Stand for re-election? 'I did not tell PM': Ex President Ong

The Straits Times (Mar 11) published the following response from the former president.

I REFER to the response of Mr Ong Keng Yong, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the (Asiaweek) article, Maverick Politician', (ST, March 9) which appears in yesterday's (Mar 10) Straits Times.

I stand by what I have said - I did not tell the PM in February last year that I wanted to stand for re-election.

I am unable to explain how he got such a mistaken impression. The PM did not advise me in February last year to obtain medical reports on my condition from my doctor in Stanford.

The fact is that prior to my meeting with the PM, I had, in January, already initiated action to meet Dr Saul Rosenberg. My letter dated Jan 27, 1999, to my physician, Professor John Wong (enclosed) is self-explanatory.

The reasons for my inclination not to stand for re-election were my uncertain medical prognosis although I was and still am physically fine, and my wife's deteriorating health and pessimistic medical prognosis.

Why did I maintain my position of "inclination not to stand" until July and not tell the PM earlier that I had decided not to stand?

The reason was that I was waiting for the finalisation and publication of the White Paper on "The Principles for Determining and Safeguarding the Accumulated Reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies", which I counted it my duty to see done.

The White Paper was finally tabled in Parliament on July 7. I told the PM on July 9 of my decision not to stand for re-election, and announced my decision at a press conference on July 16. I had gone to the people because they had elected me into office. They gave me the mandate in 1993, and it was my responsibility to account to them at the end of my term what I had done, what problems I encountered, and whether I had fulfilled my constitutional duties and my pledge to them.

It was an educational six years for me. At the end of it, I concluded that having a good government is better than having a good president to check on a bad government. And this I shared with the people.

Singaporeans are fortunate to have had a clean and able government for the last 35 years.

The constitutional duty to report any proposed transactions that are likely to draw on past reserves lies with public officers.

I, therefore, assumed that the government had the responsibility to provide me with the necessary information for me to perform my duties without my asking. In the end, I had to ask.

The issues pertaining to the protection of past reserves and the difficulties I had faced getting the relevant data have all been aired and debated. We need not go further into them.

What we need to note is this: that we are not blinded or waylaid by the debates over the finer details and overlook the bigger picture and the lessons we can learn from the experience that I had in the six years of my presidency.