Ombudsman acts as mirror to reflect flaws in system of governance

I refer to the commentary, “How an ombudsman could benefit Singapore” (July 13). The Singapore of today is not like that of the past. As people become more educated, the systems of governance that run this country must keep pace.

We find it more meaningful to understand the steps taken to arrive at certain conclusions, and are not just satisfied with the conclusion of procedures, including judicial procedures.

Thus the commentary echoes my belief that a neutral third-party balances the procedures in any system and acts as a middleman to relay information and to find the facts of cases between a government body and the public.

While an ombudsman has no power to impose its decisions on the agency involved in the investigation, it acts as a mirror, reflecting flaws in the system and thus encouraging the respective agencies to take corrective measures and fine-tune efficiencies.

Let us consider, however, that an ombudsman is basically a public administrative entity and, as with other such services, can suffer from inefficiency-related matters such as red tape, which may take years to resolve.

Outcomes could be delayed and resources such as manpower and time would be consumed.

Investigations may uncover more issues requiring attention and potentially open a floodgate of complaints about other failures in the system.

In addition, while we would have every reason to believe that the head of the ombudsman’s office would be professional in his duties, there is always a possibility that he may display some bias in the course of an investigation.

While these flaws seem to indicate that an ombudsman is nothing more than adding another level of bureaucracy, we must understand the nature of an ombudsman: To create transparency in public procedures, which Singaporeans are demanding more of.

An ombudsman acts as a judge who balances government policies and public opinion. This would create public trust in the administrative capabilities of our public agencies, which I believe is a common goal of both parties.

Regarding the issue of bias, there are possibly members of the private sector with legal experience who could be appointed to contribute to the objectivity of investigations.

I do not think the costs of having an ombudsman in our system outweigh the potential benefits. Change is needed, and what better way than to include an ombudsman as part of heralding this change.