Jason Lee

It was exactly 10 years ago that the late President Ong Teng Cheong called a press conference at the Istana on 16 July 1999 – six weeks before his term was due to end.

While the main headlines in the newspapers the following day centred on President Ong’s decision not to stand for a second term, the issues he highlighted at the press conference certainly raised a few eyebrows.

But why did President Ong raise such issues – including the difficulties he had faced in fulfilling his role as the Elected President?

In my humble view, there’s only one reason – to educate Singaporeans and help them gain a better understanding of the Elected Presidency (EP) concept.

As President Ong had then acknowledged, the EP concept was relatively new, and as the first official Elected President, he had to test the system which was, after all, devised to protect the nation’s reserves should we be unfortunate to elect a rogue government one day. Hence President Ong saw it fitting to educate Singaporeans, who had elected him to the office, on how the concept had evolved during his six-year term. In his view, Singaporeans certainly had the right to understand how the EP should work, and how it could be better fine-tuned to better serve its objectives.

Sadly, 10 years since that press conference, have we seen more attempts to test the system? In what ways has the EP concept been fine-tuned to better empower the Elected President, the rightful custodian of Singapore’s reserves, over the past decade?What happened to the 1999 White Paper on principles for determining and safeguarding the accumulated reserves of the Government which Mr Ong had pushed for?

I am not ashamed to state categorically that President Ong will always remain the politician I respect and admire most. But I am not writing to entrench President Ong’s legacy: I am in no position to do so, and there’s simply no such need since Singaporeans can best judge for themselves the contributions made by our beloved leader.

Rather, I am writing to offer my take on why many Singaporeans still miss the late President Ong even though it has been almost 7½ years since he passed away.

The Elected Presidency (as mentioned above) is just a case in point. Truth be told, it is not what President Ong had done that made us appreciate and love him; rather, it is the set of qualities he had displayed consistently from the day he entered politics in 1972.

Allow me to share two of these qualities.

One such quality is his genuine passion in serving Singaporeans and in wanting to improve their lives.

In an interview with AsiaWeek six months after he stepped down as President, Mr Ong was asked about his time as President. His reply was simple and yet sincere: “I was elected to do a job. And I had to do that job whether the government – or anyone else – liked it or not.”

Ask yourself this question: How many politicians today, regardless of their political affiliation, would act as independently as President Ong did? Have we not seen or experienced for ourselves how some politicians today seem to act or talk in such a manner as if they are beholden to certain leaders?

At this point, let us not confine President Ong’s contributions and perseverance merely to his six-year presidential term. Think of the MRT debate in the early 1980s, think of the strike he had ‘endorsed’ as our labour chief in 1986. Why did he do all these when it would perhaps have made his life easier by going with the majority?

Let’s also not forget that Mr Ong left a higher-paying career as the founder of an architecture firm to join politics in 1972. Did he join politics for fame, power or financial remuneration? No. When he was asked by the then-PM Lee Kuan Yew to take up ministerial office in 1973, Mr Ong declined because his younger brother was dying of cancer. With all due respect, how many politicians today would pass over such a golden opportunity? Moreover, you do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out which career – architect vs politician – was more financially rewarding in the 1970s!

The second quality which Mr Ong had, and which I hope our politicians today would also possess, is confidence. Mr Ong was never a politician afraid to relinquish his post as an office holder. He knew that life would continue as per normal even if he had to leave politics.

Asked in the same interview with AsiaWeek why he had “never been afraid of doing something (his) ministerial colleagues might disagree with”, he replied: “If they don’t like it, I can always come back here to my architecture firm.”

How many office holders today can honestly claim to feel the same way?

In my humble view, it is only with such a sense of confidence can an office holder then be bold and independent and make his own stand in the political arena today, instead of ‘going with the flow’.

That President Ong was mentioned in several media reports and Internet postings over the past six months on two issues – the government’s decision to dip into the reserves and on whether one should resign from political party membership prior to seeking a non-partisan post – is testament of the high regard in which he is still held by many Singaporeans.

President Ong has undoubtedly set the benchmark on the qualities a genuine politician should possess. Sadly, I have little confidence that we will have the privilege to witness another leader exuding such qualities.

—–

President Ong was in office from 2 September 1993 to 31 August 1999. 

Visit ongtengcheong.com

 —–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

科威特立法限制外籍人士人数

同样面对本地居民就业需求增长,科威特将通过新的居住法,限制该国外籍人士人数。 科威特有超过400万人口,但70巴仙竟是外籍人士,该法试图将人数降至30巴仙的比例。 预计该法若通过,约有80万印度籍人士收到影响。科威特未来也将着重引进“技术”移民而非外籍劳工。 反观新加坡方面,原贸工部长陈振声,在本月2日上《联合早报》“报告选民”节目,指出调整外籍员工政策须考虑到企业可能面对的冲击,随意减少客工,将使得吸引外来投资变得困难。 他认为,若政府为高薪外籍员工设下限额,贸工部会很难争取到下一波的投资。“在短期内可能对国家没有什么太大的影响,不过我们的下一代就不会有更好的就业机会。”  

受武汉冠病疫情影响,泰国下令禁出口手术口罩

受武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)影响,泰国政府已下令禁止所有外科手术口罩的出口,确保口罩能够满足国内需求。 综合泰媒报道,卫生部国内贸易厅厅长威猜21日表示,副总理兼商业部长朱林已签下中央委员会公告就商品价格和服务管控出口卫生口罩事宜,禁止出口口罩到国外,以防止国内口罩断货。 当地原本规定,民众可出口/带出境500个或500个以上的口罩,但必须事先向国内贸易厅进行申请。然而,在限制出口口罩数量的同时,却发现有人利用出口低于500个口罩的方式,一天寄送10多次。 因此, 为了杜绝这种钻漏洞行为,泰国商业部祭出更严格的措施以全面禁止口罩出口,但两种条件下可携带口罩出境,即仅能携带30个以下的口罩;在持有医生证明的情况下,可以携带不超过50个的口罩出境。 至于普通类型的出口,已设立小组委员会核实情况,由商业部、卫生部人员共同审核按情况需求许可进行出口,例如寄送口罩给大使馆、援助邻国、特殊卫生口罩不适合泰国人使用或者出口不是为了交易或赚取利润。 疫情未见缓和,多国严控口罩出口 日前,贸工部长陈振声曾指如果全民戴口罩,可能国内马上口罩短缺,因此呼吁健康的国人无需戴上口罩,将口罩留给身体不适的国人。 而且他出席新加坡中华总商会(SCCCI)的一项闭门会议时,向与会者解说政府处理口罩问题面对的难处,期间更揶揄一小撮国人到超市疯抢日用品囤货、抢购口罩的行为“下衰”,认为是“白痴”(idiots)行径。 虽说口罩“一罩难求”,但与此同时,仍有人可以在本地大量买口罩送出国。本社此前报道,身在新加坡的武汉人,日前购买240箱口罩和其他各地的救援物资,以便支援家乡的亲友们。他们表示,并希望不要通过红十字会,直接为武汉医院送口罩。于是,就在年初二下午3时蹲守工厂,购下了200箱口罩。 最终在年初三凌晨运抵上海,而湖北省人民政府也为这批职员准备好了相关文件,以专车调度后运往武汉。 除了我国以外,多国也严格把控口罩出口。日前,台湾和澳门也先后宣布限制公众购买口罩的数量,购买时必须登记身份,让政府纪录购买的数量;而香港则因未加以管制导致口罩供应不足…

“面试对答如流” 教育部次长解释淡马锡和义安学院为何聘用费雷拉

教育部兼人力部高级政务次长刘燕玲,在国会回答议员提问时指出,在2008年招聘美国男子费雷拉时,淡马锡和义安理工学院已有核对其文凭,在面试时在学院管理层和专家面前,也表现出对心理学相关领域知识有良好掌握。 这使得上述两所学院决定聘用费雷拉。费雷拉被指在上月28日,涉及泄露1.42万名艾滋带原者和病患的个人资料。 但她指出,淡马锡和义安学院进行的认证核查,也和其他公共领域做法一样,但即便学院已做了仔细调查,但“也没有任何机制,可以完全防堵或侦测到谎言”。 她表示,淡马锡和义安学院,也曾向费雷拉文凭证书的相关学府对证,但一些国外学府基于私隐权问题,而无法对这些核实学术身份的申请作出回应。 “我们不想做得太激进,避免把外国专才吓跑”,她表示在人力管理上,定期的监督和观察就变得很重要。 宏茂桥集选区议员殷丹博士(Dr. Intan Azura Mokhtar)是在国会向教育部长提问,淡马锡和义安理工学院在招聘费雷拉时,是否有仔细核实其身份和学术资历? 早前,香港媒体《南华早报》报导,费雷拉的个人资历出现在香港一家名为Guia Education教育中心的网站上,被列为执行董事。他在2008年前来我国之前,曾待在香港。 费雷拉的个人照下方还列出了“APA,…

Reminder: Check your voter status online at Elections Department website

Following the release of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee (EBRC) report on…