Dr Chee replies...
 
Open Singapore Centre
Media Release
April 10, 2001
Singapore

RELATED
:
Why Open Singapore Centre changed owner
Singapore bars two groups from foreign funding

I
READ with incredulity Mr Wong Kan Seng's statements challenging the Open Singapore Centre (OSC) to be transparent.

With a record such as that of the PAP government's when it comes to transparency and accountability, Mr Wong is hardly in a position to point the finger at any one for not being transparent.

The OSC, being a private company, is not obligated to relate its administrative processes. In spite of this, it is ready and willing to offer information to the public so that the people can see for themselves the work that the Centre does. It is also for the sake of the public that it will do this on the condition that::-

one, the PAP government discloses to the people of Singapore the goings-on within the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) including:

· the investment returns/losses the GIC makes,

· the way investment decisions made,

· how appointments to GIC Board of Directors are made,

· and whether Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is on the Board, and if not, why not.

Two, PAP Ministers publicly declare their incomes and assets, as well as those of their immediate families.

Three, the PAP publicly discloses the sources of donations, if any, and state whether it receives donations from foreign individuals and companies even though they are based in Singapore.

If the PAP Government is willing to disclose such information

· which, it must be emphasized, should need no prompting as the information rightfully belongs in the public domain

· the OSC will voluntarily make its administrative details publicly available. Until then, it is hypocritical for Mr Wong to make any accusations against the Centre.

As far as the change in ownership of the OSC is concerned, there is nothing to hide. The only reason that Mr Jeyaretnam and I did not continue on being proprietors was because the Registry of Companies and Businesses (RCB) would not allow us. It said that before we could renew the Centre's license, we had to top up our Medisave accounts, which neither of us were able to afford. If the RCB did not have such a stipulation, there would have been no question of Mr Jeyaretnam and I continuing on as partners of the firm. Incidentally, this raises the question of how many small- and medium-sized businesses, given the woeful economic situation in Singapore, are in the same predicament.

It is a shame, but not surprising, for the PAP to try to paint something sinister out of a perfectly normal situation. What is even more sordid is that it would stoop so low as to exploit the weakness of my ageing father by dragging him into this matter. Let me go on record that everything the OSC does, Mr Jeyaretnam and I take full responsibility. If the PAP has problems with the OSC, deal with me, not my father.

Chee Soon Juan
Director