Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Expand avenues for redress, but not via ombudsman

I refer to Mr Chirag Agarwal’s commentary “How an ombudsman could benefit Singapore” (July 13).

I refer to Mr Chirag Agarwal’s commentary “How an ombudsman could benefit Singapore” (July 13).

Commonwealth jurisdictions have had mixed experiences with an ombudsman. Several commentators are critical of its ability to bring significant change in individual relationships with the government without support from Members of Parliament.

Moreover, the Singapore legislature is traditionally conservative about having checks and balances outside of government. The General Election is often cited as the report card of the party in power.

I agree, however, with the author’s premise that there is now a stronger case for establishing such a mechanism to facilitate the Government’s work, and that the responsibility should not fall on the President or the judiciary.

Even the Chief Justice has recognised the need for checks and balances in the context of a judge’s work.

Alongside the codification of contempt of court proceedings, the State Courts and Supreme Court websites now provide lawyers and litigants with avenues to make complaints about judicial conduct.

The Chief Justice sees this as a matter of improving our judiciary’s work and considers each complaint directly and independently. Our Parliament could follow his example in this regard.

Singapore could adopt the Australian model of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was established in 1976.

The tribunal does not sit outside of government. Rather, it falls within the portfolio of the government’s chief legal officer, the Attorney-General.

Where legislation provides, the tribunal undertakes an independent merits review of administrative decisions.

Many Australian studies highlight its benefits of improving the relationship between the government and the individual, and of being an effective avenue of redress for a person aggrieved at an administrative decision.

More importantly, it has taken pressure off the civil service in handling difficult or even abusive appellants. Any substantial initial reservations Australian civil servants had about the tribunal have passed, with more welcoming its work in improving administrators’ jobs.

In Singapore today, it is easy to find posters in government departments reminding users of a public service to be respectful in their dealings with a civil servant. This underscores the existence of some dissatisfaction with public decision-making.

As we introduce legislation such as the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill to manage the adverse effects of a more expressive society, we also need to expand avenues for individuals to seek redress for their grievances.

As the Australian experience shows, the Attorney-General has the potential to evolve as a face of humanity in Singapore, and not only be the adversarial state prosecutor.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.