Anyone know the incident between Late OTC with SM Goh
-
Anyone know the clashes or conflict that happened between Late Ong Teng Chong with SM Goh?
-
Never heard... I dun think it is with GCT
-
Public letter from then-PM Goh's press secretary:
In "Maverick Politician" [THE NATIONS, March 10], based on an interview with Ong Teng Cheong, Roger Mitton revived allegations that the Singapore government blocked the release of information to Ong, pictured, when he was President. It also alleged that the government had opposed Ong's standing for re-election not because of his health, but because Ong had been difficult and independent.
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister for Finance Richard Hu had addressed these allegations in two parliamentary statements last Aug. 17. They set out fully the facts of the matter and the government's reasons for its actions. The government timed these statements to give Ong an opportunity to respond while he was still in office. The President chose not to respond. There the matter rested until his interview with Asiaweek.
Ong said that when he came into office (in 1993), he had asked for information on the reserves, which was given to him only three years later. Mitton also wrote that "Ong wanted to know how much the reserves were worth, [but] those who had the information stalled over okaying its release."
Hu has explained in Parliament that this was not the case. The records show the President's office officially requested a listing of physical assets from the accountant-general on June 18, 1996. At a meeting with the President on Aug. 14, i.e. less than two months later, the accountant-general provided a listing of state buildings, while the commissioner of lands provided a listing of state lands. Updates were subsequently sent to the President's office.
Regarding how much the reserves were worth, Ong confirmed in his interview that the issue was that he and the auditor-general wanted all the properties of the government to be valued when the government changed. In the accountant-general's view, this was unnecessary.
Valuing the entire stock of land and buildings owned by the government would be a tedious and unproductive exercise involving some 50,000 parcels of land, including miscellaneous parcels like roads, drains and even some reservoirs. For the purposes of protecting reserves, it did not matter when the valuation was actually made. It could be at the point of sale. For properties which were not being sold or transacted, a complete listing (but not valuation) would be sufficient. This was a more practical approach. The attorney-general's chambers was also consulted, and confirmed that a complete valuation of assets was unnecessary as a matter of law. The auditor-general thereupon revoked his directive to revalue all properties at changeover.
Ong raised a new allegation in his interview: that "in April last year" the government had announced that it would allow the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB) to DBS Bank without informing him, and that he "came to know it from the newspaper. That's not right."
This is untrue. The Cabinet decided on the sale of POSB to DBS Bank on June 3, 1998. As President, Ong saw the Cabinet paper. On July 21, 1998, the Ministry of Finance wrote to inform the President's office that it would announce the privatization of POSB on July 24. The President's office has confirmed that Ong saw and initialed the minute on July 22, 1998. He therefore could not have learnt about it from the newspaper.
Mitton quotes Ong saying: "I have not told anybody that I wanted to stand again" for President. But as the prime minister informed Parliament, Ong had told him in February 1999 that he was thinking of standing again. So Goh advised him to obtain medical reports on his condition from his doctors, to be published if he decided to stand for re-election. Ong then saw Dr. Saul Rosenberg of the Stanford University Medical Center in March 1999. Why else would Goh have advised Ong to see Dr. Rosenberg, and why else would Ong have done so, if not to confirm his fitness to stand?
Ong said that Dr. Rosenberg "checked that I was in complete remission. So I was fine after my treatment." Mitton says "his doctors have given him a clean bill of health after his debilitating bout of lymphatic cancer (he still wears a cap to cover the baldness caused by chemotherapy treatment)."
The fact that Ong needed further chemotherapy treatment shortly after he stepped down as President on Sept. 1, 1999 had been anticipated by his personal physician, Dr. John Wong, who had accompanied him for the consultation with Dr. Rosenberg. Ong had sent Dr. Rosenberg's medical report to the prime minister, to help him and the Cabinet decide on its position on Ong's standing for re-election. The Cabinet in April 1999 met Dr. Wong, who explained in simple lay language Dr. Rosenberg's medical report. A copy of the notes of the meeting was then sent to Ong.
This was the basis of the Cabinet's assessment that there was a strong likelihood that the President's health would affect the discharge of his duties should he serve a second term. Ong's health was the sole reason the Cabinet decided that it could not support his re-election should he decide to stand again.
Ong Keng Yong
Press Secretary to the Prime Minister
Singapore -
Public letter from Ong in rejoinder to PM's public letter:
I refer to the response by Ong Keng Yong to "Maverick Politician." I stand by what I have said - I did not tell the PM in February 1999 that I wanted to stand again for re-election. I am unable to explain how he got such a mistaken impression. The PM did not advise me in February 1999 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 of Jan. 27, 1999 to my physician, Prof. John Wong [faxed to Asiaweek] is self-explanatory.
The reasons for my inclination not to stand for re-election are (1) my uncertain medical prognosis although I was and still am physically fine, and (2) 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? I was waiting for the finalization 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, 1999. 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 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 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 government had the responsibility to provide me 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 had 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 [do not] overlook the bigger picture and the lessons we can learn from the experience I had in the six years of my presidency.
Ong Teng Cheong
Singapore -
Public letter by then-PM Goh's press secretary in response to Ong's reply:
Ong Teng Cheong, in response to my reply to "Maverick Politician," denied telling Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in February 1999 that he wanted to stand for re-election (as President). He also said the PM did not advise him to obtain medical reports on his condition from Dr. Saul Rosenberg in Stanford, because he had already initiated action to see Dr. Rosenberg.
The prime minister notes that Ong saw Dr. Rosenberg on his own. But Goh did advise Ong at some stage to see his doctors, and to have their reports on his medical condition published should he decide to stand for re-election. So did Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
But this is not the key point. The issue is whether Goh's impression that Ong wanted to stand for re-election was mistaken. Having reviewed the record, Goh does not believe that his impression was mistaken. My letter to The Straits Times, published on March 14, gives a full account of the exchanges between Goh and Ong. Ong now says that he did not tell Goh earlier that he had decided not to stand, because he was waiting for the publication of the White Paper. He also gave his "uncertain medical prognosis" as a reason for his inclination not to stand for re-election.
This is the first time Ong is citing these reasons. In July 1999, he had opened his press conference with the statement that he had "waited until my latest health examinations to tell you about my latest health condition. I'm physically fine. Notwithstanding that, I decided not to stand for the coming presidential election. I find no compelling reasons to do so."
On March 9, after Asiaweek published Ong's interview but before my reply was published, Ong wrote to the prime minister. He said: "I got a little complacent and let down my guard. I was not quick thinking enough to brush aside his [i.e. the Asiaweek interviewer's] questions on the presidency and allowed issues which had already been settled to re-surface. ..." "I regret that I have unwittingly allowed old issues to re-surface. My apologies."
The prime minister has accepted Ong's apology, and hopes that the subject can now be closed.
Ong Keng Yong
Press Secretary to the Prime Minister
Singapore -
Initially wanted to summarise the contents of the letters, but felt that readers may miss out some details and the tone of the letters from the summary, so decided to reproduce the letters verbatim.
One could almost sense the helplessness in Ong's letter to then-PM Goh. One could tell he really wanted to change the usual way things were done, so as to give greater accountability to the people. The odds were clearly stacked against him in his one-man battle against a party of powerful politicians, and the strains of his struggle showed. Till the day he decided to give up and join his wife in eternal slumber.
His legacy is now part of Singapore's history. And history it shall probably remain. -
in otherwords, he refused to be PAP's lap dog or puppet.Originally posted by Tuatau:Public letter from then-PM Goh's press secretary:
It also alleged that the government had opposed Ong's standing for re-election not because of his health, but because Ong had been difficult and independent. -
I've always felt that OTC was a man of honour. Honestly, many people feel it was PAP's mistreatment of the system, and his frustrations against it, that ultimately killed him.Originally posted by Tuatau:Initially wanted to summarise the contents of the letters, but felt that readers may miss out some details and the tone of the letters from the summary, so decided to reproduce the letters verbatim.
One could almost sense the helplessness in Ong's letter to then-PM Goh. One could tell he really wanted to change the usual way things were done, so as to give greater accountability to the people. The odds were clearly stacked against him in his one-man battle against a party of powerful politicians, and the strains of his struggle showed. Till the day he decided to give up and join his wife in eternal slumber.
His legacy is now part of Singapore's history. And history it shall probably remain. -
he was a very respectable man. i believe his wife's passing dealt him a very heavy blow!!
-
The conspiracy behind the merger of the 2 most powerful banks in Singapore is even more ridiculous. That's when the man on the street needs to make sure his account have at least $500 inside or else "oh-gong" monthly charges...
-
Thks so much relevence information.
After some thoughts, i belived the late OTC is also well respected man among his people, standing by his man of honour as well his own tenets.
However, on seeing that Doc Wee who was as good as Mr Ong, on my stand point were far more received warmingly by the media, govt & his people.
I wondered why there's such bias in the media & also maybe on the instutitions sides.
I wonder if Mr Ong hav been asked to hav a state burial by govt? -
Originally posted by babymac13:
It'd be rather difficult to get an answer from a dead person if he'd been asked, but if you were asking whether Ong was given a state funeral, you could refer to tranquilice's post in this thread:
I wonder if Mr Ong hav been asked to hav a state burial by govt?
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=130853
It is dubious whether Ong's funeral was considered a state funeral. Since the coffin bearers in both funerals were made up of the Guard of Honour from the SAF and Police forces, my personal opinion is that Ong's funeral could be considered a state funeral as well, though the media coverage for Ong's funeral had been much less extensive than Wee's.
Another marked difference between the two funerals was the number of days the national flags flew at half-mast. Three days of half-mast were observed for Wee, but for Ong, only one. The reason given in the PM Office press statement was that the date of Ong's funeral wake, 12th February 2002, coincided with the first day of Chinese New Year. -
State Burial
The govt offered the late President Wee a state burial but Wee's son declined due to his father's wisheS.The late President Ong is more deserved to get a state burial but i believe the govt (headed by GCT) didn't offer him such burial because he was considered disloyal to GCT due the open argument over his request to know the total amount of the govt assets.
Whether to offer state burial to a person is at the pleasure of the PM. -
I still think President Ong is better then President Wee...
We need a man of words and actions, rather then a guy who goes around smiling and creating peace as a figurehead.."father" -
so there doesn't seem to be anything out of the extraordinary between this funeral and the previous one. perhaps this is a good diversion from the recent spate of frustrated public outcries.Originally posted by Tuatau:It is dubious whether Ong's funeral was considered a state funeral. Since the coffin bearers in both funerals were made up of the Guard of Honour from the SAF and Police forces, my personal opinion is that Ong's funeral could be considered a state funeral as well, though the media coverage for Ong's funeral had been much less extensive than Wee's.
Another marked difference between the two funerals was the number of days the national flags flew at half-mast. Three days of half-mast were observed for Wee, but for Ong, only one. The reason given in the PM Office press statement was that the date of Ong's funeral wake, 12th February 2002, coincided with the first day of Chinese New Year. -
Well, U cant just compare which president is better. To me, they all play different roles for Singapore... President Wee touch his people with his selffishless concern, that make him very extraoridinary. President Wee, i felt he's very responsible man which want to fulfill his task & responsiblites as a president of republic of singapore as much as he can, but he may not gain support from his govt ....Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:I still think President Ong is better then President Wee...
We need a man of words and actions, rather then a guy who goes around smiling and creating peace as a figurehead.."father" -
Originally posted by babymac13:
True. Comparing dead presidents can be rather meaningless, really. The better president is not going to rise from his grave to thank his supporters for championing his cause; the worse president is not to come back to life and change his ways to appease his detractors. As long as Singaporeans look upon them as good presidents who have served the people in their own unique ways, and accord them the due respect, that should be well sufficient.
Well, U cant just compare which president is better.
Let sleeping dogs lie. -
i hope one day Dr Chee will be president......
-
Originally posted by babymac13:Well, U cant just compare which president is better. To me, they all play different roles for Singapore... President Wee touch his people with his selffishless concern, that make him very extraoridinary. President Ong, i felt he's very responsible man which want to fulfill his task & responsiblites as a president of republic of singapore as much as he can, but he may not gain support from his govt ....
ammendments. -
Dr Chee ain't going to make things better...Originally posted by kaka_22:i hope one day Dr Chee will be president......
Anyone but him.. -
Ironic, isn't it? A person isn't able to afford to keep $500 in his bank account, he gets penalised for it and has to cough out $2 monthly. Meanwhile, those who can well afford to hoard the cash in their account ...Originally posted by SOP:The conspiracy behind the merger of the 2 most powerful banks in Singapore is even more ridiculous. That's when the man on the street needs to make sure his account have at least $500 inside or else "oh-gong" monthly charges...
-
It does one's heart good to see men like our Presidents in office, making things better for the taxpayers and bringing honour and integrity into the political arena.
Its people like President Ong and President Wee that we should emulate and respect. -
This show that at least he is quite a passionate person,unlike some cold-blooded a$$hole.Originally posted by dragg:he was a very respectable man. i believe his wife's passing dealt him a very heavy blow!! -
Ya lor,must maintain $500 otherwise deduct $2 rules is so ridiculous,15 or 20 yrs ago also dont have such rules mah,why now have?Is it last time our economy doing well,so no have such stupid rules?Do any other countries also impose this kind of stupid bank regulations?Originally posted by czechmate:Ironic, isn't it? A person isn't able to afford to keep $500 in his bank account, he gets penalised for it and has to cough out $2 monthly. Meanwhile, those who can well afford to hoard the cash in their account ... -
Originally posted by czechmate:
Remembered a friend working in a bank explained something like this:
Ironic, isn't it? A person isn't able to afford to keep $500 in his bank account, he gets penalised for it and has to cough out $2 monthly. Meanwhile, those who can well afford to hoard the cash in their account...
The current interest rate for DBS savings accounts with less than S$3000 is 0.125%. For an account with savings of $500, the interest per annum generated only 63 cents. That works out to be about 5 cents per month.
Interest rates are interesting because they are an indication of how much profit the bank can generate from customers' savings. To a big bank like DBS, $500 is really "kacang putih" peanuts compared to what they could use to invest. And as reflected in the rates, currently profits from investments are so low that ultimately the bank is losing money when offering banking services (eg. ATM, online banking) to such "kucing kurap" small-time accounts. That is why the $2 penalty had to come in.
Since DBS is not a people's bank like what POSBank was, they are accountable to shareholders. From a shareholder's point of view, savings accounts of $500 or below are simply not worth the waste of time and resources. The staff could be better deployed to serve the "bigger fishes" and keep those account holders happy.