Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

How an ombudsman could benefit Singapore

The ongoing review of the Elected Presidency has led to some commentary on what the appropriate role of the President should be. Meanwhile, recent changes to the Government Proceedings Act allow the courts to determine costs payable to the Government by a losing party, previously capped at that of two legal officers. The Workers’ Party claims this may prohibit people from going into litigation with the Government.

The Constitutional Commission hearing. At the core of the Elected Presidency debate is the issue of checks and balances; the traditional separation of power doctrine needs to include an ombudsman. TODAY file photo

The Constitutional Commission hearing. At the core of the Elected Presidency debate is the issue of checks and balances; the traditional separation of power doctrine needs to include an ombudsman. TODAY file photo

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

The ongoing review of the Elected Presidency has led to some commentary on what the appropriate role of the President should be. Meanwhile, recent changes to the Government Proceedings Act allow the courts to determine costs payable to the Government by a losing party, previously capped at that of two legal officers. The Workers’ Party claims this may prohibit people from going into litigation with the Government.

These two issues are at their core about the same thing: Checks and balances.

How should the legislature, comprising Parliament and the President, together with the judiciary, interact with the executive to hold it accountable in a transparent and independent manner?

The traditional separation of power doctrine, consisting of these three institutions, needs to include an ombudsman.

Found in more than 90 countries in various forms, an ombudsman essentially has three key characteristics.

First, it is an independent body led by a public official and reports to Parliament directly.

Second, it receives complaints from aggrieved persons against public agencies.

Third, it has the power to investigate, recommend corrective action and issue reports, all done in the public domain, but does not have the authority to impose its decision.

While the Worldwide Governance Indicators compiled by the World Bank have consistently ranked Singapore close to the top in “effective government”, “rule of law” and “control of corruption”, the Republic is only on the 45th percentile on “voice and accountability”.

This suggests that Singapore needs an ombudsman because the current mechanisms to review a government agency’s decision may have certain limitations or are not independent and transparent enough.

While Singapore’s judiciary is well-respected and independent, it has two limitations.

First, a court case is usually expensive and lengthy, which dissuades average people from suing a public agency over what they might feel is an unjust decision. Second, a judicial review only covers “procedural fairness”, which ensures that all reasonable steps were taken by the public agency in arriving at that decision, but it does not review the merits of the decision itself.

Most recently, in a speech at the American Law Institute, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said the judiciary is supposed to serve as only the “last line of defence” against poor governance.

The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) is another institution that is independent, but whose focus is limited to financial accounting and the effective use of public resources.

 

MODELS TO FOLLOW

 

The idea of an independent and transparent oversight body is not entirely new for Singapore. There is already one in the private sector called the Consumer Association of Singapore (Case), which would make a good study for establishing an ombudsman.

Working like an ombudsman for consumers, Case does a good job of balancing its “firefighting” role of mediating individual disputes, with its “fire-watching” role of educating the public and lobbying the Government for legislative reform.

Singapore could also learn from Hong Kong and New Zealand, given their similar population sizes and administrative structures. For instance, the ombudsman in Hong Kong has limited jurisdiction and cannot scrutinise decisions on security, defence and international relations.

An ombudsman in Singapore could begin by focusing on less sensitive but important areas such as public housing. The issue is managed by the Housing and Development Board through a complex set of regulations that are constantly evolving and affect the majority of the population.

New Zealand, like Singapore, does not have an Upper House in Parliament and is another good model to follow. It was one of the early adopters of an ombudsman, establishing it over 50 years ago. Starting with a limited jurisdiction, the New Zealand Ombudsman has since expanded to cover more than 4,000 public entities today.

According to its publicly available annual report, just last year the New Zealand Ombudsman received around 2,500 complaints, of which it resolved 164 (for example, a decision was changed or an explanation or apology was given). Furthermore, it obtained a wider public administration benefit in 14 cases (such as an agency that agreed to review a policy or procedure).

According to former New Zealand Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, the key to its ombudsman’s success is its leaders, “who know when to push bureaucracy and when to let go”.

Finally, an ombudsman in Singapore would be similar to the AGO. It would be established as a separate organ of state, publicly funded, and would publish an annual report that would be made public and submitted to Parliament via the President.

Over the years, the delivery of public services has undoubtedly become more complex and citizens have become more demanding. This has bogged down our politicians. They have, at times, had to address in Parliament specific incidents involving government agencies.

An ombudsman should be able to investigate such incidents in the first instance and recommend corrective action where necessary, while the Government focuses on developing sound public policy. The Government could then consider any policy recommendations made by the ombudsman in its annual report.

In a similar vein, an ombudsman could also quash unsubstantiated claims and vicious attacks on the public service by conducting a transparent and independent investigation into any allegation. Ultimately, establishing an ombudsman should improve the effectiveness of the public service. More importantly, however, its transparency and independence will help build trust in the Government.

The call to have an ombudsman in Singapore is not new. It has been made on multiple occasions by current Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, when he was a backbencher in 1994, and by current President Tony Tan during his 2012 presidential campaign, as well as by highly regarded Singaporean diplomat and lawyer Tommy Koh, and the Workers’ Party.

Shortly after losing his seat at the 2011 General Election, former Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo said that regardless of the variety of feedback mechanisms currently available, there was a need to “shake the box” from time to time because any existing system becomes predictable and inefficient.

An ombudsman would certainly shake things up.

 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Chirag Agarwal, a former Singapore civil servant, is currently pursuing a Master of Public Policy and Management degree at The University of Melbourne.

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.