“During the Budget Debate in 1985, Dr Toh made a passionate speech criticising the CPF contribution, then 50% of wages, as a heavy imposition on employers. I had just entered politics, and as a minister of state in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, I stood up and rebutted him vigorously. But as it turned out, Dr Toh was right. The economy soon went into a steep recession, and by the end of the year, the Government had concluded the CPF rates were too high and indeed needed to be cut.” （The Straits Times, 3 Feb 2012）
“Dr Toh's passing reminds us of how we got here, how much we owe to him and his generation, and how heavy a responsibility we have to carry their vision, and ours, forward and take Singapore higher and further into a brighter future.” （The Straits Times, 8 Feb 2012）
“As regards CPF, it is heartening to note that the CPF rate of 50% will not be increased. I support the Member for Rochore's suggestion to cut the present rate down to 40%. At this rate of contribution, it will be enough to give workers their security in old age and to purchase a home and enough for their Medisave.
….There is a question which everybody likes to ask: how is the Government going to fund the repayments of CPF to their depositors? Is the Government funding CPF repayments through taxation? I hope the Minister in charge of CPF will enlighten us on these important points. ”（Parliamentary report 19 Mar 1985）
（詹时中与杜进才走在同一条线上。The Straits Times 20 Mar 1985）
“We talked about overheads. What overheads are you talking about? …CPF - is that an overhead? Is that something which the Government takes away from the workers? Or is it something which is part of the salary, which belongs to the workers, something which the workers use to spend for Medisave, for a house, and for old age?
CPF is part of the worker's earnings, and we are proud that we are able to have such a large amount of savings put aside for a house to live in and for old age. Very few countries can do this.
Our payroll was supposed to have doubled in five years. (I do not know whether this is exactly so, I have not checked the numbers.) But if so, I think we should congratulate ourselves. What does it mean to have a payroll which doubles in five years? It means our high wage policy has worked. Workers' incomes have gone up. Inflation has stayed down, and that means real purchasing power has increased. We deliberately raised wages because the alternative is to go for low wages, low skills, and low standards of living - misery. Is that desirable?”（Parliamentary report 19 Mar 1985）
1985年11月，杜进才还是紧咬着公积金不放，认为政府不应该让人民动用公积金来购买私人产业和股票交易，因为人民所必须承担的财务风险跟公积金建立在投资基金的机制上的做法背道而驰。（The Straits Times 11 Nov 1985）
（杜进才：削减公积金缴交率至40%。The Straits Times 11 Nov 1985）
三十年后的今天，杜进才与詹时中那年所唱的同一首歌的愿景并没有实现，许多人到了退休年龄才发觉钱不够用。公积金局的标语“saving for retirement”对许多普罗大众而言是个乌托邦。