I am the only member here who was one of the 25 elected assemblymen in this chamber when the first Legislative Assembly met for its first session in April 1955 to debate a motion by the Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, "That this House conveys to the Secretary of State an expression of warm appreciation for his message". The message was: "You will I am sure prove yourselves worthy of the high trust which has been reposed in you by the people of Singapore. Good luck to you all".

We were taking our first step away from direct rule by a Governor who presided over his mainly nominated legislative councillors, to a partially self-governing government. The Chief Minister was supposed to be in charge of the government. However key subjects like foreign affairs and defence were controlled by London. Singapore’s Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary and Attorney General were all ‘ex-officio’ British officials.

With youthful relish I waded into the Chief Minister after his speech on a ritual ceremonial motion: "We join with the Chief Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir, in all these pious hopes, and we thank him for his good wishes, but we take exception when he says ‘I must first of all congratulate all those who have taken part in the working out of this New Constitution, the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir George Rendel’. Sir, the authors of this constitution, with some exceptions, were not representatives of the people. Its chairman was a man with a very distinguished career in the diplomatic service, amongst whose many achievements in life was a trip across Saudi Arabia at the invitation of King Ibn Saud. No doubt that gave him a sufficient understanding of our political and our economic problems, but the people of Singapore on 2^nd April did not congratulate these men and they decisively showed, with one exception, that they would not have the authors of this phoney constitution. That one exception, Sir, is because the Member concerned is a man who is versatile, a man of many sides and many colours, a man who was agile at some later date to dissociate himself from some very spurious provisions of that recommendation."

I pointed out that he was going back on the position he had taken during the election, that the Rendel Constitution, which had been promulgated was, in his words, "unworkable". Re-reading Hansard, I was reminded of the light hearted irreverence I accorded the Chief Minister. It is a world that has vanished except in the memories of those who took part or reported on these proceedings. It can be only partially captured by those reading the records.

§§§§§§§§§§

In those first four years, 1955 to 1959, this House provided me with a forum. Tumultuous events, riots, strikes, go-slows and turmoil engulfed Singapore and had to be debated in this chamber. It was before the days of television. The newspapers were against the PAP. But they could not ignore what took place in this chamber and I was able to get my views across. By the end of the second year, 1957, the ground sentiment had swung solidly against the government and the other parties in the Assembly, in favour of the PAP. We swept to victory in the 1959 elections, winning 43 out of the 51 seats. Without the platform this chamber provided, the PAP could not have built up its support so quickly.

The next four years, from 1959 to 1963, were even more momentous with several crisis sessions. The most important was the day we decided to have a motion of confidence to separate the goats and the sheep after we lost the Anson bye election in July 1961 to David Marshall, whom the communists then supported. We expelled the 13 pro-communist PAP Assemblymen who had abstained from voting on the confidence motion. They went into opposition as Barisan Sosialis, with Dr Lee Siew Choh as their leader. Some members of this House will remember Dr Lee Siew Choh in his interlude as Non Constituency MP from 1988 to 1991. They saw an older and much chastened Lee Siew Choh, a man who found it difficult to take himself seriously and would laugh at his own absurd posturings. But in the 1960s, with the communists behind him, he struck a defiant figure, ranting at the government front benches, fervent in his belief that he was destined for greatness as the next prime minister.

This House was like a theatre. Whenever there was a crisis, the crowd would fill up the Strangers’ Gallery, as happened after the riots in June 1955 when I was denounced by David Marshall, and next when the PAP looked like being voted out in July 1961, and again during the debates on the Referendum Bill between 1961 and 1962 which would go on to the small hours of the morning.

For the two years we were in Malaysia, 1963 to 1965, the drama moved to Kuala Lumpur. Singapore had two race riots in 1964, in July and September. The matter could not be debated in Singapore because we were only a state assembly and not in charge of the police and matters of law and order. When the centre of gravity returned after 9 August 1965, Dr Lee Siew Choh was not a member, because he had lost the general election in 1963. He ordered Barisan’s 13 MPs to boycott parliament. It was a fateful mistake. For 16 years from 1965 till 1981, we reshaped the political landscape of Singapore. We never abused the people’s trust in us, always maintaining rigorous standards of propriety and honesty, and won four successive general elections, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, in clean sweeps. There was no exciting drama, no crowd in the Strangers’ Gallery. We made great strides in consolidating our young nation. The only occasion the Strangers’ Gallery was full would be the ceremonial openings when the President addressed us. This is a simple litmus test. When the government was in jeopardy, the crowd and pressmen smelling blood, would come to watch the kill, the government being booted out.

When writing my memoirs, I scanned the addresses made by the Head of State to this chamber. They were a barometer of our concerns over the 30 years when I was in charge, from 1959 to 1990. They break neatly into three distinct periods - first, 1959-1965, a hectic political situation wrecked by spasms of violence and tension, when grave economic problems were not given full attention. The second period was from 1965 to 1971, when a deep sense of urgency enveloped us as we tried to cope on our own. It approached crisis proportions in January 1968 when the British announced their coming withdrawal. 1968 to 1971 were perhaps the most critical years of our young republic. We either made it or we would fall and fail. We worked hard, we worked smart, we worked as a team. By the time the British withdrew in October 1971, we had avoided massive unemployment. Fortunately the British, together with the Australians and New Zealanders, left behind a residual force up till 1975. After we rode the oil crisis in 1973, we were more confident that we could survive on our own. The third period, 1972 to 1990, was a time for qualitative improvements across the board, with our concerns shifting over the years.

My speeches in this House mirrored the changes in mood and challenge of the time. The first 2 years (1955 to about 1957), I was light-hearted and enjoyed the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate. When I had to compete against the communists for grassroots support, and realised how deep and all-embracing was their grip on the ground and their determination to seize power, my mood changed. I lost my youthful innocence. The seriousness of the threat and the high stakes involved brought a more sombre tone to my speeches, reflecting my deep concerns for the future. Politics was a deadly serious business, in which all parties were playing for keeps.

We have done well considering the odds. But this is no assurance that we will continue to do well. We have to remain alert and swift in our responses, with a population determined to pull as one and to make the grade. In many hours of speeches in this House, I spoke my mind, said what needed to be said, articulated what had to be publicly defined so that people’s minds were focused on the issues.

As people became better educated, the MPs reflected this change. In 1955, of three PAP MPs, I was the only one with a university education. Goh Chew Chua, an old man, had made his way up in the world as a building contractor. Lim Chin Siong did not finish high school. Ahmad Ibrahim, an official of the Naval Base Labour Union, did not complete standard six. In 1959 when the PAP won 43 out of 51 seats, we had many PAP MPs who were competent but not highly educated, like grass-roots trade unionists, barbers, a farmer, journalists and non graduate teachers. With each successive election, the educational level improved.

Voters expect their MPs to be better educated, more energetic and effective than they themselves are. This trend will continue. It means that MPs have to be more knowledgeable and debate issues at a higher intellectual level. All said and done, each batch of MPs has met the needs of their generation of voters. They tended and held their ground, and so enabled the government to implement tough but sound policies that got us to where we now are. They were men and women of integrity. During the 40 years since 1959 only four MPs had smudged this record of clean and honest government.

Because of the absence of the opposition, we encouraged our backbenchers to play a critical role, both on policy and legislation. Their questioning helped to keep ministers on their toes. The public was reassured that, despite the absence of the opposition, the government’s policies and its legislation were properly scrutinised. It was during this period in 1965 to 1971 that we passed important legislation settling relations between workers, unions and employers. They laid the foundation for our sustained economic growth. The NTUC has played a vital role in the reorientation of the trade union movement and contributed to our economic development, to the benefit of all Singaporeans. The amendments to the Employment Act, Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act have made for a different Singapore. They made possible the two major cost-cutting packages, in 1985 and in 1998.

After 1965 there were no more moments of high drama because the government’s majority was never at risk. Even when we lost a seat in Anson to Mr J B Jeyaretnam in 1981 the excitement was momentary. No one expected major change. Mr Chiam See Tong created a bigger wave in Singapore when he won a second time in 1988 with a total of three seats. It carried long-term implications if the trend continued. Unfortunately for him he fumbled and was expelled from the party he founded.

Will this House see the return of an opposition that can pose a serious challenge to the PAP? That depends on whether the governing party allows itself to go soft and flabby, ceases to respond creatively to changing circumstances, and so loses its standing with the people. This will surely happen if the PAP does not self-renew by attracting some of the brightest and best of each year’s cohort to become MPs, men and women committed to improving the lives of their fellow citizens.

Even more important, the PAP would be foolish if it refuses or fails to include on its side able and dedicated men of strong political convictions, whether because of differences of personality or unwillingness to adjust policies, and drives them to the opposition benches. A few sincere and capable leaders could be the spearhead of a group of men and women, able in one or two election terms to present the voters with a shadow cabinet, an alternative team that can match the PAP’s. I was able to build up a credible team in one election term, four years after getting elected into this chamber in 1955, because I had talented colleagues to help me plan and implement our strategy outside this chamber. If such a turn of events were to happen, where the PAP is displaced by a leaner, keener and shrewder team, I would not shed any tears over its ouster. For this would be one way to renew the political leadership of Singapore. What would be cause for despair would be if a transient mood of disappointment among the people for some setback or mishap just before an election were to lead them to reject the PAP and vote in a motley crew of incompetents and adventurers. That could end up in tragedy for Singapore. Hence it is important to expose opportunists and incompetents before they can pass themselves off as possible replacements for the PAP.

§§§§§§§§§§

With the introduction of television, the pre-eminence of this chamber as a political forum, has been challenged by many other settings. And this is so not only in Singapore. In Britain, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, regularly uses television in settings outside Parliament, to get his main message across. Indeed, the British Parliament has become a noisy, raucous and disorderly place, with members seeking to catch the camera to project themselves to their electorate. A former Speaker of the House of Commons, George Thomas (Lord Tonypandy) once told the PM and me during your reception after a meeting of this House that he believed bringing the TV camera into the British Parliament had lowered standards of behaviour and of debate. But it had to happen, whether in Britain, Australia or anywhere else.

However Parliament, as an arena for a contest of wits and wills over matters of policies will always remain important because of our system of parliamentary democracy, where the Prime Minister has to command the majority of members. He is not elected by the general electorate. He is elected by the majority of members of this House, and it is in this House that members interact with each other and give each other time and opportunity to assess the quality, character, ability and integrity of the person to whom they are going to entrust authority as the PM. I believe it is a better system for choosing a leader because the selectors would have a better knowledge of the person they will support, than the whole electorate voting for a presidential candidate of whom they know little except what they see on TV and what the media men report. Therefore Parliamentary debates will remain important, not just as a forum for the clash of ideas, but for the frequent exchanges that allow members to get insights as to whether this or that MP will make a good leader.

As we close our proceedings in this old chamber, allow me as the oldest member, a moment of nostalgia. When I came up the stairs today, probably for the last time, I recalled the different era when so much depended on how the votes would go in the division, the temper of the fierce opponents who used to frequent this chamber and the members’ room. They have all played a part in keeping Singapore’s parliamentary system alive and well. When I go into the members’ room I am occasionally reminded of the time in March 1958 when I took a communist underground leader, the Plen as I called him, into that same room, then the select committee room, for our first encounter. It played a not insignificant part in the history of Singapore, as did many other encounters I have had in this chamber. I was present at the opening of the first elected assembly and am fortunate to be present today at our last sitting in this chamber, before we move to new premises. Like much of Singapore, we have to move out and on. With this change, something is lost. There would have been an advantage if we could have stayed in this chamber, and rebuilt around it to keep that sense of continuity of place. We did not have that choice. The building is not capacious and sturdy enough to allow us to build around it. The British House of Commons was bombed and rebuilt on the same place.

When we became an independent republic in 1965, we considered whether we should move parliament to a more handsome building like the City Hall. My colleagues and I decided against it. We wanted to keep our sense of proportion; the importance of this chamber did not and does not depend upon its size and its grandeur but upon the quality of the men and women who occupy it as representatives of the people. We are moving into a better furnished and more spacious building. But it is not the magnificent or awe-inspiring edifice that many new nations put up. By the standards of other public and private buildings in Singapore, it is modest. That is a virtue. Behind the understatement lie great strengths of character, integrity, and determination. That is what will see Singapore through, not the grand monuments in brick and mortar or steel and concrete, with which many new nations set out to impress their people and the world.