16/10/2026
Political commitment is demonstrated, not declared. And public trust is earned, not assumed.
I've been thinking about this discussion about TOP, and frankly, I'm disappointed by how it unfolded.
My original point was straightforward: I don't believe a political party should be asking people to entrust it with political power on the strength of impressive CVs, good ideas, and a collection of talented individuals alone.
I want to know what a party has done collectively. How has it engaged with communities? What advocacy has it undertaken? How has it held power to account? What has it demonstrated about its commitment to the people whose votes it wants?
These are reasonable questions to ask of any party seeking a mandate.
They're questions I apply to myself, too.
I'm studying political science and public policy because I want to understand the institutions, the policy process, and the responsibilities that come with political power. I want to do the work before asking people to trust me with the position.
I'm not suggesting that makes me more deserving of anyone's vote. I'm saying I believe political commitment should be demonstrated through action.
And I apply that same standard to TOP.
After this experience, I'm 100% certain that we have a fundamental difference in values when it comes to what political commitment looks like, how public trust is earned, and how we should treat people who challenge us.
I came into this discussion open to being convinced. I was willing to hear about work I hadn't seen, advocacy I hadn't known about, and reasons to reconsider my assessment. Instead, the conversation became increasingly personal. I was insulted, my tone was criticised, and my own commitment was questioned.
And yes, I was angry.
Someone had just insulted me. What exactly was I supposed to feel?
I'm allowed to be angry when someone speaks to me that way. I'm allowed to defend myself. And I'm allowed to question a political party that is competing for the support of communities I, and my friends have worked hard to engage.
Being involved in politics doesn't mean accepting personal attacks with a smile so that other people can feel comfortable.
What has disappointed me most, in hindsight, is that TOP remained silent. So did Qiulae Wong. So did Sarah Lucas.
I cannot tell you why they stayed silent. But I can tell you how that silence landed with me.
---
I believe we should expect better from people who want to participate in public life. Because the point of politics isn't to win every argument, silence every critic, or make sure your own side never feels uncomfortable.
It's to earn people's trust. To demonstrate your values through your actions. And to be willing to answer difficult questions, even when you don't like who's asking them.
Perhaps TOP and I have fundamentally different ideas about what a political party should demonstrate before asking for a mandate.
I don't believe the party has yet demonstrated enough to convince me that it is worth the risk of entrusting it with political power. That's my political judgement based on the evidence I've seen, and I'm open to reconsidering it if I'm shown more.
But I'm not going to pretend this experience hasn't affected how I view the party and the people defending it.
I'm not writing this because I expect everyone to agree with me. I'm writing it because I think the way we conduct ourselves in political disagreement matters.
If you want people to trust you with political power, you should be prepared to demonstrate why you deserve that trust. If you want to criticise someone who questions you, you should be prepared to have your own conduct questioned, too.
That standard applies to TOP. It applies to the people who defend it. And it applies to me.
