"His genuine concern for the ordinary man, his common touch with the rank and file, the selfless sense of duty with which he devoted himself to the workers who placed their trust in him - these qualities marked him as an outstanding leader in the labour movement that he led and transformed... For those of us who had the privilege of knowing Teng Cheong, his indefinable personal touch, his many varied talents with his warm friendship will always remain in our memory... As always, Teng Cheong was a man of quiet strength, dignity and grace. For the contributions he made to Singapore, he deserves our utmost praise and gratitude." - President S.R.. Nathan, in a letter addressed to Mr Ong Tze Guan, eldest son of the late Mr Ong (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "Singapore and its people have lost a very good citizen. He had contributed so much to our state and our society. I will miss his company and his friendship." - Mr Wee Kim Wee, former President (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "Your father was a courageous man, at work and in his personal life. He held fast to his beliefs and ideals, and was never daunted by opposing views or difficult odds. He was also stoical. After he was diagnosed with lymphoma in 1992, he determined to go on as normally as he could, and live life to the full. He refused to let his illness stand in the way of his duties to his family or to the nation..... The PAP, NTUC, MRT, workers, labour-management relations, unions' co-operatives and recreational facilities, the arts, charities - all have benefitted from his vision and hard work... Teng Cheong was a key member of the team of second-generation ministers who succeeded the Old Guard. We worked well together. He was fully supportive of me as a colleague and as Prime Minister. I shall always remember his comradeship..... He was a devoted family man, upright, caring and gracious. He was a Confucianist scholar, a mandarin, a righteous and accomplished man... Singapore has lost a fine son, a national leader who has devoted much of his life to public service." - Mr Goh Chok Tong, Prime Minister, in a letter addressed to Mt Ong Tze Guan, eldest son of the late Mr Ong (TODAY, 9 February 2002) "Ong Teng Cheong's greatest service to Singapore was as Secretary-General of the NTUC. At a critical time, he renewed the leadership and infused new energy into the organisation. He also broadened the objectives of the trade union movement beyond industrial issues by adding a social dimension to NTUC activities, providing union members with a wide range of leisure and recreational facilities, so that they do not lag behind the middle-class Singaporeans who were upgrading their leisure pursuits. He made a difference." - Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Senior Minister (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "It's very sad. As colleagues, we worked well together even on quite different matters. For example, I was in MTI and he in NTUC. In the 1985 recession, when we had to sell the CPF cut and urge restraint, without his help, I would have had a difficult job. We worked together for many years and also, we both had lymphoma at the same time. I think he's had a difficult time with his illness. My heart goes out to his family." - Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "Mr Ong Teng Cheong's passing away is a very sad loss, not only to his family, but also to the nation. I've had the privilege of knowing Mr Ong for the past 23 years, ever since I entered politics in 1979. He was a good friend. He was always committed to Singapore, and the people of Singapore. He was a staunch and loyal colleague." - Dr Tony Tan, Deputy Prime Minister (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "I have known him for many years, including working with him during his tenure as secretary-general of NTUC. I've seen for myself how passionately he cared for workers, and how he led the labour movement in a decade of change and growth... Comrade Ong was an approachable leader, always ready to listen to workers' problems and help resolve them. His rapport with workers endeared him to the many workers and leaders in the labour movement. In particular, he took a deep personal interest in the lives of low-income workers. He was remembered to have visited workers in their workplaces overnight, so that he could meet them personally and discuss with them their concerns. " - Mr Lim Boon Heng, NTUC Secretary-General and Minister-without-Portfolio (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "I've known Mr Ong since 1984 when I went to Parliament. He was a very earnest person, he had very good ideas, and he made significant contributions to the labour movement, particularly in providing workers with services and facilities which are comparable to what people would enjoy in private clubs. As a president, he has definitely performed his role well too. I've lost a friend. We will miss him." - Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "He felt very passionate about things. One example is the Singapore dress. He was the one who really pushed for it, and it became the national dress, as it were. He was very passionate, very caring. He belonged to the Old Guard... so, in that sense, we have lost a part of our history." - Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Minister for Community Development and Sports (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "As a Cabinet colleague when he was Deputy Prime Minister, I always found him to be unfailingly courteous. He never lost his temper, never used harsh words, and was always very deliberate and considerate of others' attitudes. My great sadness is that he has not lived to see the opening next year of the Esplanade, because there are so many details in it that received his personal attention. Whenever I see the Esplanade and visit it, I will remember him." - B.G. (NS) George Yeo, Minister for Trade and Industry (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "I first met the former President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, 25 years ago... Mr Ong came across to me as a person who was very clear in his vision. He was one of the strongest proponents of the MRT system and, looking back today, I would say that it is quite clear that his vision, his idea of implementing the MRT system, has changed the way that the public-transportation network works in Singapore." - Mr Lim Swee Say, Minister for Environment (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "I had been working with him quite closely in promoting Chinese culture and Chinese community. When we had problems, he was often able to lead the way and shed light on them." - Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon, former Senior Minister of State (The Straits Times, 11 February 2002) "Mr Ong was a very likeable person, soft-spoken, but very firm." - Mr Sidek Saniff, former Senior Minister of State (TODAY, 11 February 2002) "He's a real gentleman. Dignified, honourable, honest, straight-talking and polite - a fantastic combination." - Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of State for National Development (The Straits Times, 11 February 2002) "He was a gentle man and he would stand up for what he believed in... He always told us that life is short, so in whatever we do, we must always give it our best." - Mr Zainul Adidin Rasheed, Mayor of North East Community Development Council (TODAY, 11 February 2002) "I knew him when I entered Parliament 18 years ago. He was a minister then. I found him to be very approachable and personable. He wanted to be a president known for charity work. So, in that sense, he left a very strong mark. The people liked him, and his death is a great loss to us." - Mr Leong Horn Kee, Member-of-Parliament for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "Mr Ong had a great sense of contribution and a strong sense of purpose to improve people's lives... I don't know why he joined politics, but that must be his motivation as well... He told me: 'Halimah, when the opportunity comes to you and you feel that the time is right to serve, you should consider it'." - Madam Halimah Yaacob, Member-of-Parliament for Jurong GRC (TODAY, 9 February 2002) "Although he attained high positions, he did not lose the common touch. We have lost a good and a great union and national leader. We will miss him." - Mr Heng Chee How, NTUC deputy secretary-general (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "He was a devoted husband and a caring father. He was a good employer and a friend to everyone. He was a jun zi - a moral gentleman in his dealings with people." - Mr Lawrence Sia, former NTUC deputy secretary-general (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "When he was at the helm of the NTUC, his genuine care for the welfare of the workers touched our hearts deeply... The renaming of the Singapore Institute of Labour Studies to the Ong Teng Cheong Institute of Labour Studies will allow us to remember his many contributions to the labour movement in Singapore." - Mr John De Payva, NTUC president (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "He was very friendly to everybody he met, from ordinary union members to union leaders to people at a very high level. He was a very creative and innovative person, both in the arts and in the way he did things. The President's Star Charity was his idea." - Mr Tan Kin Lian, CEO of NTUC Income (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "He was a very humble person, and I liked him very much. That's why I had to come, to represent my family." - Mr Thareq Habibie, youngest son of former Indonesian President B.J. Habibie (The Straits Times, 11 February 2002) "He was such a thoughtful and humble man, he had no airs. He was cultured and a true gentleman." - Madam Lee Howe, former music teacher of Mr Ong (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "I think he looked somewhat shy in conversation but he had a great mind. He thought through things very critically and analytically. When we did projects, he always told us: 'Let others go ahead first and we wait and learn from their mistakes. We don't have to try to beat the rest'. He was a very philosophical man." - Mr Yee Fook Hong, former vice-chairman of Kim Keat CCC (TODAY, 9 February 2002) "Whenever he wanted me to do some work for him, he did not call me into his office. He brought the files to my desk and asked me nicely if I could do some things for him. He was such a gentleman and that was how I got to know him." - Mr Paul Tan, a former clerk at MND, where Mr Ong worked in 1967 (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "He was always on the side of labour without overlooking the wider national interests. I was president of the Economic Society and was at one annual dinner when he announced the setting up of the Institute of Labour Studies. I am glad the NTUC has decided to call the institute the Ong Teng Cheong Institute of Labour Studies." - Professor Lim Chong Yah, former chief of the National Wages Council (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "He treated the NTUC like a big family and he always had the workers' interests at heart even when he was the President. He thought of the Orchid Country Club, for workers to play golf. It was a revolutionary idea." - Mr Stephen Lee, president of the Singapore National Employers Federation (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "He was always looking to improve the standard of the arts here. He put in a lot of effort to get Singaporean arts recognised elsewhere. He would play the piano, he sang quite well. Sometimes after a long day at Parliament, we sang together." - Mr Ho Kah Leong, principal of the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "We are deeply saddened by the sudden death of our former President, Mr Ong Teng Cheong. He was a remarkable individual. Not only was he a leader, a distinguished gentleman and scholar, but he was also a friend to everyone who knew him. He will always be remembered as a patron of the Chinese community and was definitely a source of inspiration, giving his constant encouragement and earnest support to all our activities and endeavours. Mr Ong's death is a great loss to Singapore, particularly to the Chinese community." - Mr Kwek Leng Joo, president of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (The Sunday Times, 10 February 2002) "Mr Ong has always been very supportive of his alma mater. He loved the school very much and spent a lot of time doing things for the school. He always attended our Founders' Day on March 21. His death is a real loss to the school and the country. He was such a friendly man." - Mr Koh Yong Chiah, principal of The Chinese High School (The Straits Times, 9 February 2002) "When we invited him in January 2001 to last year's Founder's Day dinner, he replied in Mandarin, 'If I'm not at Chinese High on March 21, where else can I be?' " - Mr Ng Kit Kiew, secretary of the Chinese High Alumni (The New Paper, 9 February 2002) "I've known Mr Ong for 15 years, when he was the secretary-general for NTUC... He was a good man... Whenever we meet, we would talk about music.. I admire his musical talents." - Ms Cai Qin, Taiwanese singer (Streats, 11 February 2002) "He's a very kind, very generous man. It's very sad, he's so young. I hope people would appreciate what he has done for us." - Mrs Elizabeth Choy, Singapore's pioneer woman politician (TODAY, 11 February 2002) "He always reminded us to treat him as we would treat other customers. He didn't mind waiting for his food, and when other customers wanted to take pictures with him, he would oblige." - Mrs CP Lee, whose husband is a partner in a seafood restaurant in East Coast (The New Paper on Sunday, 10 February 2002) "I was helping to organise a song-writing competition. There was a song which many of us liked, but we were not sure as its lyrics were sensitive. Some people might have read it as a criticism of the political leadership. But when the President heard the song, he said: 'No, the simplest things are the most moving'. He promoted the song widely, and it is now a song everyone is familiar with - Xiao ren wu de xin sheng." - Mr Billy Koh, music producer (The Straits Times, 11 February 2002) "Whenever I asked him what he would like in the menu, he would say, 'Do as you deem fit'. He was a very good man, who would ask me how my kids were, as if we were friends. Also, when we meet, he would ask, 'May I get you a drink?'" - Mr Sand Koon Sang, chef (The Straits Times, 11 February 2002) "He had a heart for the people and was very concerned about our welfare... He had no airs about him and was very endearing." - Mr and Mrs K K Tay, who turned up at the wake to pay their respects to Mr Ong (TODAY, 11 February 2002)
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_339518.htmlFeb 17, 2009Why I okay use of reservesBy Sue-Ann Chia Mr Nathan was making public for the first time his decision to allow the drawing down of $4.9 billion of past reserves to fund two schemes. -- ST PHOTO: AZIZ HUSSEINView more photosPRESIDENT SR Nathan on Tuesday explained why he agreed to the Government's request to unlock the past reserves. The process took 11 days and he gave the nod just a day before the Government presented its Budget to Parliament on Jan 22.The swiftness of the process stemmed from the urgent need to roll out aggressive measures to tackle the severe recession which could worsen without quick action.'I recognised the importance of giving confidence to go ahead with the measures proposed in the Budget for the particular reference to past reserves, bearing in mind if the situation prolongs or worsens, negative consequences would have kicked in, making any measures too late to be of any effect to stem events,' he told reporters at the Istana.Mr Nathan was making public for the first time his decision to allow the drawing down of $4.9 billion of past reserves to fund two schemes.One, the $4.5 billion Jobs Credit which subsidies wage costs in a bid to save jobs, and the other, the $5.8 billion Special Risk Sharing Initiative (SRI) to give companies more access to credit.On the speed of his decision, he said: 'The urgency was quite evident, and I think 11 days was reasonable. If it had to be, it could have been shorter.'According to the Constitution, Singapore's national reserves can only be used if two parties give consent: one is the Government of the day, the other is the Elected President. Hence, there are 'two keys' to the reserves.While the process in getting the President's consent happened quickly, Mr Nathan sought to dispel any impression of a hurried and easy unlocking of the reserves.Such views had been expressed by some MPs during the recently-concluded Budget debate and among some Singaporeans as well in public and on-line forums.All had called for more information to be made available about the process and the decision-making.
OTC - revisited PART ONEOng Teng Cheong: Extended interview --------------------------------------------------------------------------------RELATED: President Ong went most unwillingly ASIAWEEK DEC 1999 ASIAWEEK March 10, 2000. 'I Had a Job to Do' Whether the government liked it or not, says ex-president OngONG Teng Cheong will go down in history as Singapore's first elected president. But for twenty years before that, the Chinese-educated, foreign-trained architect was a stalwart of the nation's People's Action Party government led by its first PM Lee Kuan Yew. Ong, now 64, was minister of communications, of culture, and of labor; he was also deputy PM, secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress, and chairman of Lee's PAP. By common consent, he was the man who kept the Chinese ground loyal to the party; indeed, his command of the language was such that Lee always asked Ong to accompany him whenever he visited China. In the 1980s, Ong was one of the party's four senior 'second echelon' leaders who were considered as possible successors to Lee. It was Ong's longtime friend, Goh Chok Tong, who got the nod for the job. Ong, who was diagnosed as suffering from lymphatic cancer in 1992, chose instead to run in the first elections for the presidency the following year. He won -- and soon became embroiled in a six-year long festering dispute with his former colleagues in government over how much information he should have in order to fulfil his role in safeguarding Singapore's prodigious financial reserves. The altercation came to a head last year when Ong and his mentor Lee and friend Goh clashed publicly and rancorously in a rare display of disunity among PAP heavyweights. He decided not to run for re-election as president -- but not before he had spooked Goh's men by leaving the announcement until the last moment. He has now returned to the private architecture firm he set up with his late wife, Ling Siew May, and which is now run by one of his two sons. His doctors have given him a clean bill of health after a debilitating bout with lymphatic cancer -- though he still wears a cap to cover the baldness caused by chemotherapy treatment. Last week, he gave his first in-depth interview about his presidency to senior correspondent Roger Mitton in a nearly two-hour long talk. Extended Excerpts: It's now six months since you stepped down. How do you feel about your time as president?I am satisfied with what I did. I hope it was all for the best. I was elected to do a job. And I had to do that job whether the government -- or anyone else -- liked it or not. It seems that often they did not like it, but let's go back: How did you first get into politics?In the early 1970s, Lee Kuan Yew asked me for an interview to get me involved to stand for election. I stood in 1972 and I won and became a PAP backbencher. A year later, Lee asked me to take up ministerial office but I turned it down because my younger brother was dying of cancer. I had to assist him and to settle his affairs after he died at the age of 25. Then Lee Kuan Yew approached me again and this time I agreed to take up office. Lee is very persuasive. He must have been impressed to make you a minister so quickly -- you were a young architect with no experience of politics.Yes, I was not trained to become a minister or a politician, but you learn on the job. Whenever I went to a new ministry, I always asked myself basic questions: What is this job all about? What am I supposed to do? That's what I did in 1980, for instance, when I became minister of labor, in addition to being minister for communications. I went through all the legislation and I decided that the trade unions should not just be designed to organize and finance strikes, but instead should help improve the workers' social and economic wellbeing. You became head of the NTUC and also remained a cabinet minister -- and Singapore remained strike free.Yes. But in January 1986 I did sanction a strike, the first for about a decade. It was in the shipping industry where the management was taking advantage of the workers. I did not even tell the cabinet about santioning the strike. And some of them were angry with me about that. The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America, asking what happened to Singapore? -- we are non-strike. I said: if I were to inform the cabinet or the government they would probably stop me from going ahead with the strike. It only lasted two days. Then all the issues were settled. It showed that management was just trying to pull a fast one. So I believe what I did was right. It marked a trend -- that you have never been afraid of doing something your ministerial colleagues might disagree with?No. If they don't like it, I can always come back here to my architecture firm. Around this time you were discussing the succession to PM Lee?Lee Kuan Yew had been discussing this since about 1983. At that time, the second echelon was Tony Tan, S. Dhanabalan, Goh Chok Tong and myself. Were you a candidate for the top job?I was considered as a member of the group. At that time, we did not know who would be the successor to Lee. We finally made the decision to pick Goh Chok Tong. He agreed on condition that I agreed to be his number two. So I was the second DPM; he was the first DPM. In 1988, Lee asked Goh to take over, but he was not ready. He said: two more years. So two years later, he took the job. Lee did not agree with your decision to pick Goh.No, he did not disagree. He said he would leave it to us. His own first choice was Tony Tan. Goh Chok Tong was his second choice. I was his third choice because he said my English was not good enough. He said Dhanabalan was not right because Singapore was not ready for an Indian prime minister. That upset the Indian community. There was quite a bit of adverse reaction to what he said. But he speaks his mind. He is the only one who can get away with it. Personally, you felt Goh was the right man?Well, among the four of us, he was the youngest. Tony Tan said no. I said no. And he sort of accepted being pushed into the position, on condition that we stay on to assist him. Soon after taking over, Goh called a snap election in 1991 -- but the PAP's vote slipped and there was talk he would quit.Well, we did discuss about that. But he didn't indicate that he wanted to step down. At that time, you were no. 2 in the executive after PM Goh.Yes. Well, no. 2, no. 3, doesn't matter. So why run for president?The elected presidency was Lee Kuan Yew's initiative. He came out with the idea way back in '82, '83. After parliament passed the measure in 1991, I considered it seriously. At that time, after 20 years in politics, I was thinking of a way to ease myself out, to exit the political arena. I wrote to the prime minister twice to say that I'm prepared to go. You saw the presidency as a way to do that?Yes, the unionists egged me on. They came to see me a couple of times and they suggested that I take it on. I discussed it with the prime minister, being old friends, and he gave me his support.
OTC - revisited, PART TWO.....The well-known oppositionist J.B. Jeyaretnam wanted to run against you?Yes, but he was not allowed to because he did not qualify under the stringent criteria. Maybe too stringent. You were glad Jeyaretnam could not run?No, it's okay. I think it would have been more fun. Some of your colleagues did not think it was much fun when your only opponent, a former accountant-general, Chua Kim Yeoh, got so much support?Yes, all of them were quite worried. Some ministers even called me to say: Oh, we are worried about the outcome. At first, we were quite confident about getting over 70 percent of the vote. But there was a swing of support over to my opponent's side, especially in the educated class -- civil servants and the Shenton Way group. The issue was whether they wanted a PAP man as president to check on a PAP government, or whether it would be better to have a neutral independent like Chua. That's why they voted against me because I had the PAP government support. I would have been happier without the PAP's open support. I think I would have been better off with just the unionists' support and the Chinese-educated heartlanders. Without them I would not have been elected. But you did win and you had to figure out how to do this new job as Singapore's first elected president.Yes. At the first opening of parliament after I was elected, I was given a speech prepared by the government. I read the speech carefully. Besides ceremonial functions, it said that I'm supposed to safeguard the reserves and to help society become more compassionate and gracious. So I decided that, well, if that is what is said in the speech, then that's going to be my job. And I am going to do it. That's what I tried to do. In fact, during the six years I was president, I was very busy. Doing what?Well, I got involved in a lot of things. The Istana presidential palace and other places had to be renovated. All this had to be planned and these places got ready one by one, so that ceremonial functions and other business could go on as usual. I had to press the government to finalize the procedures for the protection of the reserves. A lot of the teething problems and misunderstandings were because there was a lack of clearcut procedures of what to do. Towards the end of my term, I pressed the prime minister for a White Paper to be tabled in parliament that would set out all the principles and procedures for the elected president. Then I will announce my decision to step down. I want to get the job done. Initially, he did not want to do that? It's not that he did not want to do that, but it had been dragging for a long time. They produced a White Paper eventually, tabled it in parliament last July, and that made the future president's job easier. We have already tested out many of the procedures during my term, except for asking the president to approve a draw on the past reserves during a deep economic crisis. That was never done. It's that part of procedure that was not tested. How to do it? It was this issue that caused the dispute between you and the government?Yes. But I don't want to go into details and upset everybody. The thing is that the elected president is supposed to protect the reserves, but he was not told what these are until five years later. From the day the Constitution was amended in 1991 to provide for an elected president, he was supposed to fulfil that role. My predecessor, Wee Kim Wee, although he was not elected, was supposed to play that role during the last two years of his term. But he did not actively check. So, when I came in in 1993, I asked for all this information about the reserves. It took them three years to give it to me. The holdup was for administrative reasons? Either that or they did not think there was any urgency. You see, if you ask me to protect the reserves, then you've got to tell me what I'm supposed to protect. So I had to ask. Why did they not want to tell you?I do not know. Don't ask me, because I don't have the answer. I've been asking them. In fact, in 1996, exactly halfway through my term, I wrote prime minister Goh a letter. At that time, everybody was expecting a general election in December or January. After the election, a new government would be sworn in. When that happens, all the reserves, whether past or current, become past reserves and are locked up on the changeover date. As president, I have to safeguard them and they can only be drawn upon with my permission. So I said to Mr Goh: It's already halfway through my term, but until today I still don't know all these figures about the reserves.So the government had been stonewalling you, the president, for three years?Yes. What happened actually was, as you know, in accounting, when you talk about reserves, it's either cash reserves or assets reserves. The cash side is straightforward: investment, how many million dollars here and there, how much comes from the investment boards and so on. That was straightforward -- but still we had to ask for it. For the assets, like properties and so on, normally you say it's worth $30 million or $100 million or whatever. But they said it would take 56-man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. So I discussed this with the accountant-general and the auditor-general and we came to a compromise. The government would not need to give me the dollar-and-cents value, just give me a listing of all the properties that the government owns. They agreed?Well, yes, they agreed, but they said there's not the time for it. It took them a few months to produce the list. But even when they gave me the list, it was not complete.
OTC - revisited, PART THREE......It seems the Singapore government does not know its own assets?Yes. It's complicated. It's never been done before. And for the assets of land, I can understand why. Every piece of land, even a stretch of road, is probablysubdivided into many lots. There are 50,000 to 60,000 lots and every one has a number. If you want to value them all, it would take a long time. In the past, they have just locked everything up and assumed it is all there. But if I am to protect it, at least I want to know the list. When they eventually gave you the list -- the incomplete list, did you have enough staff to do the checking and other work?No, I did not. I only had one administrative staffer and two part-timers from the auditor-general's office. For things like approving the budget of statutory boards, the auditor-general's office would normally go through that for me. They are very good. They check on everything. And they query and ask for information. For government financial policy matters that you had a veto over, did you get all the details?They finally came with an executive summary to say that they had checked through all this, and that this is what they have, this is how much they are going to spend, and that it won't need any draw from the reserves -- or that there's likely to be a draw. There never was a draw during my time, but there were instances where it was a bit dicey whether the budgets of one or two statutory boards would require a draw. But finally we resolved that. Eventually then, with the list of properties and the executive summaries, you were kept informed?I wouldn't be able to say that. Even in my last year as president, I was still not being informed about some ministerial procedures. For example, in April last year, the government said it would allow the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank POSB to DBS Bank. In the past, when there was no elected president, they could just proceed with this kind of thing. But when there is an elected president you cannot, because the POSB is a statutory board whose reserves are to be protected by the president. You cannot just announce this without informing him. But I came to know of it from the newspaper. That is not quite right. Not only that, but they were even going to submit a bill to parliament for this sale and to dissolve the POSB without first informing me. What did you do?My office went to tell them that this was the wrong procedure. You've got to do this first, do that first, before you can do this. It was question of principle and procedure. We had to bring all this to their attention. That they cannot forget us. It's not that we are busybodies, but under the Constitution we have a role to play and a responsibility. Sometimes in the newspaper I came to know of things that I am responsible for, but if it had not been reported in the newspaper I would not know about it. You must have been pretty angry that this was still happening in your last year as president?Yes, I was a bit grumpy. And maybe not to the liking of the civil service. They did not like what I said. But I have to be a watchdog all the time, you see. So this is where they are supposed to help me to protect the reserves. And not for me to go and watch out when they do right or wrong. Under the Constitution, you have the right to all the information available to the cabinet.Yes. That's right. And I sourced much information from the cabinet papers. But they are not used to it. So I said: I understand, it's something new, and I know you don't like my interference and busybody checking up and so on. But under the Constitution it is my job to do that. Despite all this, it was widely believed that you wanted to run again for a second six-year term as president?No, I'd been telling my friends since late 1998 that my inclination was not to stand for re-election. But of course, life is unpredictable. In March last year, I went to Stanford and my American doctor confirmed that my cancer was in complete remission. He is very experienced, a world authority on my sickness. So I was fine after my treatment. I gave a complete report to the prime minister and we discussed it. I told him that my inclination was not to stand, but that I'd make the announcement later on. Then the cabinet met and they decided that if I were to stand again, they would not support me. You had been given a clean bill of health, yet your former colleagues would not support you. Did that annoy you?I told the prime minister over lunch: Well, I don't need your cabinet support. If I want to stand, whether I do or not, it will be my personal decision. And I'll make that decision nearer the date of the presidential election -- because I have another checkup in June, July, and I want to know my latest position. Also my wife was sick with cancer and we knew that if she died, it would be difficult for me to stand without a first lady. She felt very apologetic and that was another reason why my inclination was not to stand. I hoped that if I stepped down I would have more time to be with my wife, because her prognosis was not very good. By waiting until July to announce your decision, were you ruffling the government for the way they had treated you?Maybe so. Maybe it was my miscalculation that my stated inclination not to stand again had not been good enough for them. But I had been telling that to all my friends. And I did not want to tell people my wife was dying, either. But the government worried that you might suddenly decide to run again.No, I made it very clear and I called a press conference in July to tell everybody. But I believe some people were still afraid that I might turn up on nomination day. Even friends asked me if I might do that. How could they? I had given my word that I would not stand. A straw poll apparently indicated you would beat the government's candidate, S.R. Nathan, if you had stood.Yes. But I gave my word that I would not run. And I don't think it's right. I'm a very old-fashioned man. Also, my wife passed away in September. And I became more sceptical about all these medical reports. Well, not sceptical, but certainly I find life more unpredictable than I thought. Full of uncertainties. In the end you were happy to stand down?Yes, I'd been preparing for that psychologically since late 1998. I was quite happy when the decision was made, happy to return to private life to do the work that I enjoy. How are your relations with PM Goh these days?They are okay. I just had lunch with him last week. I can't invite him now, so he invited me. When I was president, we took turns to invite each other for lunch in the Istana. Did Senior Minister Lee join you?No, we did that separately. Lee spoke out against you last year. How are your relations with him now?We've never quarrelled. It's said that your recalcitrance upset him and your former colleagues, leaving you estranged and bitter?I would not call it recalcitrant. I mentioned some of the problems -- or many of the problems -- that I faced. If they regard that as an attack on the government and on the civil service, then that is for them to interpret. The prime minister and I spoke at my farewell reception. We agreed that we would say what we have to say. I think it came out well. He said that my statements, and his rebuttal in parliament, were probably a good thing. They showed the transparency of the system. I stand by what I said. Published in the ASIAWEEK March 10, 2000.
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/08/breaking-news-president-has-no-discretion-in-clemency-appeal/President has no discretion in clemency appeal (Full report)Posted by theonlinecitizen on August 13, 2010 80 Comments “I therefore hold that the President has no discretion under the Constitution, and specifically under Article 22P, to grant pardons,” High Court Judge Steven Chong said. “The power to do so rests solely with the Cabinet.”Justice Chong handed down the ruling on lawyer M Ravi’s application for a judicial review of the President’s powers in granting clemency.Mr Ravi had applied for a judicial review to ascertain where the powers to grant clemency lie. Specifically he asked the courts to decide on certain remarks by the then-Attorney General, Mr Walter Woon, made in March 2010, and comments by Law Minister K Shanmugam, made in April this year.Mr Woon had said, during the appeal of death row inmate Yong Vui Kong : “Although in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision”.The Law Minister’s remarks - “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?” – made in April, before Yong’s submission of his appeal to the President, had prejudiced and compromised Yong’s constitutional right to an appeal for clemency, Mr Ravi argued.On AG Woon’s remarks, the Justice Chong agreed with Mr Woon – that the power of granting clemency rests solely with the Cabinet.Justice Chong said:“It is clear that the framework under the Constitution is such that in situations where the President is empowered to act in his own discretion, the relevant provision provides for the President “acting in his discretion”. This is to be contrasted with Article 22P where a contrary intention appears from the use of the words, “may, on the advice of the Cabinet.”On whether the Law Minister’s comments had prejudiced Yong’s constitutional rights, Justice Chong said, “I can see nothing objectionable about the Minister’s statement, which only restated the Cabinet’s policy that the age of the offender per se should not be a ground for the exercise of clemency for drug trafficking convictions.”He added, “I cannot infer from the Minister’s statement that the Cabinet will not even subjectively consider Yong’s second petition and the materials put before it by virtue of Article 22P(2) when it next advises the President.”The court was also asked to decide if the clemency process is justiciable (or reviewable by the courts) given the remarks by the Attorney General and the Law Minister. Justice Chong dismissed this argument on these four bases:The power to grant pardons under Article 22P is exercised by the Cabinet, and not the President, who has no discretion in the matter; apparent bbias is not an available ground on which to review the clemency process; there is no evidence of a pre-determination of Yong’s imminent petition; there is no basis for a substantive right to the materials which will be before the Cabinet when it advises the President on the clemency petition.“In the absence of any meritorious ground on which judicial review can be sustained, Yong’s application must be dismissed,” said Justice Chong.Mr Ravi had also argued that Yong should have the right to view the materials submitted to the Cabinet from the Attorney General for clemency purposes. The judge ruled that “Yong has no right to see the materials which will be before the Cabinet when it advises the President.”The judge noted that the deadline of 26 August for the filing of the clemency petition to the President “is fast approaching”. “In anticipation of the very likely decision by Yong to appeal against my judgement,” Justice Chong said, “I would respectfully invite the Prison authorities to extend the time limit for the filing of the fresh petition until such time as the Court of Appeal reaches a decision.”Mr Ravi, who is the lawyer for Yong, says he is “deeply disturbed” by the court’s ruling. “This is a presidential process but now we know that Cabinet has the power. This is a significant departure from what we have been told. Because despite what the Constitution says, now we understand the President has no power in these matters. It seems the President has allowed his power to be usurped.”“Lawyers have been sending petitions to the President all these years,” he said. “This is not only an issue for Yong Vui Kong because the elected President’s powers have been taken away from him.”Mr Ravi urges the President to exercise his powers under Article 100 of the Constitution and convene a Constitutional Court “to decide this vital issue of public importance.”“This is an outrage. If the President does not do so, we will petition the President to convene the Constitutional Court as he is the only person empowered by the Constitution to do so. Until this matter is finally disposed off, all executions ought to be stayed.”Mr Ravi’s next course of action is to appeal today’s judgement.—————Police try to block media from attending open courtConfusion reigned in court this morning over whether or not the proceedings should be open to members of the public.Despite presiding judge Steven Chong noting in his written judgment that lawyer M Ravi’s judicial review application on behalf of Yong Vui Kong raised unprecedented “issues of public importance”, Mr Ravi was not given notice by the Registrar of the Supreme Court that proceedings would be in open court.Court officers seemed to have been similarly unaware that proceedings would be open to members of the public, and tried to block reporters from the mainstream media from entering the courtroom.Mr Ravi said he was informed about ten minutes before the hearing started that proceedings were to be in open court, and told by the court clerk to put on his court robes. Court robes are only required for open court proceedings.Mr Ravi’s paralegal then tried to leave the courtroom to inform the media that they could observe proceedings, but was stopped by the police officers present. One reporter who tried to enter the courtroom was also stopped by the police officers.Eventually, after Mr Ravi intervened, the public and media were allowed in.
Aiya..they set rules for show only lar..dun need to talk abt wat clemency, anyone who went TP to appeal for fine will know wat I'm talking abt...I think outta 10 appeal, 9.5 r rejected, tat 0.5 stiil get fine, but no point deduction..it's a waste of tax payers time to go there for appeal man...kaoz..
For those who are naive on Singapore government and politics:President of Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"The President of the Republic of Singapore is Singapore's head of state. In a Westminster parliamentary system, which Singapore possesses, the prime minister is the head of the government while the position of president is largely ceremonial.""The office of the President is one of Singapore's most heavily altered institutions, and it is still being re-made today."Powers of Singapore President:Powers of the President of Singapore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn short, important things, President of Singapore will need to consult or ask permission from Council of Presidential AdvisersWith regards to the latest presidential Clemency case:"Granting of pardons and reprieves for offences or execution of sentences, and remissions of sentences: Not allowed."Says all.
Quote from: TrialSpyder on August 14, 2010, 06:13:07 AMAiya..they set rules for show only lar..dun need to talk abt wat clemency, anyone who went TP to appeal for fine will know wat I'm talking abt...I think outta 10 appeal, 9.5 r rejected, tat 0.5 stiil get fine, but no point deduction..it's a waste of tax payers time to go there for appeal man...kaoz.. erm, what does a President got do with a traffic violation?
President Nathan will not seek re-election when his term ends next yearAugust 22nd, 2010 | Author: Your CorrespondentnathanSingapore’s second elected President S R Nathan has indicated that he will not be seeking re-election when his term ends next year.“I’m 87 years of age, you expect me to live forever?” he said when asked by the media if he would contest in the presidential election in 2011.Mr Nathan first assumed his position in 1999 without an electoral contest as his opponents were all deemed “unfit” to be a presidential candidate.Unlike his predecessor Ong Teng Cheong who created many headaches for the PAP regime by pressing it to release confidential information pertaining to the size of Singapore’s reserves, Mr Nathan has been an “obedient” President so far.Other than performing the usual customary duties as the official Head of State, he had never questioned the PAP regime’s handling of the country’s reserves though he is vested with the power to do so.At the very least, Mr Nathan should be applauded for knowing when to step down unlike PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew who has still not indicated if he would retire by the next general election.The octagenarian Lee, who is becoming increasingly unpopular among young Singaporeans, said lately that he would like to work for as long as possible.
Yong Vui Kong’s family pleads at IstanaAugust 25th, 2010 | Author: Online Press The family of Yong Vui Kong has been working hard these past two months – hitting the streets in both Singapore and Malaysia to collect signatures for a petition begging President SR Nathan to spare Vui Kong’s life.Activists in Malaysia have rallied to their cause. By 10 am this morning, the campaign had collected a total of 109 346 signatures. Among those who signed were 44 Members of Parliament and 15 senators in Malaysia. guardVui Kong’s father and six siblings delivered the petition and signatures to the Istana earlier today. They were accompanied by Sabah MP Datuk Chua Soon Bui, some close relatives, as well as lawyers M Ravi and Ngeow Chow Ying. The family was not able to hand the petition to guards at the front gates of the Istana and had to use an alternative entrance 15 minutes away. The group walked uphill, in the blazing heat to this other gate where they were met by Security Officer, Corporal Marcus Chong [picture, right]. He took the files of signatures and told the family, “You may leave now.” Vui Kong’s father, Mr Yong Kwong Keong, had prepared a personal message for President Nathan. Corporal Chong was asked to help pass this on but declined to do so, instead asking repeatedly for the family to vacate the area.Mr Yong broke down in tears and the family knelt down in front of the gates. They remained there for several minutes before guards ordered them to leave. At a press conference held later, Mr Ravi expressed disappointment over how the Yong family was treated at the Istana. “We are also faced with the unfortunate circumstance that we have to go to the Istana,” he said, “even though the courts have said that the President has no power.” Datuk Chua urged President Nathan and the Cabinet to give Vui Kong’s case due consideration before making a final decision. She also questioned a decision by prison authorities to deny her request to visit Vui Kong on Monday. The Online Citizen understands two of his aunts were also denied access, although a cousin was granted entry. “I feel the authorities should be more human,” Datuk Chua said. “This case is a special case. We don’t know how long before [Vui Kong’s] life is terminated. The family members and I came here just to see Vui Kong. We feel this is not too much to ask.”The deadline for Vui Kong to submit his clemency appeal to the President is Thursday, 26 August. However, when handing down his decision on Mr Ravi’s application for a judicial review of the clemency process, Justice Steven Chong had “invited” the Singapore Prison Service to extend the stay of execution as he said he expected Mr Ravi to appeal his judgement.Mr Ravi has requested confirmation of the extension from the Prison Service, however, as of Tuesday, 24 August, he has yet to receive a response. Vui Kong was arrested in June, 2007. He was 18 and a half years old then. The Singapore courts subsequently sentenced him to death for trafficking 47g of heroin into Singapore. He was originally scheduled to hang on 4 December last year, but since then, his lawyer, M Ravi, has managed to obtain two stays of executions. In the past few weeks, the Yong family, as well as campaigners in both Malaysia and Singapore have worked round the clock, organising public forums and collecting signatures online and on the streets, to appeal to President Nathan to spare Vui Kong’s life.Several non-governmental organisations are backing the campaign. These include the Young Buddhist Association of Malaysia, Amnesty International Malaysia, Lawyers For Liberty, Amnesty Hong Kong and the Singapore Anti-death Penalty Campaign. The Malaysian government added its voice to the call for clemency when it sent a letter of appeal to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on July 29. The Singapore government however has yet to respond to the letter. A spokesman for the ministry told the media that “[the] letter of appeal has been referred to the legal authorities.” The campaign to save Vui Kong does not end today. “We will continue to collect signatures until the President makes a decision,” said Ms Ngeow. “As long as there’s time, even if there’s just one second left,” said Yun Leong, “we will all still work hard for Vui Kong.”
183.90.36.99 IP address location & more:IP address [?]: 183.90.36.99 [Whois] [Reverse IP]IP country code: SGIP address country: SingaporeIP address state: n/aIP address city: n/aIP address latitude: 1.3667IP address longitude: 103.8000ISP of this IP [?]: n/aOrganization: n/a
116.15.61.144 IP address location & more:IP address [?]: 116.15.61.144 [Whois] [Reverse IP]IP country code: SGIP address country: SingaporeIP address state: n/aIP address city: SingaporeIP address latitude: 1.2931IP address longitude: 103.8558ISP of this IP [?]: SingNet Pte LtdOrganization: SingNet Pte LtdHost of this IP: [?]: bb116-15-61-144.singnet.com.sg [Whois] [Trace]
