8

Remembering Lee Kuan Yew

Aspiring to his example is greatest tribute

Dr Ng Eng Hen

Minister for Defence

and Leader of the House

adam Speaker,
Today, this House mourns
the passing of Mr Lee Kuan
Yew, the founding Prime Minister of
Singapore. Mr Lee was our longest
serving and most illustrious member.
When Mr Lee was admitted to Singa
pore General Hospital (SGH) a few
weeks ago for pneumonia, Singapo
reans from all walks of life watched
anxiously, increasingly worried as his
condition worsened.
There were well-wishers cards
placed all over SGH, so much so that
SGH had to create a special site in The
Quad. We saw elderly Singaporeans
with arthritic joints kneeling and pros
trating themselves for his recovery.
Despite the outpouring of deep wish
es and fervent prayers, it was not to be.
Mr Lees chair sits empty today. His
loss is deeply felt. A nation cries out in
mourning. No one moved Singapore
as Mr Lee did not in life, sickness or
death. We in this House, together with
all Singaporeans here and abroad, weep
that Mr Lee is no longer among us.
Why this deep sorrow for one man?
Why do tears flow uncontrollably for
thousands on his passing and memory?
Simply put, Singapore would not be
what it is today without Mr Lee Kuan
Yew. He was that bright night star that
guided us all, an impoverished and
fearful nation through independence.
He envisioned, then drove Singapore
to become a success story as he
promised, from mudflats to a thriv
ing metropolis that countries all over
seek to emulate. Today, Singaporeans
hold their passports with confidence
and pride.
Mr Lees vision and tenacity rallied
and energised a nation to overcome
seemingly insurmountable odds. He
coaxed, pushed Singaporeans to do
what was difficult, but ultimately right
and good for their long-term interests.
With his powers of persuasion, his clar
ity and confidence became ours, the
peoples the mark of a great leader.
Mr Lee is no longer with us, but I
believe as many do here that each gen
eration will discover anew his wisdom
in building the sturdy foundations of
a thriving Singapore. His life is like
a treasure chest. Each visit through
his many deeds and words, and we
see it now in the community sites, the
videos that played, the people who sat
there riveted by what he said, how he
said it, his convictions, the courage of
his convictions, the clarity of his con
victions, what he believed in, what he
saw as problems. And as you replayed
(the videos), it reveals pearls of wisdom
and nuggets of sound advice, as I found
for this eulogy. For such a monumental
life, any eulogy will fall short and I seek
your pardon. But to honour his memory
and remind us what his life stood for,

I propose to capture the essence of

Mr Lee through his speeches the
very words he used in this Parliament.
Even at the dawn of his political ca
reer, Mr Lee identified closely with the
hopes and aspirations of common Sin
gaporeans. In his first election in 1955,
he told the voters of Tanjong Pagar
that out of 25 divisions, he wanted to
represent workers, wage earners and
small traders, not wealthy merchants
or landlords. This was why he chose
Tanjong Pagar, not Tanglin. The resi
dents of Tanjong Pagar believed and
trusted him and elected him by a hand
some margin. Astonishingly, Mr Lee
would be returned as their MP for 13
subsequent elections. He would serve
as Member of Parliament for Tanjong
Pagar for 60 years, from 1955 to 2015,
and is the only MP that Tanjong Pagar
has ever had since elections started in
Singapore, predating our independ
ence. I doubt this record will ever be
broken in our parliamentary history.
But Mr Lee and his Government
did not get re-elected time and time
again because they dispensed sweet
words. Indeed, Mr Lee would often
warn voters against politicians with
silver tongues purveying sweet prom
ises, empty promises. He gained a fear
some reputation as one who eschewed
the easier, more popular but ultimately
wrong paths, as he recounted in his
book Hard Truths.
Flattery fell flat on him as did lofty
but pretentious ideals. For Mr Lee, the
acid test was how the idea or proposal
would make Singapore stronger. If it
weakened this countrys foundations,

Members of
Parliament holding
vigil at Parliament
House before
attending a special
parliamentary
session to pay
tribute to
Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Photo: Ministry of
Communications
and Information

he would reject it, even if it was politi

cally incorrect to say so and attracted
widespread criticism. If it would make
Singapore better, then no obstacles, no
preconceived notions, no preset habits
were too deeply entrenched to uproot
or overcome. Indeed, he would attack
these hindrances squarely and vigor
ously to improve our circumstances.
That was the Lee Kuan Yew the world
knew and respected throughout his
political life.
In 1968, an MP asked in Parliament
how the British withdrawal would im
pact Singapore. Mr Lee told Singapo
reans matter of factly that the British
bases made up 20 per cent of the GNP
(Gross National Product) and tens of
thousands of jobs would be lost. He
spoke plainly on this drastic impact.
Singaporeans would have to adapt
and adjust, without any whimpering
or wringing of hands, as a way of life
which they have been accustomed to
over 30 years comes to an end.
When another MP followed and
asked if economic aid from the British
could ease the effects of the pull-out,
Mr Lees quick and unequivocal rejoin
der was that any aid should not make
us dependent on perpetual injections of
aid from the outside, that ... we can
not change our attitude to life, that the
world does not owe us a living and
that we cannot live by the begging
bowl ... The best way of meeting the
problem is to go about it quietly and
intelligently discussing our problems
in a low key and with as little fuss and
bother as possible.
There was steel in the tone of these

replies, but Mr Lee revealed later in

1999 that he knew how serious the
problem really was. He said: 1968 to
1971 ... were critical years for our young
Republic. We knew we either made it
or we would fail. We worked hard, we
worked smart and, most important,
we worked as a team. By the time the
British withdrew in October 1971, we
had avoided massive unemployment ...
Mr Lee said: With as little fuss as
possible. But in those critical years (it)
would mean a fundamental overhaul of
what Singaporeans had indeed become
accustomed to but could not afford. To
stop the rot, Mr Lee rooted out corrup
tion, and attacked the malaise that af
flicted our society and economy. What
followed would remake the work envi
ronment, industrial relations, schools,
skills upgrading, productivity, defence
and security the very issues talked
about in Parliament today, but in much
more parlance state ridding Singa
pore of unsavoury, unproductive and
unsustainable habits and customs in
herited from its past.
A slew of legislative reforms followed
in this House. Amendments were made
to Employment, Industrial Relations
and Trade Unions Acts that put an end
to the disruptive labour strikes. Bills
were passed to build technical train
ing institutes, forerunners of todays
ITE (Institute of Technical Educa
tion), polytechnics and universities to
educate and upgrade the skills of the
workforce. Work hours were extend
ed and the number of public holidays
slashed. As you can imagine, none of
these Bills were popular.