建国总理李光耀是在新加坡独立前后那个风起云涌，国际局势变幻莫测的大时代里所历练出来的杰出政治领袖。
新加坡这个小岛，在当时是个不起眼的小城市，经济上依赖转口贸易，军事上依赖英国军队的保护。当新加坡被逼脱离马来西亚时，我想没有多少人相信新加坡能够继续独立和生存下去，更难以想象新加坡会有今天的发展。
我们都知道，当时国内建设百废待兴，人民面对失业的浪潮，邻国又对我们不友善，要生存下去，我们必须放眼世界，争取外来的投资，并与国际市场接轨。可是，这又面对新加坡可能沦为大国的附庸国，成为大国在国际政治舞台上的一颗棋子，而被牺牲掉的风险。
这种高度的内忧外患对李光耀是个非比寻常的考验。如果没有李光耀过人的智慧和胆识，游走于大国之间，推销新加坡对他们的价值和所能提供的潜在利益，并且获得大国领导人的尊重；我们在经济上不会成功，我们在国际政治舞台上也不会有今天的地位和空间。一个小国，除了国防必须兵强器利，在国际政治上的空间是维护国家利益，确保国家生存的关键。
在国内，争取独立的运动和持续的政治斗争造成新加坡人高度政治觉醒，在参与政治运动和共同奋斗的过程中，人民和李光耀产生共识，酝酿了共生的关系，也铸造了共同的方向和互相的信任，这是新加坡能够在一代人从第三世界国家发展成为第一世界国家的关键所在；但其所依赖的，不只是李光耀超乎常人的干劲、精力和坚韧的毅力，还有他的诚意。
但是，我不认同行动党一党专政的政治格局是新加坡经济能够迅速发展，社会能够保持凝聚力，维持国家团结的关键。因为有不少新加坡人在建国和制定政策的权衡过程中被牺牲，我们的社会也付出了代价。这也造成了建国总理李光耀在一些民众的心里成为具有争论性的人物。
虽然他制定政策是根据当时的现实情况，以国家利益为出发点，做理性的判断 ；但政策的选择和施行不单只是理性，应该还有人性和感性的考量，才能避免在实施政策时使一些人民受到伤害和积怨，长久累积成为潜伏性的政治危机，影响人民的团结和对国家的认同感。
从我在国会里和李光耀的接触，我不认为他是个一意孤行的独裁者，如果你有充足的理由和论证，能赢得了他经过细腻思维的政策辩论，我想他会考虑你的意见。我也知道他最讨厌讲废话的人，因为他认为时间宝贵，要做的事还很多。
新加坡是一个由不同种族所组成的社会，各种族拥有不同的语言和文化，在建国初期，大家都希望在这个新兴的国家里保有优势。如何整合不同的矛盾和利益冲突，团结人民，建立国家的意识是一个很大的挑战。一些在建国的时候和我国社会背景相似的国家，到现在还面对多元种族和文化的社会矛盾， 甚至面临国家分裂的风险。今天的新加坡，能够不分种族、言语和宗教而团结一致，李光耀功不可没。
我谨此向建国总理李光耀致以最高的敬意。
Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was an extraordinary political leader born out of that turbulent and uncertain era.
Singapore at that time was a small island and an unnoticeable city, economically, it relied on entreport trade; militarily, it relied on the protection from the British troops. When Singapore was forced to leave Malaysia, I do not think many would have believed that Singapore could survive on its own for long, not to mention to have imagined our achievements today.
We all know that during that period, the country was to be rebuilt from scratch and there was high unemployment rate. Our neighbours were not particularly friendly either. To survive, we must have a global vision, attract foreign investment and link up with international market. However, this could put Singapore in danger of becoming a vassal of the big countries and a pawn in the international political arena, which can be sacrificed at any time.
These internal and external challenges were a grave test for Mr Lee. With outstanding wisdom and courage, he traversed amongst the big countries and promoted Singapore’s values to them and the potential benefit that Singapore can provide. He had won the respect of the leaders of these major powers. Without his efforts, our economy could not have been successful and Singapore could not have achieved its international status, and possessed the political space today. For a small country, besides a strong military defence, the political space in international politics is the key to maintaining national interest and its survival.
In Singapore, fighting for independence and the continuous political struggle awakened the Singaporeans’ political awareness. In the process of political movement and fighting together, consensus was forged between the people and Mr Lee, as well as a common direction and mutual trust. This is the main reason why Singapore can leap from the Third World to the First World within one generation. The success arose not just from Mr Lee’s extraordinary fighting spirit and tenacity, but also from his sincerity.
However, I do not think that the political structure of PAP one-party rule is the key to Singapore’s fast economic development, maintaining social cohesion and national unity. This is because many Singaporeans were sacrificed during the process of nation-building and in policy trade-offs, and our society has paid a price for it. Mr Lee is thus also a controversial figure in some people’s eyes.
He crafted policies based on the situation then and made rational judgement in the interests of the country. However, the choice and implementation of policies should not be just rational. It should also take into consideration humanity and sensitivity. Only by doing this can we avoid hurting people and creating resentment. If accumulated over a long time, the resentment could become a potential political crisis and affect people’s unity and their sense of national identity.
From my dealings with Mr Lee in Parliament, I do not think he was an autocrat who did not listen. If you have strong reasons and tight arguments and can win him over in the well thought-through policy debate, I think he will consider your views. I also know he was someone who hated empty talking because he thought time was precious and there were many more things to be done.
Singapore is a multi-racial society and every race has its own language and culture. In the early years of nation-building, everyone hoped to maintain their advantages in this new country. How to manage the various conflicts of interests, unite people and build a national identity was a tremendous challenge. Countries with similar situations as we were in the early days are still facing social conflicts brought about by multi-racialism and multi-culturalism. Some even faced the danger of disintegration. Singapore today is united regardless of race, language or religion.
This is an achievement that is not possible without Mr Lee.
My deepest respect goes to founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew.