The following is an excerpt from an article first published in Asiaweek in 1999

In choosing Ong as its first candidate back in 1993, the government appeared to have forgotten his independent streak and his activist past. As one of them, they thought there was no need to worry. That was a mistake. As president, Ong promptly set about actively doing the job as it was laid down in the Constitution. Almost immediately there were problems over how much power he should have and how much information he should get. In rapid succession, there were four constitutional amendments to try to plug these holes. Mostly, they entailed grabbing back some of the powers that had been vested in the elected president, like his right to veto both defense spending and laws that curtailed his own authority.

Only regarding the reserves did he continue to hold sole discretionary power; he could decide whether to approve or reject requests to draw on the funds. In order to make such decisions, Ong wanted to know how much the reserves were worth. He hit a roadblock. Those who had the information stalled over okaying its release. There was no urgency since none of the budgets presented to him for approval included a request to draw on the reserves. Still, three years into his presidency, Ong wrote to the government complaining that he had not got the figures. With a general election looming later that year, he felt it was procedurally important that he should know the dollar-and-cents details. Finance Minister Richard Hu says Ong got a response on Aug. 14 – “less than two months later.” Ong says it was “a few months.” The rancor was undisguised and it continued unabated. The government said it would take “56 man-years” to provide the information Ong wanted. The president said tersely: “Never mind. Go ahead.” Later, he agreed to accept just a list of the government’s immovable assets rather than a dollar-and-cents valuation. When he finally got it, he says it was incomplete. He complained that he still learned of vital information from the newspapers, instead of being informed first. And he chafed under the minimal staff he was allotted.

Many of these problems may just have been – as the government has argued – teething pains associated with the civil service dealing with a new, untested institution. But they added up to the unusual image of top officials publicly squabbling, a sight not seen since the 1980s when Lee lambasted the former president and PAP stalwart, Devan Nair.

Read the full article here

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

Voter files police report after she was unable to vote due to computer system showing she had already voted

A woman has filed a police report due to complications on Polling…

Over 7,770 people received the wrong CHAS subsidies due to a software error

About 7,700 individuals received inaccurate healthcare and intermediate- and long-term care subsidies…

《海时》记者驳李美花“阿公论”:家长作风是危险自满心态

《海峡时报》一名记者撰文,反驳义顺集选区议员李美花的“阿公论”,也强调当权者的家长式作风,是一种危险的自满态度。 通常国会里很难听到方言福建话,但是当李美花提到“死鬼仔”,形容忘恩负义的儿孙,立刻引起新加坡人民的注意,更令人质疑,难道不赞成政府或彼此意见相左,就是忘恩了? 《阿公与阿成》的故事,似乎就在影射新加坡居民,指新加坡居民经常询问政府为什么没有在最近公布的财政预算案中,为人民提供更多经济支持,尤其是在保健医疗等领域。 《海时》记者Tee Zhou于本月24日撰文评论,李美花透过故事,赞叹和感谢政府精打细算管理国家财政,取得61亿新元的盈利并提供独立一代配套。她也质问”别人的阿公有这么好吗“? Tee Zhou在文中写到, “我很高兴独立一代,即出生在50年代的人们,在今年的财政预算案中获得关注。但我不赞同李美花,把政府的描述成被误会的阿公” 。 虽然李美花以这个在议会中的故事而闻名,但并非所有民众都接受有关言论。 “阿公论”引来瞩目 上月初,李美花“谈蛇又说鼠”的片段广为流传。她表示,这是养猫志愿者留下食物太久,且无人看管,导致她所在地区的蛇和老鼠问题加剧。然而,这是她的选民所面临的问题,是她作为国会议员的工作之一。…