sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ong Pang Boon, Toh Chin Chye

National Archives Library

Release No: 23/MAY 05-l/89/05/14

SPEECH BY MR , FIRST DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, AT THE VALEDICTORY DINNER FOR RETIRED MPs AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE GARDEN ON SUNDAY, 14 MAY 1989 AT 8.00 PM

Successful Self-Renewal is a Tribute to the Retired MPs

Tonight's special occasion is in honour of the 14 MPs who retired from Parliament before the last General Elections. They are, in descending order of their years of Parliamentary service:

First Elected 1. Dr Chin Chye 1959 2 S Rajaratnam II 3. Pang Boon II l 4. E W Barker 1963 5. II 6. Fang Sip Chee II 7. Tang See Chim 1966 (By-election) 8. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng (By-election) 9. Phua Bah Lee 1968 10. Eric Cheong I, 11. Yeo Choo Kok 1970 (By-election) 12. Dr Ang Kok Peng 1972 13. Chai Chong Yii I, 14. Lai Tha Chai

I shall not pay tribute to them individually as it will take the whole evening. Also, no amount, or form of words, can adequately express our gratitude and debt to them for the part they played in first creating, and then, 2

building, today's independent . Suffice it for me to say that their contribution is immeasurable. Without them, in particular Dr , S Rajaratnam, and E W Barker, the course of Singapore's history would have taken a different turn.

You may, however, wish to note this startling statistic. The fourteen of them have collectively served 312 man-years in Parliament. That is almost twice the life of modern Singapore, measured from 1819. It works out to an average of 22 years per person.

Three of them, Dr Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaratnam and Ong Pang Soon, served Singapore as a Member of Parliament for 29 years each. When they first entered Parliament in 1959, I was still a teenager doing my 'A' levels. Our youngest MP, K Shanmugam, was then only two months old. Their departure from Parliament, and the entry of new MPs of Shanmugam's generation, marks vividly the successful completion of our first cycle of political self-renewal.

Need for self-renewal

Self-renewal may not be a pleasant experience for those who had to make way for the young, but it is an immutable fact that without it a species will go extinct. Whether it is plants, insects, fish or mammals, a species will become extinct unless it reproduces itself. so too for the species of PAP politicians.

yet, if we reflect upon it, our process of systematic political self-renewal is unusual, and I believe, unique to Singapore. Politicians, as a species, are quite different from plants, insects, fish or other mammals. Their instinct is not to self-renew for it means their own displacement and political demise. Most politicians do not willingly give up power and retire. It goes against their grain. They fight to get into power. 3

Then they fight to stay on. They do not give up their power without a fight. Whether it is the leadership in communist countries like China and the Soviet Union, or democracies like Britain and Japan, political leaders fight to stay in power. Only in Singapore do we have leaders 'who seek to replace themselves. The PAP species of politicians is different from the general species. Its desire and capacity to replace itself are characteristics unique in the general world of self-interest politicians.

This process of self-renewal started as early as 1970, I believe, with the by-elections in that year. It continued in 1972 and 1976, and picked up in earnest after that.

In 1979, the Prime Minister wrote in the 25th Anniversary publication of PETIR: "What is the most compelling task at present? It is self-renewal. Sometime in the second half of the 1980's, a group of leaders, equal to the task of leading into the 1990's, must be in positions of authority. The best that Singapore has must be brought together and forged into a team".

In the 1980 General Elections, 18 new MPs were brought in. In the 1984 General Elections, 24 more were recruited, followed by 19 in 1988.

It took consider&be will, courage and foresight, for our party leadership to undertake the onerous task of self-renewal and to persuade our members, at all levels, that this was necessary for the survival of Singapore. In turn, it required considerable fortitude and understanding from those who had to make way to accept first the need, and then the quick pace of self-renewal. Today, the best that Singapore has, has indeed been brought together and forged into a team. This team is in place, ready to lead Singapore into the next decade and the next century. 4

The party, the government, and the country can now look to the future with pride and confidence knowing that there is a group of men and women able and ready to continue with the task of building a nation to better the lives of Singaporeans, and to uphold the same high standards of integrity and good government which our party stands for.

The PAP has self-renewed itself. This to me is the greatest tribute we can pay to the 14 MPs who retired in 1988, as well as all those who retired earlier to make way for new blood.

Changing Attitudes and Expectations

It is now our duty to begin the next cycle of self- renewal. In this, we have to take into account changing attitudes and expectations. The public has become accustomed to very long periods of service in Parliament. Of the 14 retired MPs whom we are honouring tonight, 10 served for about 20 years and, as I said earlier, three, Dr Toh, Rajaratnam and Pang Boon, served for more than a quarter of a century. Why was this so? It was partly because many of them were outstanding individuals and partly because it was not easy to find good, dedicated MPs.

As a consequence, this has been taken to be the norm which has shaped public attitudes and expectations. We, therefore, look upon retirement after a few terms as abnormal. When a MP steps down after one or two terms, eyebrows are raised -questions are asked: What did he do wrong? Did he make a big blunder?

It is, therefore, not easy when the time cones for an honourable member to step down and for his place to be taken by another candidate.

Yet, why should this be the case? Why should an honourable member retiring from a public life of service and sacrifice have to feel rejected or misunderstood by the 5

public? He came into Parliament and served in it because he had qualities of character, leadership and ability which were recognised. Why should the public suddenly neglect him just because he has retired from Parliament?

His qualities obviously do not disappear. They remain with the honourable member. Not only should he leave with his head high for having served to the best of his ability at the highest national level, but he should also proceed to the next stage of his career (if he does not wish to go into retirement) making full use of his political experience and public record. He has contributed to Singapore's peace and progress. He should retire with pride and satisfaction. But since wrong perception still prevails each time there is a self-renewal, can we not change such attitudes or expectations, for example, by having situations in which some MPs come in for shorter term instead of for a lifetime?

Of course, if we can find other men like , Rajaratnam, Toh Chin Chye, it will be a great bonus. But how many of them can we get? In a politically stable period when opportunities abound, most young Singaporeans and their families do not relish the thought of devoting their entire lives to public service. Joining the PAP as an MP is like joining a “Holy Order", as Dr Goh Keng Swee once put it. It is this thought of being sequestered from a normal life for the rest of their lives that discourages many from joining us.

In the US office-holders are appointed by the President. They serve not for a whole lifetime but very often for only periods of one or two terms.

We can borrow such a practice. l

6

If a Singaporean of proven ability knows that he could stand for Parliament and become an MP or even an office holder for just one or two- terms, and then return to the private sector without any perceived loss of it may be easier for us to recruit him. In our talent-scarce situation where capable people are reluctant to commit their entire life to public service, we may indeed have no choice if we want to get more capable individuals to contribute to the nation.

If such a person is prepared to come and serve as MP or office-holder for a limited period, say, one, two or three terms, we should welcome him. Of course, we want as many MPs as possible to dedicate their entire lives to politics. But it is not necessary to have all of them do so so long as there is a core of leaders who are prepared to do so. When there is this public understanding that we have MPs who willingly serve only two or three parliamentary terms, there should be no embarrassment for any MP who has served honourably and stepped down for others.

We must therefore explore such possibilities of l recruiting MPs to serve for only two or three parliamentary terms.

It is worth trying, as I believe it will help the party to get more good candidates for Parliament. The party must continue to self-renew itself and take into account changing attitudes and expectations.

Conclusion

The 14 retired MPs when we are honouring tonight are part of our political history. Historians will one day record your contribution to the nation. The party thanks you for your contribution. We wish you well.

------M4/Ml/Pgs.l-6