Ong Teng Cheong 'stress-tested' EP scheme, showed that establishment figure can act independently: Jayakumar

Singapore

The former senior minister recounts how younger ministers spoke up against Lee Kuan Yew's original proposal for the elected presidency, and his willingness to modify it.

New: You can now listen to articles.

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

29 Oct 2026 06:00AM

This is the second of three articles from CNA’s interview with former Senior Minister S Jayakumar, who recently launched his book Creating Three Unique Singapore Laws: An Inside Story. The book chronicles how the elected presidency, Group Representation Constituencies and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament were established through constitutional amendment.

SINGAPORE: The late Ong Teng Cheong "stress-tested" the elected presidency through disagreements with the government, and his term showed a president from the establishment can act independently, said former Senior Minister S Jayakumar.

“He was from the establishment. He had been deputy prime minister and became elected president. He took the role seriously and in the course of his term of office, there were some issues on which there were disagreements (with) the government,” Professor Jayakumar told CNA in an exclusive interview.

The interview took place at the Old Parliament House, now The Arts House, where laws were debated and passed.

Prof Jayakumar launched his book, Creating Three Unique Singapore Laws: An Inside Story, in August. It traces how the elected presidency, Group Representation Constituency system and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme came about.

Mr Ong, a former deputy prime minister, served as president from 1993 to 1999. He died in 2002.

The elected presidency was written into law in 1991, giving the president additional powers, including safeguarding the reserves and key public sector appointments. Before Mr Ong, the president was elected by Members of Parliament rather than voters in a nationwide election.

On Jul 16, 1999, towards the end of his term, Mr Ong held a press conference to announce he would not seek re-election and to raise challenges he faced working with the government.

He expressed disappointment over what he saw as insufficient cooperation from civil servants on certain matters, along with concerns over a possible drawdown on the reserves.

At a parliament sitting afterwards, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and then-Finance Minister Richard Hu both “took pains to deal with every one of Ong Teng Cheong’s points”, Prof Jayakumar said.

“They explained it in a way to show that the facts as presented showed that there was a misunderstanding by President Ong Teng Cheong, who did not come back to rebut it,” he said.

ARTICLE 22H DISPUTE

An earlier disagreement, in 1994, centred on Article 22H of the Constitution, which lets the president withhold assent to bills that curtail or circumvent his discretionary powers.

The government wanted to amend the article so the veto would cover only Bills, not constitutional amendments. The question was whether the president could veto that amendment itself.

“President Ong Teng Cheong felt that that amendment would be subject to his veto. The government disagreed,” said Prof Jayakumar, who was law minister at the time.

He said he disagreed with Mr Ong after reading the Constitution and checking with the Attorney-General, who took a similar stance.

Prof Jayakumar said Mr Ong was a personal friend and former Cabinet colleague, with whom he played golf and accompanied on overseas trips.

“But we had to be strict and proper. I conveyed the government's views, he could not be persuaded,” said Prof Jayakumar.

The two sides eventually agreed to seek an advisory opinion from a special constitutional tribunal of judges. Parliament passed legislation in August 1994 to set up such a tribunal, which ruled in April 1995 that the president could not veto the proposed amendment.

“I cite this too to show that you can have a president from the establishment who could still exercise powers independently,” said Prof Jayakumar.

“Apart from the issues, I should also say, on the other hand, he and the government, the presidency and the government, were able to come to an agreement on a set of principles on operating the framework of reserves, which is also a good thing.”

The way the issues were resolved showed the rationale for the elected presidency worked well, he added.

A CHIEF EXECUTIVE FOR SINGAPORE

Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew initially conceived the elected presidency as a “wicket-keeper model” with stronger powers than the office has today, said Prof Jayakumar.

The term comes from cricket, where the wicket-keeper stands behind the batter to stop balls that get past.

The breadth of powers Mr Lee proposed left Prof Jayakumar and his peers from the younger cohort of ministers “perturbed”, he said.

“I think the younger ministers could accept the rationale that the reserves were such a precious asset that they must be nurtured and husbanded for future generations and there should not be unwarranted and overspending of the reserves. We could also agree that there ought to be a check to prevent such unwarranted raid on the reserves,” said Prof Jayakumar.

“But his idea to us was too wide. In fact, as Dr Tony Tan put it, the president would more or less be the chief executive officer.”

Dr Tan himself later became president, serving from 2011 to 2017.

The younger ministers had to weigh whether the proposal was acceptable, as they would run the country going forward and the changes would affect them directly, said Prof Jayakumar.

“Mr Lee Kuan Yew's position was: ‘You guys will be in charge one day and you'll have to work the system’. Well, if we have to work the system, are we comfortable with it? Can we defend it in principle and explain it and justify it to the people? We did not think so,” he said.

They then sought to persuade Mr Lee, and reached a consensus because “the younger ministers felt comfortable to be prepared to speak up”, said Prof Jayakumar.

Mr Lee was willing to listen, engage and modify his original proposal, he said. Prof Jayakumar hopes this account can dispel the myth that Mr Lee was so strong-willed and strong-minded that he acted like a “dictatorial leader” brooking no dissent.

“That sums it all, his approach. If he had been intransigent and said: ‘No, I don’t agree’, it would have been a different story.” 

Source: CNA/fb(cy)