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

NKF reserves can last forever?

Leong Sze Hian/ I refer to the reports “Charity sector to get…

The NAC’s remark that The Substation wants autonomy over 45 Armenian Street is “incomplete”, says arts centre

Returning to 45 Armenian Street as co-tenant after renovation works are complete…

RP repeats call for abolition of ISA and NPPA

~by: Kenneth Jeyaretnam/Secretary-General of Reform Party~ The Reform Party welcomes the Prime…

全球贪污感知指数我国排名第三 透明国际:得分高不代表无贪污

国际反贪污组织“透明国际”(Transparency International),于昨日公布2018年度贪污感知指数(Corruption Perception Index,CPI)排行榜,其中新加坡得分85,和芬兰、瑞士以及瑞典齐名,在该指数排名第三。 至于丹麦得分88,获选为2018年度最廉洁的国家,新西兰排名第二。新加坡在2017年排名第六,得分84,此次连升三个排名。 透明国际是对全球180个国家,通过13轮调查,收集各国商人、学者和国情分析师观点,对各国公务人员和政治人物贪腐程度评价。 指数介于0分到100分,满分100代表最清廉。 至于东南亚国家中,贪污感知指数有改善的国家包括汶莱、菲律宾和印尼,马来西亚和老挝保持不变。泰国、老挝、缅甸和越南的得分则下降了。 东南亚国家贪污感知指数排名: 排名 2018得分 2017得分…