(Abridged Version)
Party Chair, CEC members and fellow members of the Workers’ Party – I am delighted to be able to speak with you this morning.
In my address to Party cadre members on the 27th of December 2020, about six months after the General Election 2020, I had warned that having made some political progress at GE2020, we would thereafter be at our most vulnerable. To overcome this, we would have to singularly focus on working as one Team Workers’ Party.
I also shared that a fair number of us underestimate how critical commitment and Party discipline have been to the success of the Workers’ Party over the years.
I wish to expand on this theme of Party discipline today and in doing so, communicate some hard truths about being in opposition politics in Singapore.
My speech is divided into three parts. First, I will speak generally on party discipline. Next, I will speak on some areas of organisational conflict and finally, I will touch on our political priorities for the immediate term.
PART 1
Over the last two years, a few books on Singapore politics have been published. Shashi Jayakumar’s History of the PAP is particularly interesting, as is Derek da Cunha’s Breakthrough 2.0.
Yee Jenn Jong sent his book Journey in Blue to the Party leadership for inputs before it went to the printers.
I will make some references to these books in my speech.
I want to start by asking us to reflect on the discipline that is necessary as an organisation so that we build on the political progress we have made thus far.
Let me state categorically that my comments do not have anything to do with any ongoing Party disciplinary matter.
In my view and I suspect in the view of many senior members of the Party, party discipline is really the X-factor that has ensured our growth and political progress.
It has also differentiated the WP from other opposition parties. I say this not with any arrogance but as a reflection of my observations over the last 25 years where I have closely followed the reasons behind the progress and evolution of the opposition in Singapore.
In fact, I would venture that this very party discipline has played a major part in raising public expectation that the WP will advance a rational, respectable and responsible brand of opposition politics in Singapore.
The purpose of running an organisation that is focused on discipline and does not break ranks in public, is not to breed a group of yes-men or yes-women.
The purpose of running a disciplined organisation is to make sure it operates with professionalism at all times. When individual members are professional, many other positive attributes logically follow suit, such as excellence, responsibility, punctuality, resilience and respect towards fellow members.
Professionalism is an all-weather value, no matter the circumstances, through highs and lows – it helps keep us focussed.
And that is because opposition politics in Singapore is a difficult marathon, not a hundred metre sprint. When things are going well, don’t be too exuberant. You don’t know how the next lap or the journey ahead will turn out.
When things are not going well and you feel the stress and pressure, focus your energies on response and recovery. We are in the public eye constantly, so even seemingly minute things like how we dress and how we speak and communicate with others – not forgetting the parliamentary contributions of the MPs in Parliament in particular – are things the Party is judged by.
Here is an example of the reality that we always have to bear in mind.
It also helps explain why the Organising Dept always reminds members to wear appropriate clothing and not look unkempt for Party events like Hammer sales.
This picture appeared in the Straits Times shortly after nomination day.
If you are a neutral reader, what do you see? I purposely asked this question of my friends who tend to support the PAP, but who are prepared to support the opposition.
I chose this group because this is the voter base we are seeking to persuade and win over.
They shared with me that the picture makes the members of the Workers’ Party look disrespectful, how-lian or sombong, not bothering to even stand up to speak to their political opponents, while in Party uniform.
A few noticed a member not wearing socks and said this was sloppy. Now all this criticism may sound harsh, and the WP members concerned may well have stood up a split second after this picture was taken.
But I share this with you today as a reminder of the hard truth of opposition politics in Singapore and how we must never expect the information ecosystem or mainstream media to be neutral.
The mainstream media may not be as blatant as in the past, but it will rear its ugly head during sensitive times like elections.
I found this story, prominently placed in the Straits Times during the last election, to be very instructive. It is not just candidates or MPs who are fair game, Party members can also be used as pawns in an information campaign to create a negative perspective of the Party.
Today, it is easy to record conversations, and we have to be mindful of ourselves, regardless whether you are an MP, a member or a volunteer.
But in this case, can we say we have exerted our best efforts to avoid putting ourselves in such a situation? Please allow me to be provocative for the sake of mutual learning for all of us.
What I say is a reflection of the questions I ask myself constantly too. If our members had adopted a more professional stance and stood up to communicate with our opponents, it would not have been possible to even have such a photo taken, let alone have it be considered for publication.
Another aspect of professionalism I want to address is how we disagree among ourselves.
There is something common amongst all of us. Whatever our race, language or religious creed, we are outspoken and opinionated in our desire for a better Singapore, one that is far more politically balanced than is the case currently. Otherwise, we would not have joined the Workers’ Party.
I mentioned earlier that we do not seek yes-men or yes-women in the Party. However, how we as Party members channel our views and raise our dissent or disagreement has a deep and long-lasting implication on public confidence in the Workers’ Party.
The ruling party has carried out many policies that finds society at opposite ends – policies that are of deep national significance. I will name a few.
The decision to allow casinos into Singapore in 2006, the population white paper of 2013 and more recently, the decision to repeal 377A all resulted in the loud and forceful articulation of many views.
The positions Singaporeans, and even members of our Party, take on these matters are extremely varied, and in some cases, incapable of compromise.
But you would never hear of PAP party members speaking out publicly against such policies or the Ministers who advanced them, or passing gratuitous comments online questioning their party. It is useful to stop and ask ourselves – why?
They have 1000 over cadre members and probably close to 30,000 members overall. Surely the chances of PAP members commenting publicly, especially online, is very high?
I would hazard that one of the reasons we do not hear of this is because the PAP place a premium on party discipline. And the reason they do so was best articulated by Lee Kuan Yew who in 1979 stressed the importance of clear signalling to the public and the PAP about the importance of unity within the party.
Lee Kuan Yew said – “We have been a coherent united group not given to cliques and factionalism….We learnt never to confuse our supporters by needless infighting and open dissension. We argued and threaded out our differences in private. In public, we never contradicted each other.”
Lee Kuan Yew was very clear. The consequence of cliques, factionalism and dissent would be to confuse, and would have a negative impact on the PAP’s political prospects.
It is no different for the Workers’ Party.
I would go further. More than a year ago I was interviewed by Sumiko Tan of the ST. While it was a candid conversation, there were areas where I made it a point not to stray into sharing my personal views, which would undoubtedly have had an impact on the Party and members of the Party.
I had simply told her during the interview:
“It is Party policy that in public we never run down or criticize our running mates no matter what other people may feel about it.”
I am grateful to the overwhelming majority of you here and our Party members who understand how damaging public disagreements and open ventilation of unhappiness can be for the Party and its future prospects.
This also extends to reckless and mindless communication and chatter by members to Party volunteers. A small number of members behave as if membership is some sort of a rank to flaunt around. Members should not present a negative image of the Party to volunteers who are potential members.
For the overwhelming majority of us, it does not need to be spelt out – and I, and the leadership before me have had no need to spell out – how important it is to keep our criticism and dissent internal to the Party and resolved through internal channels.
We know as a matter of political instinct what can damage the Party and the work so many people have worked for decades to build.
All CEC members, particularly the SG and Chair, participate actively in Hammer sales. We are directly accessible not just to Party members, but to members of the public too.
And of course, all Party members have ready access to the CEC to raise their concerns and have them tabled for discussion.
When the chips are down, the CEC does not retreat into a cave. We are out there getting our work done: house visits, Hammer sales, the MPs continuing their public Meet-the-People sessions – you name it – striving to best of our ability no matter what the circumstances.
No individual, including the Chair or Secretary-General, is bigger than the Party. But if you do not have the courtesy of even informing your colleagues of your dissent or concerns through proper channels like the CEC or even picking up the phone, and instead self-flagellate online or leak to the press, do not be surprised if Party members start to believe you to be playing someone else’s game and pursuing your own agenda.
Or that you are someone else’s tool, whose ultimate interest is in destroying the Party or preventing it from growing into that rational, responsible and respectable opposition Singaporeans want us to be.
Even worse is the conduct of members who do not avail themselves of internal processes available under our Constitution to address what they deem to be grave concerns.
And let us not be naïve. There are individuals around, from outside the Party who are deeply interested in the strategic direction of the Workers’ Party. Here are Yee Jenn Jong’s reflections, in the run-up to the 2016 Party elections:
“I received an invitation by a friend for lunch. He said that he would bring another friend along, someone interested in politics….they opined that the WP had been too conservative and posed the question as to whether the WP was ready for a change of leadership….I was with two non-Party members….I told them I was not able to discuss matters of the party and changed the topic. Obviously, there were those interested enough to mount a campaign to even lobby people outside of the Party to check out my allegiance.”
Do you think our political opponents will not notice WP members who ‘like’ the Facebook posts of our political opponents?
Do you really think our political opponents will conclude that intra-party conflict or public airing of dissent in the WP is an approach they will seek to emulate and follow in the name of openness and transparency? That publicly airing your dirty laundry or dissent is an expression of democratic feedback that is to be followed or admired?
Let me be clear as to how I see it after closely studying the PAP for the greater part of my adult life. They will be rubbing their hands in delight and planning how to use every piece of evidence of intra-party conflict or personal dissent to their political advantage. Their members, activists or supporters will use such evidence to sow doubts about the Party in the public eye and to showcase the Workers’ Party as unworthy of the trust of Singaporeans and voters. And in politics, that is fair game.
Here is how they do this. Effortlessly, I must say.
In July 2021, at least two members of another political party felt it proper to openly ventilate their dissatisfaction on their party’s Facebook page. Their dissent was of course carried by the media – at minimum, in Today and the Straits Times – citing the ‘racial undertones’ of that party’s position on a contemporary matter.
Now, it is not for me to comment on the internal workings and the policy positions of another political party. But I would assume that their party manifesto and political positions would be publicly supported by all members. And that any serious differences in views would be discussed in closed-door sessions or channelled through their CEC.
A few days after the online comments of those members, the leadership of this political party met and resolved the issue internally, with all their members aligned to the party position.
But of course, the mainstream media signature on this show of unity and internal support of this political party was exceedingly small compared to the reporting on the conduct of the very small number of members who broke ranks and ventilated their views online.
In addition, the poor self-discipline of this tiny number of members had parliamentary consequences for that opposition party.
This is what one Minister said in response to media reports of the airing of that party’s dirty laundry in public:
“Your statements have been interpreted by your own party members as being racist. People in your party think your statements are racist. Would you accept? I do not expect that you will accept that you are racist, but would you accept that people in your party think that your statements are racist and have said so.”
If we in the Workers’ Party have no sense of Party discipline and how each of us is an ambassador and agent of progress for the Workers’ Party, the same thing will happen to us. Our political opponents will gladly accept these own goals which are most certainly politically bankable.
Before we think these issues only happen in other opposition parties, I will add that the Workers’ Party has also experienced similar episodes, albeit in a different context.
As we grow our membership base as a Party, we have to be clear that there must be disciplinary consequences for breaking ranks. Not because there are reputations to protect or because there is embarrassment that needs to be covered up.
But because no serious political party can function properly or expect the public to have continued confidence in it if it either does not speak with one voice in public or allows members to show support for other political parties. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew reminded the PAP, “we argued and threaded out our differences in private”.
So I am grateful for the members who have reached out to not just Party Chair and me, but to other CEC members to raise their concerns.
All of you know that you can write in to the CEC any time with your concerns, so we can deliberate on it. We will give you the courtesy of a reply, consider your feedback and if appropriate, change our position.
If some members choose to engage in a campaign of whispers and gossip, or comment on Party matters online or make comments to journalists in the media, they should not be surprised to find themselves asked to explain their actions that have the potential to bring the Party into disrepute and tarnish its reputation.
I have chosen to speak openly about this subject today because we have a very varied membership base, both in terms of age and political experience.
We should always be looking at the future evolution and continued growth of the Workers’ Party as a credible political party in Singapore. And we should spend our time thinking about how the Party can be strengthened as an organisation for the next generation of Singaporeans.
At its core, the Party should always be thinking about doing right by the many Singaporeans who don’t want us to fail – doing right by our fellow members and hundreds of volunteers, some of whom spend hours in dedicated service of the cause.
And they do it for nothing but the success of the Workers’ Party. No subsidised HDB parking, no HDB BTO selection priority, no Primary 1 placement priority for their children.
We owe it to the Workers’ Party supporters of today and tomorrow to be the best versions of ourselves so that the Party flag continues to rise high over Singapore, even as it always flutters below the national flag.
PART 2
This brings me to the next section of my speech. What are the possible areas of organisational conflict within the Workers’ Party, and how will the Party seek to address them? I will name three.
First, dissatisfaction at being overlooked for candidate selection, second, misalignment of an individual’s political views with the Party’s policy and political objectives, and finally, personality clashes.
On dissatisfaction at being overlooked for candidate selection, I will say from the get-go that I empathize with members who feel disappointed when they are not selected as candidates.
The challenge for the election committee and every SG and Chair of the CEC is not just choosing one person, but envisioning a team where individual candidates complement each other.
Unless you are standing in a Single Member Constituency, your individual attributes may or may not cohere well with your prospective team members. Another reason you may not be fielded is that your candidacy may not be aligned with the strategic direction the Party is taking for that election campaign.
The Party leadership makes the best decisions we can in the circumstances we are in at that moment in time. Bear in mind, the WP does not know when elections will be called, unlike the PAP. So, we go to general elections with the cards in our hands, not the cards we wish we had.
We do look inwards towards more senior members of the Party and invite them to be considered as candidates. Before the last election, I asked a few long-time members and many others from within the Party if they wished to stand as election candidates. This was so that team configurations could be considered. All these senior members turned down the prospect of standing as a WP candidate at GE2020.
As you know, it takes much careful thought and deliberation before deciding that you are ready to contest as an opposition candidate. Not everyone is prepared for the rough and tumble of politics.
I would encourage members to read my speech to NUS students earlier this year – which can be found on the Leader of the Opposition website (https://leaderoftheopposition.sg) – on the reality behind candidate selection in the Workers’ Party. Candidate selection has never been easy and it is not going to get any easier.
But I can assure members that the CEC and Party leadership will continue to do right by the Party and field those who are prepared to take up the challenge of public service, walk the ground, complement their fellow candidates, have a deep interest in service and understand the importance of sacrificing their personal time for their constituents and residents.
The second area for potential conflict within the WP that I want to address is the misalignment between Party and personal objectives.
I would like to thank cadre members for sharing their feedback with me at recent sharing sessions and for the frank exchanges. One cadre member shared that he was not totally in agreement with the Party’s policy on HDB’s Ethnic Integration Policy or EIP and on a minimum wage. Such differing views are not unusual because we all bring different views to the table in our desire to seek better outcomes for Singapore.
The CEC deliberates the manifesto and Party objectives before we go to elections. We take in feedback all the time between elections to review the Party position and welcome feedback from not just cadre members but all members.
Please write in formally to the CEC with your views if you have concerns or disagreements about existing manifesto positions or have some ideas to contribute.
We will give your views considered feedback. But in the end, the Party leadership and CEC have to exercise our considered judgement in advancing a manifesto that is politically compelling to voters.
Coming back to the EIP and the minimum wage, in the two years since the election, we have seen the Government shift on both policies. The shift has been subtle but not insignificant.
I am not going to suggest that our Party position caused this change, but let’s not underestimate it as well. WP MPs have not wavered from getting into the throes of debate in Parliament on both issues and did not hold back from debating Government Ministers on these matters.
At the National Day Rally 2021, we saw the Government move to declare a Local Qualifying Salary Floor of $1400, effectively introducing a quasi-minimum wage in Singapore.
Of course, don’t expect our political opponents to call this a minimum wage because it will be construed as a political point for the Workers’ Party. But if looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck…
On the Ethnic Integration Policy – after many years of the Party position being in our manifesto, the Government admitted to the rough edges of the policy and introduced a buy-back option for affected units.
Were we wrong to advance both items in our manifesto? I am proud we stuck the course.
Policymaking, said the American economist and former US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Blinder, consists of substance, politics, message and process – all interacting at the same time.
On certain issues, we should not shy away from aiming high and taking a position of the highest ideals especially when these intersect with bread-and-butter issues – wages and housing matters certainly qualify.
But in doing so, we have to prepare ourselves for an extensive debate, because aiming low may not sufficiently amplify the issue enough for any change to happen.
In such cases, timing, message and politics are the key drivers in effecting policy change. On other issues, substance and message are in the driver’s seat. These are questions of political judgement, just like determining what proposals we ought to advance in our manifesto.
In the final analysis, the Party is guided by the desired end-state of a better Singapore for our fellow Singaporeans, not by a desire to get personal with our political opponents nor by a need to oppose for the sake of opposing to score a political point.
So, I thank members who write to us or speak to us about manifesto or proposed policy positions they disagree with or feel can be improved, because it sharpens the MPs before they go into a debate with the PAP or anyone else.
If you are so passionate about an issue, please go ahead and even write and submit a research paper to the CEC that looks at the issue from all sides, or to disagree with the Party position.
We will look at it with care and interest, and with an openness to being persuaded. But do expect that a response may come your way explaining why the CEC makes a different judgement call.
Party discipline requires all of us to support the Party position even if our personal views may be different. For the WP Members of Parliament, in all cases, unless the Party Whip is lifted, they put their private personal views aside and publicly defend the Party position.
To this end, one of the Workers’ Party guiding principles is Merdeka. Many of us translate Merdeka literally as independence. But the older Malayan nationalists of all races did not just see it as independence from a colonial master. Amongst other perspectives, they understood it as overcoming social injustice and economic exploitation, and represented their aspirations to build a fairer world. At a very fundamental level, I dare say that these principles beat strong in many of our hearts today and drive many of our policy positions and manifesto proposals.
So if your personal politics has drifted away from the Workers’ Party, it may be best for you to channel your political passions elsewhere.
Of course, it does not mean that all your work and effort in the Party has gone down the drain. If you do decide that it is best that you part company with the Party, rest assured that your contributions to the growth of the Workers’ Party as a rational, responsible and respectable Party can never be understated.
The third and final area of potential organisational conflict within the Party is the reality of personal conflicts between members. Take a look around you. We have members from across all age groups, races and religions.
As we grow, and as is natural in large organisations, some amount of friction between even the best of friends is inevitable.
There is no real hierarchy to speak of in this Party, except of course the CEC, as the highest decision-making body of the Party.
If any inter-personal conflicts or differences of opinion affect our public outreach to residents and the general public, a line has been crossed.
As a public facing organisation – as all political parties are – we must jealously guard against cliques and factionalism. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
Today, thanks to the work of many, and certainly not ignoring those that came before us, members can contribute in many different areas of Party work.
These extend from media to policy to Hammer sales, moving to different divisions across Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang and the contested constituencies where we are active, and even to the WP Community Fund, a charity which always needs manpower and support to run its welfare programs.
In the end, we are all contributing to the Party and cause and can do so in many different ways. Do not let your personal differences get in the way of what you can achieve with the Party.
A member can move across different functional groups and areas where they are needed, but only if they are not themselves a disruptive influence or one who put’s his/her own interests above the Party’s collective interests in the first place.
Even if there is a situation of interpersonal conflict between members, if a person remains dedicated to the Party and is committed to the advancement of a more balanced political system, I am sure you can be deployed elsewhere and continue to contribute.
Everyone in this room represents one piece of a jigsaw puzzle comprising many other individuals that in totality, make up Team Workers’ Party. I say jigsaw puzzle on purpose because that is how critical each one of you is or can be. A missing piece in any jigsaw puzzle can be easily spotted.
PART 3
In the final part of my speech, I would like to look forward towards the political landscape in the short-term.
If the Government decides to run a full-term, we have about 2 – 3 years before the next election. For those of you who have long memories, the PAP usually responds very sharply after any general election result they find less than satisfactory.
Policy shifts come thick and fast, especially after mid-term and no political observer has forgotten the PAP’s “shift to the left” after the 2011 election.
Some older members here may even remember what happened after the opposition in Singapore made good progress in the 1991 election. That progress was quickly frittered away and lost by the next election.
According to Shashi Jayakumar’s book, at some point in the past, PAP HQ set up an “O” Committee or Opposition Committee to closely monitor the opposition. I would place good money on anyone who says they are doing the same today, watching the opposition parties very closely.
Every word in Parliament, every Parliamentary question filed, every letter written on behalf of a resident, every action on the ground.
What we must not forget is the track record of the PAP when it comes to managing the political opposition. Singapore’s history is littered with many defamation suits filed against opposition members and parties. Opposition politicians have been bankrupted. A thoughtless word here or there or an unsubstantiated inference or implication – can easily trip you up. These are just some of the things to always remain alert to, and there are others that we must always be alive to.
This is in the DNA of the PAP. In spite of their close to 70 years of existence, within the living memory of the majority of their members, they have no substantive experience accommodating opposition parties as an integral part of our democratic system, in the national interest.
That is precisely why it is important for us to be on our guard, not to allow inter-personal disputes to spill over into the public realm, and instead to work as one Team Workers’ Party in a dedicated and professional manner for the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans.
And do not for one minute assume the PAP are only about using brass knuckles against the opposition. Never underestimate how hard they are prepared to work on the ground.
In fact, as we enter mid-term, assuming a 5-year term, they will move into a higher gear.
I started this speech with some books and I will end off with a book that was launched only two weeks ago. It is a collection of essays titled The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme and is edited by former NMP Anthea Ong.
In 2013, Parliament debated the Population White Paper. That day, like the Workers’ Party, three NMPs voted against the Paper, while one abstained. Former NMP Laurence Lien makes a most interesting contribution to the book about what went on, on the side-lines of that debate:
“Why was there behind-the-scenes ‘lobbying’ of specific NMPs, which I assumed was to ensure that the majority of the NMPs would vote for the amended motion….I knew that a fellow NMP had a ‘friendly’ call as a reminder that since the NMP’s company hired foreign workers, it would be out of line to vote against the motion. Why was the NMP nudged to give more weight to a personal conflict?”
This reflection provides an insight of the extent to which the PAP attempts to dominate the political narrative. More pointedly, in my opinion, it provides an unblemished snapshot of their real tolerance for non-PAP views.
From now to the general election, we will see stronger and more frequent ground engagement from the PAP. In Hougang, Aljunied and Sengkang. Let me state in no uncertain terms – it will be a very tough fight. And it is going to be the same wherever we contest.
What do we have going for ourselves? We have a strong group of members and volunteers pounding the pavement several times a week and they have been doing so for some time now.
I am determined that the efforts of our members and volunteers will count for something. While I cannot predict the future, I do know that we reap what we sow.
Hard work and both self and Party discipline does pay off. At the very least, you do not look back at your political journey and the opportunity you had with regret, wishing you had done more when you had the chance. By then it would be too late.
As much as we work hard to earn the privilege to serve Singaporeans, let us remember how important it is for the Workers’ Party to always speak with one voice and to never underestimate the importance of party discipline. It will prove especially vital in the next two to three years.
To conclude, in the Art of War, Sun Tze tells us that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
And the best means for our political opponents to achieve this is through the internal self-destruction of the Workers’ Party. This is what we are inviting when any member of the Party underestimates the importance of party discipline.
Keep your sleeves rolled up and make your time with the Workers’ Party something you will remain proud of, for the rest of your life. Thank you. I will take your questions during the Question-and-Answer segment of today’s program.
工人党2022年党员论坛：秘书长演讲 – 党的纪律 （节略版）
党主席、中委以及工人党党员们：我很高兴今天早上能向大家发表演讲。
2020年12月27日，也就是2020年大选过后的大约六个月，我在向干部党员发表讲话时曾经警告说，虽然我们在2020年大选中取得一些进展，这也意味着我们将处于最脆弱的时刻。要克服这个情况，全体党员必须上下一心紧密地合作。
当时，我也分享我们之中有一部分人低估了多年来，献身精神和坚守党的纪律，如何对工人党所取得的成就起着举足轻重的作用。
今天，我就以 “坚守党纪” 这个话题做进一步的阐述。同时，也谈谈身为新加坡的反对党所必须接受的事实硬道理。
我的演讲将分为三个部分。首先，我将概括性地谈谈党的纪律。接下来，我会讨论一个组织的内部冲突问题。最后，我会和大家分享党目前的工作重点。
第一部分
近两年，本地出版了几本有关新加坡政治的书。其中，萨稀·贾古玛 （Shashi Jayakumar）的《人民行动党历史》和德里克·达库尼亚 （Derek da Cunha）的《突破2.0》令人感兴趣。
余振忠在出版《蓝色之旅》前，也向党的领导班子征询意见。 我会在我的演讲中提到这些书。
我首先请大家反思：作为一个组织所必须有的纪律，并以这种纪律做为基础，持续在我们多年的努力之下所取得的政治进展，继续建设。
让我清楚阐明，我的讨论与任何正在进行中的党内纪律问题无关。
在我和许多资深党员看来，党的纪律是确保我们成长和取得政治成就，不言而喻的关键因素。
同时，这也使到工人党和其他的政党不一样。我并非傲慢自大，这番话反映了我观察新加坡反对党过去25年来的进展和演变的背后因素。
其实，我敢大胆地说，这种党的纪律在提高公众期望工人党在新加坡成为一个理性、受尊重和负责任的反对党政治品牌方面，发挥了重要作用。
管理一个注重纪律而不公开决裂的组织，目的不在于要培育出一群唯命是从的 “应声虫”。
管理一个纪律严明组织的目标，是要确保它在任何时候都以专业的态度运作。当每个成员都保持专业的时候，其他正面的属性也会自然而然地显现，例如追求卓越、负责任、守时、坚韧和尊重其他党员。
专业精神是一种全天候的价值观，无论在什么情况下，无论经历任何高潮和低谷，它有助于我们保持专注聚焦。
因为在新加坡，反对党政治是一场艰难的马拉松长跑，不是一百米的短跑冲刺。顺利时，别过度兴高采烈，因为接下来的旅程还不明朗。
不顺利时，你会倍感压力，就把精力专注聚焦于如何反应以及如何反弹恢复过来。我们时刻都在公众的视线中，即使是一些看来微不足道的事，如衣着、谈吐和与人沟通的方式，尤其是议员在国会上的演讲和表现，都会被公众评断。
以下是我们必须时刻谨记的实例，也说明了为什么党的组织部总是提醒党员穿着要适当，比如在《铁锤报》售卖活动中不可以显得不修边幅。
大选提名过后不久，这张照片出现在《海峡时报》。
如果你是一位政治中立的读者，你看到的会是什么？我特意问了那些倾向于支持行动党，但也可能愿意支持反对党的朋友们这个问题。
我选择这群人因为他们正是我们所要说服和争取的选民。
他们反应是在这张照片中，工人党的党员看起来很傲慢无礼，身上穿着党的制服，却连站起来和他们的政治对手讲话也嫌麻烦。
一些人注意到一名没有穿袜子的党员，说这是 “懒散” 。这些批评现在听起来可能很刻薄，而有关的党员也很可能在被拍下这张照片后一瞬间就站了起来。
我今天跟大家分享这些，是要提醒各位，新加坡反对党政治现实中的硬道理，我们绝对不能期望信息生态系统或主流媒体会保持中立。
主流媒体虽然没有像过去一样那么明目张胆的偏袒执政党，但在如选举的敏感时刻，他们必定原形毕露 。
在上届大选期间，《海峡时报》把这张照片中所暗示的故事刊登在显眼的位置，让我觉得非常有启发性。候选人或议员进行公平的博弈本无可厚非，可是党员也可以成为政治宣传战中的棋子，制造人们对政党的负面的观感。
今天，可以很容易地把对话内容录下来。无论你是国会议员、党员或义工，都必须时刻保持警惕。
但在以上的情况下，我们能否说我们已经尽了最大的努力，避免陷入这样的境地呢？请允许我用这个例子作为有争议性的教材, 让我们相互学习。
我所说的，也是我一直在问自己的问题。如果我们的党员采取比较专业的态度，站起来跟我们的政治对手谈话，这样的照片不但不会被拍到，更不会被刊登出来。
我想谈谈专业精神的另一个层面，那就是如何处理我们之间的分歧。
我们都有一个共同点。不论我们所属的种族、语言或宗教信仰，我们都勇于表达和坚持自己的观点，期望建立一个比现在更有政治平衡、更美好的新加坡。否则，我们就不会加入工人党。
我刚才说过，在党内，我们不必唯命是从，也不是应声虫。不过，身为党员，如何表达我们的意见和提出异议，会深远地影响公众对工人党的信心。
执政党所推行的许多政策都具有争议性，并在社会造成对立。这些都是对国家有深远影响的重要政策。我举几个例子。
2006年允许设立赌场、2013年的人口白皮书、以及最近宣布废除 377A 节条文，挑起了社会人士的极力反馈，发表他们看法。
新加坡人，即使在我们的党员之间，对这些问题的立场也非常不同，甚至在某些情况下是无法妥协的。
但你从来没听到行动党党员公开反对这些政策，或者质问负责推行政策的部长；也不会听到在网上质问或指责他们的政党。我们应该扪心自问，这是为什么？
他们有一千多名干部党员，党员总人数可能接近三万人。行动党党员公开发表看法，尤其是在网上发表看法的机会肯定很高。
我们没有听到这样的反对的意见，其中一个原因是行动党非常重视党的纪律。李光耀在1979年强调必须向公众和行动党发出明确的信息，让他们知道党内团结的重要性。
李光耀说：“我们是一个团结一致的团体，没有小集团和派系之分……我们深知不可让不必要的内讧和公开的分歧对我们的支持者造成困扰。我们在私下争论并阐明我们之间的分歧。在公开场合我们从不自相矛盾。
李光耀很清楚。搞小集团、派系之分和异议的结果是造成困惑，对行动党的政治前途会有负面的影响。
工人党也不例外。
我想再说。一年多前，我接受了《海峡时报》记者 Sumiko Tan 的访问。虽然那是一次坦诚的对话，但在某些方面，我特别注意不把个人的看法说出来，否则无疑会影响我们党和党员。
我只是在访谈中简单地告诉她：
“我们党的政策是：无论其他人怎么想，我们都不会当众贬低或批评我们的竞选伙伴。”
我感谢在座绝大多数的各位，以及我们的党员都了解公开分歧和公开地宣泄不满，对党未来的前途有多大的破坏性。
这也延伸到党员对党义工不假思索的交谈与闲聊。少数党员的行为就像是在炫耀自己是党员的地位一样。党员不应该使义工对党留下负面的形象，义工都是潜在的党员。
对我们绝大多数人来说，这些不需要详细说明。我，包括在我之前的领导层，都不必详细说明把我们的批评和异议保留在党内，并通过内部渠道解决是多么的重要！
我们的政治本能使我们知道，什么东西会损害党和许多人几十年来的努力建设。
所有中委成员，尤其是秘书长和主席，都积极参与《铁锤报》的销售活动。不仅是党员，公众人士也能直接与我们沟通。
当然，所有党员都可以随时向中委会提出他们所关心的事项并在中委会上讨论。
面临危机时，中委不会退缩。我们出动去进行我们的工作：进行家访、《铁锤报》销售活动、议员们继续接见选民，不论在什么情况下，我们都会全力以赴。
没有任何人，包括党的主席和秘书长，比党更大。如果你未曾通过适当的渠道如中委会，或打个电话，将你的异议或你所关心的事情告知你的同僚，就在网上或向报界宣泄，导致其他党员开始相信你是别人棋盘上的一颗棋子，或是谋求个人的目标，那就请别感到惊讶。
或许你是别人的工具，而他们最终的利益是摧毁这个党，或者阻挠它发展成为新加坡人所希望的，一个理性、负责任的和备受尊重的反对党。
更糟糕的是，一些党员的行为是拒绝按照党章程里面所规定的程序来解决他们认为严重的问题。
我们别太天真。党内和党外都有一些人对工人党的战略方向深感兴趣。以下是余振忠在他的书中对 2016 年党内选举这么一段回忆的描述。
“我接到一位朋友的午餐邀请。他说他会带另一个对政治有兴趣的朋友来……他们认为工人党过于保守，并质疑工人党是否已做好更换领导人的准备……当时我和两位非党员在一起……我告诉他们，我不能讨论党的事情，并马上改换了话题。很明显的，有些人很有兴趣展开一场运动，甚至游说党外的人来检测我对党的忠诚。”
你认为我们的政治对手不会留意到那些在我们政治对手的面簿贴文按赞的工人党党员吗？
你是否真的认为我们的政治对手会以工人党马首是瞻，以公开和透明的名义，如工人党一样，公开内部的党争或公开表达异议？并以公开表达党内不满或异议，家丑外扬来表示民主的反馈是值得仿效、值得赞许的做法吗？
我在成年后用大部分时间仔细研究行动党。让我清楚地说明我对行动党的看法。他们将欢喜若狂，盘算着如何利用每一项工人党的党内冲突或个人异议的证据来谋取政治利益。他们的党员，活跃分子或支持者，都会利用这些证据，在众人眼前散播怀疑工人党的信息，展示工人党是一个不值得新加坡人和选民信任的政党。在政治上，这也算是公平的竞争。
他们如何轻易地做到这一点呢？且听我说。
2021年7月，至少有两名另一政党的党员认为，在该党的面簿上公开表达不满是恰当的。媒体，如《今日报》和《海峡时报》，都报道了他们的异议，指的是该党在其当前课题上的立场带有”种族色彩”。
我无权去评论另一个政党的内部运作和政策立场。但我假设他们的党纲和政治立场会得到所有党员的支持。任何严重的意见分歧，都会在闭门会议中讨论，或通过他们的中委会提出。
这些党员在网上发表评论几天后，这个政党的领导层开会并在内部解决了问题，所有党员都与该党的立场保持一致。
当然，主流媒体对这个政党内部团结和支持其党立场的报道，比起报道网上极少数党员的发表异议的行为，显得微不足道。
此外，这些少数缺乏自律的党员也对该反对党在国会中造成了一些后果。
这是一位部长在回应媒体有关该党的内部纷争被公开的报道时所说的话：
“你的言论被你自己的党员解释为种族主义。你们党内的人认为你的言论含有种族主义。你接受吗？我不认为你会接受你存有种族主义，但你是否接受你党内的人认为你的言论是种族主义，并且话是这么说的？”
如果我们工人党没有党纪律，不自觉每个人都是工人党的使者，是工人党成功进展的媒介，同样的事情也会发生在我们身上。我们的政治对手会乐意接受这些 “自己踢进自己龙门的乌龙球” ，而且绝对可以从中得到政治加分。
在我们认为这些问题只会发生在其他反对党身上之前，我要补充一点，工人党也经历过类似的情况，只是情境不同而已。
随着我们党员的人数增加，大家必须清楚地认识到，破坏党纪必然会带来纪律处分的后果。我们不是担心名誉受损，也不是因为有什么难为情而想试图隐瞒。
只因为是，没有任何一个行事认真的政党，无法在公众面前统一言论，也允许党员公开支持其他政党的情况下，还可以正常运作，并期望人民继续对它有信心。
正如李光耀先生提醒行动党那样：“我们在私下争辩并消除分歧” 。
因此，我感谢那些不只是向党主席和我，同时也向其他中委提出他们所关注的问题的党员。
大家都知道，如果你有任何关注的课题，可以随时以书面向中委会提出，让我们仔细斟酌。我们会给你回复，考虑你所提的意见，并在适当的情况下改变我们的立场。
如果一些党员选择在网上窃窃私语和制造流言蜚语，或在网上评论党，或在媒体上向记者发表评论，当被召唤澄清自己这些有可能损害党的声誉的行为时，他们就不该因被传召而感到惊讶
今天，我选择公开谈论这个课题，是因为我们拥有多元化的基层党员，无论在年龄或政治经验方面，都很有差异。
我们应该时刻关心工人党，作为一个新加坡可以信赖的政党，在未来的演变和持续发展。我们也应该花时间思考如何为下一代的新加坡人更进一步强化党的组织。
党的核心思想应该时刻关注如何坚守正道、做正确的事，才对得起那许多不希望看到我们失败的新加坡人；也不辜负我们的党员和那几百名为党的理念付出许多心血，无私奉献的义工。
他们都是只为了使工人党能够成功。他们没有获得津贴的组屋停车位，没有建屋局预购组屋的选择优先权，他们的孩子也没有小一入学的优先权。
我们有必要为了现在和未来的支持者，把工人党发展成为最佳状况的政党；在新加坡国旗之下，让党旗在新加坡上空继续高高飘扬。
第二部分
接下来我谈谈工人党内部可能出现哪些组织上的冲突，以及党将如何处理这些冲突。我举三个例子。
（一）不满在候选人遴选过程中被忽略；
（二）个人的政见与党的政策和政治目标的偏差；
（三）性格不合的冲突。
对于在遴选候选人时被忽略而感到不满，让我一开始就直截了当的说，对那些因未能获选为候选人而感到失望的党员，我感同身受。
选举委员会和每一位秘书长和主席所面对的挑战，不仅仅是挑选一个候选人，而是要设想如何组成一个竞选团队，个别候选人都能相辅相成。
除非你是单选区的候选人，否则必须考虑到你的个人特质是否能与竞选团里的成员磨合。你可能无法成为候选人的另一个因素是，在那个大选时，你的参选条件可能不符合党的竞选策略。
党的领导人必须做出在当下最好的决定。切记，工人党和行动党不同，不知道什么时候会举行大选。在参加选举时,我们只能依靠党内的人才，而不是我们所希望拥有的人才。
我们邀请党里较资深的党员并请他们考虑是否要成为候选人。在上届大选前，我问了几位资深党员和党内的好些党员是否愿意参选，这是为了策划竞选团的组合。这些资深党员都拒绝成为2020年大选工人党的候选人。
大家都知道，你必须经过深思熟虑，才能决定是否已准备好成为反对党候选人下去参选。不是每个人都准备面对政治的坎坷起落。
我鼓励大家阅读我今年初向国大学生发表的演讲。这篇演讲可在反对党领袖网站( https://leaderoftheopposition.sg )上找到，内容是关于工人党遴选候选人背后的现实情况和挑战。遴选候选人并非易事，将来的挑战也会更艰巨。
不过，我可以向大家保证，中委会和党的领导人会一如既往为党做正确的事，推荐那些准备好接受公共服务的挑战，踏实工作并可以与其他候选人相辅相成，对服务人民有浓厚的兴趣，并明白为居民牺牲个人时间的重要性的人，成为党的候选人。
工人党内部可能出现矛盾的第二个地方是政党的目标和个人目标的不协调。
在此，我要感谢干部党员在近期的交流会上，与我分享了他们的反馈，并进行了坦诚的交流。一名干部说，他不完全认同政纲内建屋局組屋种族融合政策和最低工资的政策。希望新加坡发展得更好，我们都带来了建议和观点。因此，意见上出现分歧并不罕见。
中委会在大选前，会仔细讨论政纲和党的目标。在选举过后而在为来届大选备战之余，我们都会听取党员的反馈，检讨我们的立场。我们欢迎所有党员提出意见。
如果你对现有的政纲立场有任何顾虑或异议，或要提呈一些想法和意见，请正式致函中委，提出你的看法。
我们会仔细考虑你的意见。最终，党的领导层和中委还是得运用我们深思熟虑的判断，提呈一份对选民有政治说服力的政纲。
说回建屋局組屋种族融合政策（EIP）和最低工资（Minimum Wage），在大选后的两年里，我们可以看到政府在这两个政策上的转变。这一转变看似微小，但并非微不足道。
我不建议说这是因为工人党的立场所推动的变化，但我们也不要低估这一变化。工人党议员在国会辩论这两个课题时，都毫不迟疑地投入激烈辩论，面对政府部长的辩论也毫不示弱、针锋相对。
2021年国庆群众大会上，我们看到政府宣布了本地合格最低工资额为 1400元。这等于在新加坡引进了类似最低工资制。
当然，别指望我们的政治对手会因此而把它称为最低工资，因为这将被视为工人党的政绩加分。但如果它看起来像只鸭子，游泳像只鸭子，叫声像只鸭子……
在組屋种族融合政策方面，多年以来一直是我们的竞选政纲里的其中一个项目。近来,政府承认了种族融合政策的缺点，并为受影响的组屋单位提供了回购计划。
我们在竞选政纲里提出的这两个项目是错误的吗？我为我们坚持到底感到自豪。
美国经济学家，美联储前主席艾伦·布林德尔（Alan Blinder）说，制定政策包括实质内容、政治、信息和过程；所有这些都同时相互用。
在某些课题上，我们不应回避追求更高的目标，采取更崇高的立场，尤其是当这些课题与民生课题交织在一起时，例如工资和住屋皆是唇齿相依的课题。
但在这么做的时候，我们必须为一场广泛的辩论做好准备，因为把目标定得太低，可能不足以广阔的角度探讨问题，并促使任何改变的发生。
在这种情况下，时机、信息和政治是实现政策变革的关键驱动因素。在其他问题上，实质内容和信息就在我们的掌控之中。这些都是政治判断的问题，就像我们要在政纲里提出什么建议一样。
归根究底，工人党是以构建国人心目中更美好的新加坡为终极目标，而不是为了与政治对手较量，也不是为了争取政治分数而反对。
因此，我要感谢那些写信给我们或和我们讨论他们不同意或认为可以改进的政纲或政策立场的党员，因为这类的意见或反馈使议员在同行动党或任何人士辩论之前变得更尖锐。
如果你对某个课题很有热忱。请你踊跃参与，甚至写一份研究报告，提交给中委会，要中委会从各方面探讨这个课题，即使这个课题与党的立场不同。
我们会认真、积极地看待这个课题，保持开明的立场。但你可能也会收到中委会解释为何会做出不同的判断的答复。
党的纪律要求我们大家支持党的立场，即使我们个人的看法可能不同。对工人党议员来说，在任何情况下，除非解除党督约束，否则他们都会把个人的看法放一边，公开维护党的立场。
默迪卡（Merdeka）是工人党的指导原则之一。我们许多人把Merdeka的字面意思译为独立。但是，老一辈的马来亚民族主义者，不只是把它视为脱离殖民地主人的独立。除其他观点外，他们认为这是克服社会不公正和经济剥削，并代表了他们建立一个更公平世界的愿望。在一个非常基本的层面上，我敢说，这些原则在我们今天的许多人心中占着很强的位置，并推动了我们许多的政策立场和政纲的建议。
因此，如果你的个人政治与工人党渐行渐远，也许把你的政治激情转移到其他地方会更好。
当然，这并不意味着你在党内的所有工作和努力都付诸东流。如果你认为最好是和党分道扬镳，请放心，你对工人党作为一个理性、负责任和受人尊重的政党所作出的贡献是不可低估的。
党内潜在组织冲突的第三个也是最后一个方面是个别党员之间的个人冲突。看看你周围。我们的党员来自各个年龄层、种族和宗教。
随着我们的成长，如在大机构里一样，即使是最好的朋友之间也难以避免发生一些摩擦。
在这个党内，除了作为党的最高决策机构的中委会之外，并没有真正的等级制度可言。
如果任何个人之间的冲突或意见分歧，影响了党向居民和一般公众展开的公共宣传活动，那就超越了界限。
作为一个面对公众的组织，我们必须像所有政党一样，小心翼翼地防范小集团和派系林立。一条铁链的坚固程度取决于它最脆弱的环节。
今天，由于许多人的努力，当然也不能忽视前人的努力，大家可以在党内许多不同的工作领域作出贡献。
这包括从媒体到政策，铁锤报销售，阿裕尼，后港，盛港的不同分区，再到我们活跃在竞选过的选区，甚至到WP社区基金；这个慈善团体在推行福利计划时，也需要人力和支援。
最终，我们都在为党的事业做贡献，并且可以通过许多不同的方式来进行。不要让你的个人分歧妨碍你可以在党内取得的成就。
一个成员可以跨越不同的职能群体和需要他们的领域，但前提是他们本身没有破坏性的影响，或者把自己的利益高置于党的集体利益之上。
即使党员之间出现人际冲突的情况，但如果一个人仍然忠于党，致力于推动一个更加平衡的政治制度，我相信你可以被派往其他地方，继续作出贡献。
在座的各位代表了一幅拼图中的一块块拼图，拼图中的许多人组成了工人党团队。我说拼图，意思是表示每一个人都是个关键，都重要。因为任何拼图中缺少了一块很容易就显露出来。
第三部分
最后，我想展望短期的政治前景。
如果政府决定执政满整个任期，我们距离下届大选还有大约两三年的时间。记忆力比较好的人会记得，在大选结果出炉后，行动党如果觉得他们自己的表现不满意，他们通常都会做出非常激烈的反应。
许多政策可以突如其来的转变，尤其是在任期的中期之后。没有一个政治观察家会忘记行动党在2011年大选之后 “偏向左翼”的举动。
在这里的一些资深党员甚至可能还记得1991年新加坡反对党在大选中取得良好进展后所发生的事。这一政治进展很快就被消耗掉，并在下一届大选消失无踪。
根据萨稀·贾古玛的书，行动党总部曾在某个时候设立了 “O” 委员会（“O” 即 “反对党” Opposition 的第一个字母），以密切监督反对党的动向。
我敢说他们今时今日也非常密切地监视反对党在国会里所讲的每一句话，在国会里所提出的每一个问题，每一封为居民写的信件，还有在选区里的一举一动。
我们不应该忘记的是，行动党“整治”管理反对党的记录。反对党人以及政党的诽谤官司民事案在新加坡的历史上俯拾即是，反对党政治人物也因此而破产。无意不小心的一句话或者对事件未能证明的影射和推断都可以让你一头栽倒。这只是一些时常需要保持警觉的，还有其他我们必须时时意识到的。
这就是人民行动党的 “基因”。尽管它们存在了将近70年，但在他们大多数党员的记忆里，并没有实际的经验，以国家利益为前提来接纳反对党成为民主制度的一部分。
正因如此，我们必须提高警惕，不要让个人之间的纠纷向外溢出。我们必须以献身精神和专业的方式，打造一个紧密合作的工人党团队，为新加坡和新加坡人的福祉奋斗。
同时，千万不要以为行动党只会用铜拳扣手来对付反对党。他们在选区耕耘的意愿，也不容忽视。
假设国会任期是五年，目前我们进入中期的当儿，他们必然加速前进。
在开始演讲时，我谈到我读过的几本书。我将在结束前，再谈另一本两星期前才刚出版的书，书名为《国会官委议员制度》的散文集，由前官委议员王丽婷主编。
2013年，国会对《人口白皮书》进行辩论。表决当天，工人党议员及三名官委议员投反对票，一名官委议员弃权。前官委议员连宗诚在该书中就那场辩论的做出了最有趣的描述。
“什么原因要在幕后游说某些官委议员？我想这是为了确保多数官委议员会投票支持修正后的动议……据我所知，有一位官委议员接到了一通 “友好” 的电话，提醒这位官委议员的公司聘请了外国客工，投反对票是不恰当的。为什么那位官委议员需要被轻轻推醒为了个人的冲突而做更多的考量？”
这反映了人民行动党试图主导政治论述的程度。在我看来，更重要的是，这让人一目了然地看到了他们对待非人民行动党意见的真正容忍度。
从现在到下一届大选，我们将看到人民行动党更强有力和更频密地参与基层活动。在后港，阿裕尼和盛港。让我明确地说，这将是一场艰难的选战。无论我们到哪一区参选，选情都会一样艰辛。 我们为自己做了些什么呢？我们有一支强大的党员和义工队伍，他们每周都在拜访选民，而且他们这样做已经有一段时间了。
我坚信，我们的党员和义工的努力是不会白费的。虽然我无法预测未来，但我知道，只要努力付出，肯定必有所获。
勤奋工作，自律和遵守党纪是会有回报的。至少，当你回顾你的政治历程时，你不会因为曾有机会做得更多但没有去做而有所遗憾。但到那时候，为时已晚矣。
我们努力工作，就是为了争取能为新加坡人服务的荣幸。请切记：工人党由始至终必须保持立场一致，别低估党纪的重要性。在未来两到三年内，必会应验，这是重中之重。
让我总结。《孙子兵法》说：不战而屈人之兵，才是上上策。
我们的政治对手要达到这个目标，最好的办法，就是通过工人党内部的自我毁灭。当有党员低估了党纪的重要性时，这就是我们可能会招致的后果。
卷起袖子，让你在工人党内的时光成为你一生中的骄傲吧！
谢谢。我将在问答时段里回答你的问题。
Office of the Leader of the Opposition 