have some savings for their old age, or in the event of some serious illness they may be able to make use of this Medisave account to defray their medical expenses.”
“Why should he be told that he must pass in Mandarin before he can get his taxi licence? After all, Malay is the National Language under the Constitution. He sees this as an unnecessary restriction on him. So would the Minister say whether this man, in particular, that I have in mind will be given his taxi licence if he is allowed to take Malay as the second language in this test? Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, on this occasion the Government is imposing increased diesel tax on the taxi and raising taxi fare. It has generated many comments from people of all walks of life throughout Singapore. Generally, our citizens are worried that with this big increase in taxi fare and in petrol tax, it would cause a chain reaction resulting in higher cost of living. On the other hand, the taxi drivers are worried that after the fare increase the number of taxi passengers would be reduced, thereby reducing their income. Last week, the Minister for Communications in answering my question in this House assured me that the imposition of this diesel tax and the increase in taxi fare would not reduce the income of the taxi drivers, while on the other hand, it may even bring a higher income for them. He also assured that if this measure does not achieve the expected result, then he would take stock of the whole measure. I thank him for his assurance. The ordinary citizens, however, feel that taxi drivers are making a good income. But I must bring to the attention of this House the problems faced by the taxi drivers. As a matter of fact, the taxi drivers are quite different from the salaried employees. They are self-employed. They have to ply their taxis before they could make some income. They do not have medical benefits and they do not have a rest day.”
“Thank you, very much. I must carry on. Sir, enough has been said about the taxi fare increase and all that. I want to make a plea now for the operators of the yellow top taxis. There was a plea made by the Member for Chong Boon and another Member about the control of taxi licences and requesting for greater relaxation in the granting of taxi licences. I have, over the past two or three years, brought this up and I would ask whether the Government will now consider allowing transfers of yellow top taxis. There has been a total prohibition since (when was it?) 1976, 1977, 1978, or for some years now, and these yellow top taxi operators are very bitter about it. They keep telling me, "The Government is out to kill us. They want us off the roads." These are individual taxi operators. The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that Government intends to remove restrictions on people running their own businesses and to make it easier for them. Here you have an opportunity to do that. Every man who owns his own taxi and operates it is a little businessman. So I would ask the Government to remove the restriction now, on the transfer of yellow top taxis. 3.15 pm The other point is the insistence on an applicant for a vocational licence for a taxi driver - if he happens to be of Chinese origin, the Chinese ethnic group, he should pass a test in Mandarin before he is issued with a taxi licence. I did bring this up sometime ago, and this man has just rung me up again. He has been trying for the last two or three years to get his licence. He says that he cannot just get through this Mandarin test because he does not speak Mandarin. He says he would rather pass a test in Malay. He is proficient in Malay. So why can't Malay be accepted along with English?”
“May I have five minutes, please, Mr Speaker?”
“Either way, it is scandalous. If I may now move on to the other amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is about public service vehicles.”
“All right, then. If the answer is no, I hope the Business Times will explain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to reply to the Member. I am asking the Minister to reply. If the Ministers would like to see the editorials, here they are, not for the information of the Member but for the information of the Minister. Sir, the point is this. I have asked, did the Government have anything to do with the withdrawal of this editorial? If it did not, I hope Business Times will explain how its sense of responsibility drove it to withdraw the editorial. Dr Tay Eng Soon rose -”
“You are not a Minister. You cannot reply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Is the Member or is the Minister replying? Has the Member suddenly elevated himself to the rank of Minister?”
“This was not an incitement to racial hatred.”
“It is within the Head. I have asked Mr Speaker for his permission to raise this Information matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if it is a point of clarification, let me carry on and finish my speech.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not making any wild allegation. Are you denying that Business Times first came out with this editorial? And then whether it was not withdrawn? Dr Tay Eng Soon rose -”
“I do not know whether I read it or not. I do not make it a point to read all editorials. But this particular editorial was brought to my notice, and I am talking about this editorial of the Business Times. What is the point whether I read the other editorial or not?”
“May I finish my speech first? As I said, either way you look at it, it is a scandal. If I may move on to the other amendment that I have which is -”