Much has been commented on the pay formula and the benchmark proposed by the different stakeholders in this latest debate on the remunerations for political office. I shall not add to the chorus of opinions on the technical aspects of this debate involving formulas and pay scales, which I believed I am inadequate to assess and any attempt on my part to do so would be far from being constructive. Some have questioned the poor showing by Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament during the 3-days debate, and to a certain extent, these critics are not entirely mistaken. WP members of Parliament have as much to learn as any Member of Parliament from the People’s Action Party (PAP). There are lessons to be learnt and the nation-state of Singapore stands to benefit from the continual development in the parliamentary depth of both the PAP and WP.

With this in mind, the PAP should seriously re-look at itself for trying to play the moral high ground not only in its central arguments in support of the proposals made by the Committee to review ministerial salaries but also in attempting to accuse the WP of being “inconsistent and playing political games”. Minister of State for National Development Tan Chuan-Jin echoed the accusations made in Parliament by Mr. Hri Kumar and tried to paint the WP as being insincere or at least, he was trying to allude to that. Mr. Baey Yam Keng went as far as to suggest that were “other political motivations.” Any political grandstanding in Parliament for one’s own party interests without any due regards for Singaporeans and their interest is regrettable. However, any attempt by the government to paint political grandstanding for party interests on the part of the WP in the name of putting national interests first by the PAP is pure hypocrisy. Singaporeans are intelligent enough to see that the PAP is no less a political party than the WP.

In the first place, why is there even a need to convene a committee to review ministerial salaries, setting in place a subsequent debate on the issue? The answer to my above question: Politics and the mechanics of national elections set in place and driven by the will of the electorate, which unfortunately runs against the agenda that the PAP wanted to set. Loosely termed, “a U-turn”.

Real progress came not from the political courage and convictions of the PAP but from the verdict of 7th May 2011. I was pretty surprised that the contribution of the ordinary Singaporean  was not recognised in length during the course of the entire debate. Instead, it shuffles between “sacrifices”, “principles”, “political grandstanding” and “formulas”

In that sense, fundamentally DPM Teo was referring to “real progress, rhetorical at best and U-turn in nature.”

In the preamble to the section of “Society” in the Workers’ Party “Towards a First World Parliament” manifesto, it stated that “every citizen has a right to a decent standard of living, work and a life of choices and opportunities without discrimination. The government has the responsibility to look after its citizens and should not just play a “charity role” when tackling the needs of the people and building a community.” The Party went on to explain that “the government’s minimalist approach to social welfare, in particular its rigid emphasis on family as the first line of defence, has caused much stress to poor and sandwiched Singaporeans.”

The Workers’ Party beliefs on welfare, community and society are as such:

1. The Workers’ Party is for a caring society and believes that social justice must be intrinsic to the concept of government. It also recognizes that Singapore is a multicultural society and everyone should be treated equally.

2. The society, as a whole, must direct resources to support the underprivileged.

3. The government has the obligation to protect and provide for vulnerable groups of people, especially the poor.

 4. The government must provide needs-based social welfare to ensure that no one who needs help is left stranded. Social workers should be given discretion to assess each case on its merits. Although it may mean that more resource sand effort will be needed to examine some cases, no citizen in need should be deprived of assistance.

5. People with disabilities have the right to live a dignified and fulfulling life and be integrated with the rest of the community.

6. The problems of the aged, especially the chronically ill, do not only refer to those who are destitute but also those whose families are unable to care for them for genuine reasons. Affordable healthcare and support facilities for them are essential. Voluntary welfare organisations are playing important roles here and more support from the government is necessary.

7. Besides physical health, the mental health of the elderly is equally important. Many retirees are still able to contribute to society and should be encouraged and given the opportunities to do so.

8. Single parents must not be left out of available assistance schemes.

9. The development of a strong and vibrant community will strengthen our social fabric, foster social cohesion and in the process build a national identity. We need to encourage individuals within the community to serve the neighbourhood to foster the organic growth of a natural community leadership.

10. Multiculturalism should be actively promoted and should form a corner stone of our social policies.

11. All children have the right to grow up with dignity in a safe environment free from the risk of abuse. Deterrence alone is no guarantee to ensuring the safety of our children. The environment must inherently reduce the risk of abuse and thus, safeguard the well-being of children.

“Much as we [PAP] would like to, it is not possible to please everyone completely. If all sides refuse to budge, Singapore will be gridlocked and nothing will move. Hence, we need to uphold a spirit of give and take, and actively search for creative and practical outcomes that serve the common good. And, after the final decision has been made, I hope that all parties will rally behind this collective decision.” (Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, New Year Message, 1 January 2012)

A ‘new normal’ is to say the least normal. A ‘new normal’ is still a normal political state of affairs. What Singapore really needs is a ‘New Deal’ as I have previously written extensively on. In the 12^th Parliament, the brutal fact of the matter is, the PAP has 81 seats while the largest alternative presence in the form of the Workers’ Party has 6 seats. The cynic will say that Parliament remains a rubber stamp for government agenda and he is not wrong in that respect.

The person of  the year in Singapore in 2011 should be the residents of Aljunied GRC after their admirable feat of kick starting that political reform process on 8 May 2011. The onus for tangible institutional reforms remains firmly on the plate of the PAP. Similarly, the biggest obstacle to systemic reforms lies not in the political wrangling and grandstanding of the alternative party in Parliament but on the intransigence of the ruling PAP in its attitude towards alternative and credible ideas during the policy-making process, masking their own ideas under the facade of the  “common good” and the “collective [majority] decision.”

The Workers’ Party’s Secretary-General, Mr. Low Thia Khiang has categorically allay the fears of Prime Minister’s Lee Hsien Loong by stating on the morning of the Party’s election victory in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and Hougang Single-Member Constituency (SMC) that “Singaporeans have looked up to the Workers’ Party as a rational, responsible and credible party. They have responded to the approach of politics, which I have taken, that we should not oppose for the sake of (opposing), although we are the opposition. He went on to state that “[he] also do not believe that we should do grand standing by trying to show people that we are very confrontational just because we are the opposition; we will confront when necessary.

With this in mind, Mr. Howard Lee rightly encapsulates the political direction that Singapore should take, to “get out of politics and into policy.” In his piece for TheOnlineCitizen on 10 October 2011, He wrote that:

It should now be a time for our elected representatives to roll up their sleeves and get down to doing what they have been elected to do. In other words, it is time to get out of politics and into policy. This should be realised in changes and updates to existing policies that Singaporeans so wanted to see, which I believe drove the decisions that many voters made in this election year.

As Legislative Assistant to Mr. Low Thia Khiang, with much of my spare time being devoted to ground work and looking into the requests of the constituents, I can fully comprehend what the Prime Minister is trying to get at when he says that “Much as we would like to, it is not possible to please everyone completely.” However, I was very intrigued by his idea that “If all sides refuses to budge, Singapore will be gridlocked and nothing will move.” Simply put, in the current context that we are in, there will not be any parliamentary and policy gridlock. Period.

With this in mind, while Prime Minister Lee’s New Year Message is a step in the right direction, I hope that he recognises that more often than not, it is the PAP who refuses to “uphold a spirit of give and take” and accepts “creative and practical outcomes that serve the common good.” Certainly, when a “final decision has been made, all parties [should] rally behind the decision” but it is only possible if and only if that decision is in sync with the pulse of the population and speaks to the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the ordinary Singaporean like no other, or at the least the majority of Singaporeans. What the PAP thinks is good for Singapore may not be what Singaporeans rationally want from their government. There is a disconnect. It is not about ideas or ideology. It is also less about winning the political argument. It is more fundamental and systemic than that and it revolves around that disconnect between governance as envisioned by the PAP and the harsh realities on the ground.

It is ridiculously clumsy to seek out the “common good” when the voice of the individual voter has been diluted by the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system and the current first-past-the post  arrangement. A parliamentary election that is organised under the Prime Minister’s office does not ensure political neutrality and it does not foster the development of a tighter collective will and common good. For better representation of the common good through voter diversity, Singapore should work towards an alternative system of proportional representation so that party votes can be reflected at the national level. The power of Parliament as the people’s representatives should be unfettered and thus the Office of the Elected Presidency should be abolished. Political reforms should be one of the priorities of this government if Prime Minister Lee is serious and genuine about a transformed and reformed PAP in the context of a ‘new normal’.

The Prime Minister in his New Year’s message highlighted that the issue of population “is a particularly complex and critical challenge”. I agree with him. I would also like to point out that the Workers’ Party in its “Towards a First World Parliament” Manifesto has dedicated an entire section to population and immigration, proposing a total of 13 policy proposals to move this country in the right direction. Similarly, the Workers’ Party proposed that ministers’ remuneration should be benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries and their remuneration should also take into account of all associated benefits under the total remuneration or total employment costs.

Will the PAP be willing to consider these rational and constructive solutions for the practical benefits that it can bring even though the proposals or ideas may have originated from the Workers’ Party?

Only time will tell whether Prime Minister Lee’s New Year Message is a potential vision for political reforms and policy changes or a rhetorical, warm and fuzzy piece of writing that contributes little to a country that is full of promise and potential, and one which I am proud to call home.

With that, I wish all Singaporeans a very healthy and rewarding 2012.

Thank you.

In any given society, of the one thousand babies born, there are so many percent near-geniuses , so many percent average , so many percent morons.

I am sorry if I am constantly preoccupied with what the near-geniuses and the above average are going to do. But I am convinced that it is they who are ultimately decide the shape of things to come. It is the above-average in any society who sets the pace. (Lee Kuan Yew, 27 August 1966)

Elitism is the belief that there is always a small group of people at the top who actually make all the important decisions influencing society, whatever the political system and whatever is claimed to the contrary.

The mistake that Mr. Kwek Jian Qiang in his letter to the TODAY newspaper was to mask elitism under the idea of meritocracy. Unfortunately, he did not succeed in pulling wools over the eyes of many readers of the paper. It is precisely the belief in elitist principles that has in turn led to the establishment of meritocracy based on educational achievements and one’s individual performance to determine one’s social standing in society. This meritocratic principle as part of the elitist ideology expressed directly by our national leaders and their policies and espoused indirectly by Mr. Kwek in his article serves to legitimise the socio-economic and ethnic inequality we see in Singapore today.

As Professor Kenneth Paul Tan rightly said, “As the economic and political elite are rewarded with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment, helplessness, social disengagement, and even envy among those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged”.

Meritocracy is that tool to supplement rhetoric with a mechanism that delivers effective control and power and legitimised that unforgiving climate of winners takes all and losers having to fend for themselves and denied of any assistance from the state.

The interesting point to consider is this. Why do we decry elitism, by positioning ourselves as “less of a member of the elites, with humble beginnings” but continually endorsing the legitimacy of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), the main conduit in which the notion of elitism is propagated to govern over our lives? The sober fact of the matter is that there seems to be a congruence between the ideology of our national elites and their efforts at political socialisation and the political culture, beliefs and values of the masses. The levels of satisfaction and the continued support for the PAP indicates somewhat a certain compatibility between the values of the masses and those espoused by our elites and unconsciously and unwittingly, the PAP’s efforts at political socialisation since 1965 have contributed to this congruence between elite and mass culture. Singaporeans may reject the eugenics of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew but we continue unpertubed by the notion of elitism and seem to accept the utility of an elitist society for Singapore.

So I see the latest remarks that expressed dismay and disgust towards Mr. Kwek’s remarks on two folds; (i) as an antithesis to this political congruence but at the same time (ii) unknowingly perpetuating the notion of elitism by rejecting Mr. Kwek’s remarks but continually keeping the source of that elitism in power, enabling and ensuring the entrenchment of elitism in Singapore. This speaks more of the hypocrisy of the masses and less of its rejection of elitism when the masses pit itself against the elites.

At the same time, the state’s elitism is based substantially on the PAP’s perception of itself, a sense of continued siege, less as a result of the organisational difficulties of its earlier founding days but more of its insecurity and insistence of its “given right” to bring about that grand vision of progress for all Singaporeans.

This in turn breeds compliance and the need on the part of the PAP to ensure compliance.

“He abjures politics, saying one can perfectly comfortable keeping within the bounds set by our present rulers, and that there’s no reason why anyone should risk his career, or worse for the sake of more freedom than he would know what to do with.” (Philip Jeyaretnam in “Abraham’s Promise”)

Singapore has all the while been building an elitist society and the masses had been an integral part of that endeavor. The time has come for Singapore to realise its fullest potential as a humane society, one that the government places human dignity, diversity, tolerance, respect and equal opportunity as the principal consideration in policy formulation and implementation and the rejection of elitism and an elitist society within the framework of a strong parliamentary tradition is the most constructive step forward and the vigorous participation of its citizens in a First World Parliament is the most responsible thing any citizen of this land should do.

In light of this, I propose to file the following questions in Parliament:

To ask the Minister for Transport:
(a) whether in his assessment SMRT and SBS is prepared and responsive enough in the event of an emergency situation to ensure the safety of its commuters on the public transport network; and

(b) what are the sustainable measures that SMRT and SBS together with the government have set in place to ensure that similar problems on the transport infrastructure do not happen again.

(c) To update the House on the maintenance schedule of the  rail network following forward and whether in his assessment it was appropriate that the floating slab tracks were last checked 10 years ago, considering that the MRT system has come under heavy strain over the past 10 years due to the rapid increase in population and ridership.

(d) what are the regulatory oversight that LTA has put in place to ensure the smooth running of the public transport system and whether in his assessment the LTA has been vigilant in ensuring that high quality of service and service standards were met by SMRT.

In light of the systemic problems and structural deficiencies within the public transport network, a case should be made again to nationalise our public transport system.

The Workers’ Party’s proposal to set up a National Transport Corporation to oversee and provide universal transport service to all is not an unproductive and uncompetitive model as what some politicians would like you to believe. Nationalisation in this context does not involve the mass expropriation of all the transportation assets. A responsible and rational party would do its utmost to promote the interests of Singaporeans both at home and overseas and would certainly refrain from mass expropriation, which would in turn deter investors from coming to Singapore. Rather, it would likely take the form of a shares buy-back from companies owned by Temasek Holdings, the Government-linked Corporation, as it commonly practiced. Viewed from this perspective, the proposal of the Workers’ Party doesn’t look like a major step after all. In other words, it entails the government buying back shares from companies linked to or under the investment arm of the Singapore government. In addition, the Government of Singapore has another investment arm, the substantially larger Government Investment Corporation (GIC), which invests primarily the country’s foreign reserves.

In the proposed model, the National Transportation Council would be run by competent people whose bonuses and benefits are pegged to certain Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set forth by the government and unless these KPIs are met, bonuses would be docked, meaningful fines handed out and/or CEOs shown the door. I believe that this is a greater incentive than the existing model for the transport sector to perform well and to be marginally profitable.

Additionally, it is a fallacy to assume that under the existing model, you have genuine competition. The existing model essentially perpetuates the influence of two monopolies operating in different areas and often times they do not overlap. The incentive factor to improve its productivity and the competitive advantage is non-existent in this context. While it is not wrong to say that rail licenses are valid for only a finite period and operators have to tender for new licenses, some politicians do not tell you that such permits are issued on a 30-years lease basis. This is not going to spur better services from the transport operators in the short to middle term and whether it improves services and productivity over the longer term is questionable. Contestability is solely missing under the existing model, again contrary to what some have argued.

Furthermore, the National Transport Corporation should not be profit-orientated and should aim to provide public transportation service on the basis of cost and depreciation recovery. It is worth noting that these are principles upon which the North-South line and the East-West line were built in the first place.

All things being equal, would you rather nationalise the public transportation system when paying more for your public transport means more of the same and the increase in transportation fares is not accompanied by a corresponding increase in efficiency and service standards while structural deficiencies and systemic problems continue to persist?

The existing system is seemingly broken and has failed to meet the expectations of our commuters. It is time to seriously consider the alternative, a public and universal transport system that is both efficient and productive.

Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, then Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs puts in 2006 in response to a question by then Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC, Yeo Guat Kwang said that,

Northstar V had successfully meet the key objective of “testing the coordination and validating the emergency response system of the 22 participating agencies, including the two public transport operators, namely, SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation.”

In a press statement released by the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) on the day of the exercise itself, it was stated that

Northstar V was “part of SCDF’s and its related agencies’ on-going efforts to sharpen our respective operational readiness and joint-capabilities for handling terror attack situations and tested the coordination and validated the emergency response system of the various agencies, which included the two public transport operators, namely SBS Transit and SMRT.”

In short, SMRT and SBS were deemed to have passed the test of operational readiness and emergency preparedness in 2206.

Thus, what was surprising to many commuters who were struck on the Circle Line and the North-South Line on 14 December and 15 December 2011 respectively was how unprepared SMRT was in a situation of train breakdowns. We are not even talking about any security threats to the pubic transport system here. Considering how inefficient and unresponsive SMRT is during an emergency situation, the deployment of more police national service personnel to patrol and safeguard the transport system may not necessary achieve the aims set out originally by the Ministry of Home Affairs. As such, the efforts and planning made for Northstar V in 2006 is nothing more than a successful peacetime civil emergency exercise, which will be render null and defunct during times of crisis. One may think that I am taking this a little too far but one have to consider that during a terror attack on Singapore’s public transport system, the responsibility of the transport operators in terms of their readiness and preparedness is of immense importance and would go a long way in shaping the efforts of subsequent agencies such as the civil defence and police force to help the nation cope with the aftermath of any crisis.

Singaporeans may accept trains stopping due to an electrical fault but inefficiencies, unresponsiveness and unreadiness are inexcusable during times of a major incident on the public transport system such as the 5 August 1993 collision of two MRT trains at Clementi MRT station which injuried 156 passengers.

It is now redundant for SMRT to issue an apologetic statement and hopes to be able to move on with its operations. Public confidence has been eroded – even without considering the number of times the public transport system has disappoint in the past one year alone and their poor public relations with its external stakeholders – it will take a lot of time and efforts on the part of SMRT to restore its credibility and the trust and confidence that ordinary Singaporeans have in them.

Singaporeans deserve more and better from a supposedly first class transport system run by two of the most profitable and biggest companies in Singapore. The biggest failure of SMRT and SBS is being unable to see that the ordinary commuter is SMRT and SBS’s biggest stakeholder and thus far, the returns from their investment are officially negative, unfortunately but surprisingly.

What then should SMRT’s priorities in 2012 be? I humbly state the following 3 prioriries – Communication, Communication and Communication.

Since Northstar V, SMRT is more vulnerable and equally unprepared for any emergency incidents. It is either that SMRT treat emergency preparedness as a way of their corporate culture or they risk being a bankrupt entity, bankrupt in all sense of the word barring the financial part of the equation.

When commuters have grown accustomed to being mentally prepared for constant mismanagement on the part of our public transport operators, I think that it is a more than a sufficient indictment of the top leadership of the public transport operators and a cruel reflection of the appalling state of the public transport system in Singapore.

To conclude, I hope that when Parliament next convene, our members of Parliament will ask the following questions on behalf of the tens of thousands of commuters and tourists in Singapore:

To ask the Minister for Transport:

(a)    whether in his assessment SMRT and SBS is prepared and responsive enough in the event of a emergency situation to ensure the safety of its commuters on the public transport network; and

(b)   what are the sustainable measures that SMRT and SBS together with the government have set in place to ensure that similar problems on the transport infrastructure do not happen again. 

I started this journey with a few, until you came along.

Regardless of your station in life, you step forward and stood up to be counted.

From all four corners, we came together for a common purpose.

To serve the residents of Aljunied GRC together

At the end of a SMS or an email, you volunteered your time and energies

Weekday or weekends, it was not a problem.

You came along and with the little you have, you gave your all.

Thank you.

Tabula rasa, a blank slate was all I have.

Possibilities was abound, Hope was in the air.

In you I see commitment, commitment even in the most mundane of tasks.

In you I see responsibility, responsibility towards your fellow volunteers and each individual face in the crowd.

In you I see initiative, initiative to build a dynamic and enriching community.

In you I see passion, passion to be involved with no returns in sight.

In you i see a priceless you.

Thank you.

I provided the opportunity for you to serve, you taught me humility.

Thank you.

—

To all the committee members and volunteers of Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division, Aljunied GRC, 

This is my little note of gratitude that I have written specially for you.

I am really glad that you are together on this journey with me. I am so proud of you. Thank you for your hard work, your perseverance and your unrelenting commitment to the team week in and week out. The journey that we are on was never easy to begin with. Your efforts while often not directly recognised, goes a long way in sharing my worries and responsibilities and helping each resident to fulfill their respective aspirations for the community. Words cannot articulate the sense of gratitude I hold in me, and simple words of mine do not do justice to the contributions you have made to strengthening the team in Bedok Reservoir-Punggol.

You gave me a chance to know you and learn from you. Every opportunity that I share with you is a constant exercise in servant leadership and a lesson in humility.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Regards,

Bernard Chen Jiaxi

12 December 2011, 00 09hrs

工人党代表什么？

一眼望去， 工人党是个亲新加坡， 可信又可靠的政党。 它也是一个具有53年历史的组织。可是，对我来说工人党在很多层次上代表了一个决心改造以利为本的资本社会， 建立一个公正， 正直， 公平的新加坡。这个观点好像有着浓浓的社会主义色彩。但是很多人难免忽略了重要的一点；社会主义的根本是民主主义。社会主义和民主主义并不是政治理念的两个极端。相反的，一个民主的社会也是一个以民为本的社会。

工人党的政治理念 – 主权在民

工人党坚信政治公职必须通过竞争来寻求人民的委托。 由于人民是一切权力的基础， 因此人民必须拥有实际的权力，能通过选举选出代表； 同时在选举过程中参与塑造和建设国家的决策。以这为根本， 国会选举应当废除集选区制度。 这是因为集选区制度削弱了个别选民的代表权。集选区制度对于政治竞争来说是个绊脚石。国会选举应以单个议席的选区制度举行， 鼓励与提倡全民最大程度的参与和讨论。主权在民。

工人党也坚信一切发展都必须朝向建立一个以人为本的公民社会。 资本社会的残酷经济竞争和政治上的交易却往往和以人为本的目标背道而驰。采纳自由市场经济体系的后果是收入的悬殊。工人党不但寻求建立一个互相关怀的社会， 还提倡每一个人都应该获得平等的对待。建立强大的社区是政府应尽的责任，而不是对国民的“恩惠”或“善举”。

新加坡必须建立一个需要为基础，不附带任何先决条件的社会福利安全网，　以确保没有一个新加坡人不会陷于无助的困境。虽然建立一个社会福利安全网需要增加人力和资源去维持，但国民不应该因为无法负担而被剖夺所需。在经济萧条的时刻，当国民失去了工作，工人党深信失业人士在某种程度上应获得协助。最终，建立一个强大和具有活力的社区能够强化我们的社会结构，促进社会的凝聚力，与此同时也建立对国家的归属感。社区组织必须超越党派政治而且鼓励居民为社区邻里服务，使有能力的人士自然成为社区领袖。这比任何培养下一代领袖而设立的基金更为有效。主权在民。

所以要建立一个以人为本的公民社会，政府在制定和落实政策时就必须遵循多元性， 多文化， 相互尊重， 捍卫他人尊严， 包容以及机会平等的基本原则。工人党会以理性的信念赢得国民的尊敬，希望能摆脱过去街头抗争式的印象外衣，走大格局路线。这显然是长远经营，把希望交托在每个国民的身上。主权在民。

工人党捍卫民主程序

工人党党宪法所拟定的其中一个指导原则在于建立一个议会民主制度。在一个议会民主的政治体系里， 所有公民都拥有投选议会代表以及政府的`权力。然而，人民行动党政府一贯操弄我们的政治结构以及行程程序， 已将民众向它问责的机会减至最低。 首先，官委议员制应该废除。因为在没有人民授权的情况下，不应赋予任何人立法的权力。第二， 为了使国会拥有更多广泛的民意基础， 新加坡应该探讨和考虑采纳比例代表制。 我个人也认为新加坡应该把合格选举年龄从现有的21 岁调低至18岁。如果说，一名18岁的少年被断定能持枪捍卫国土，他为何在现有的宪法下被剥夺了决定国家大事的权力呢？给予每个18岁青年那神圣的权力将会是新加坡往后政治，经济与社会发展的一支强心针。

执政党与反对党的巧妙关系

新加坡人必须了解这一个事实。 一个民选政府是在政治竞争的环境下产生的。良好的政治竞争迫切需要执政党与反对党在多个层次上互相切磋， 实实在在地讨论国家的前景与未来。选民也必须了解只有他们的选票才能建立一个强有力的反对党 – 监督政府， 制衡执政当局。在维护我国的民主程序上，每个公民扮演着举足轻重的角色。 也只有良好的民主程序才能构成井然有序的政治轮替， 确保新加坡能持续发展与进步。

政治并不单是定期举行选举， 它是一个持续不断的动态进程。 政治上的竞争为人民带来更好的服务； 它也让政府更能体恤民间的需要， 更好地对民意做出回应。所以，你必须明白一个简单的道理 – 你有权力改变你的未来！

总结

我要在这里强调一点。 我并没有加入一个为了反对而反对的政党。 我深信国家的利益必须超越任何一个党派的自身利益。所以，如果执政党的施政方案利国惠民， 我将会给予政府我的支持。 同样的，如果政策有损国家与人民的利益， 我必定毫不犹豫地提出建设性的提议， 加以反对。我并不是一个反政府的激进分子。 我只是想尽力为我的国家出一点绵力，履行我的公民责任。