Tommy Koh wants an ombudsman for Singapore

[makapaaa]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]

<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: wintiny, align: right"]74100.1 [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: msgtxt"]http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ambassador...nts-an-ombudsman-for-singapore-075242414.html

[h=1]Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh still wants an ombudsman for Singapore[/h]<cite class="byline vcard">

By Jeanette Tan | Yahoo Newsroom – <abbr title="2013-10-31T07:52:41Z">4 hours ago</abbr></cite>

• 
  Yahoo Newsroom - Singapore's ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh poses with copies of his new book entitled "the Tommy Koh reader: Favourite Essays and Lectures", ahead of its launch on Wednesday 30 October …more

Singapore's ambassador-at-large, Tommy Koh, says he still hopes that Singapore will have a process that allows it to review government decisions, counting it as one of his "unfulfilled dreams" for the country.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the launch of a new book of his on Wednesday afternoon, Koh, who turns 76 in November, said a review process was something he has advocated since his undergraduate days.

"It'll be great to have an ombudsman," he said. "I think we have a great public service, very little corruption, but even a great public service sometimes makes mistakes, you know, and at the moment such mistakes are beyond judicial review."

An ombudsman, essentially, is an independent person who represents the interests of the public by investigating complaints of unfairness in instances where a government body's decision could be questioned.

While Koh says coyly that he may be too old to take on the role now, despite it being a childhood dream of his, he remains a staunch advocate because of his experience as a lawyer in his younger days, when he saw clients suffer from what he called “maladministration”.

One client was denied a passport despite gaining a scholarship to study in New Zealand, while another was rejected in his application for his Indonesian wife to gain permanent residency.

"Nobody was willing to tell me; nobody was obliged to tell me the reason," he said. "So these few cases I did as a young lawyer were burned in my memory, you know, and I always felt that in a good society, sometimes the administration makes honest mistakes, sometimes they are prejudiced, sometimes they act inappropriately and there should be some process of review."

Minimum wage issue

Turning to the issue of poverty, a cause Koh feels should not be ignored, he voiced his support for a minimum wage or other strengthened measures to help Singapore's poorest.

"We all feel that it is not good for Singapore to have such a huge gap between the rich and the poor," he said, referring to pubic intellectuals who speak on the topic collectively. "It will eventually threaten our unity and cohesion, and it is certainly a source of concern to our moral conscience because we all aspire to Singapore being a good nation — and a good nation is one that doesn't tolerate such a high degree of disparity."

Speaking of an article he wrote last year in defence of Professor Lim Chong Yah, the economist from Nanyang Technological University who proposed a three-year moratorium on top earners' wages while boosting bottom-level incomes, Koh said he felt moved to stand up for him because it felt like no one was doing so.

"Although I'm not an economist, you know, I decided hey, this is a good man. Somebody must defend him," he explained.

Koh has also written at length about the merits of a minimum wage for Singapore previously.

His essays, alongside reflections on his life, international diplomacy and key people who shaped Singapore, can be found in Koh's book titled "The Tommy Koh reader: Favourite Essays and Lectures".

Launched on Wednesday, it will be sold at major bookstores in Singapore. Koh will also be present for a book-signing at Kinokuniya's main store in Takashimaya on Saturday at 2pm.
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>
[/TABLE]

 

[Rumpole]

This Ombudsman thingey has been debated before and arbitrarily rejected by the Scums in White in 1967 for lousy reasons such as the population then is not educated enough, blah, blah.

Please jump to post #5 to see the text of one MP's speech back then.

 

[Froggy]

Can have. Start immediately also can want or not? Under PM Office like CPIB you song or not?

 

[Rumpole]

Can have. Start immediately also can want or not? Under PM Office like CPIB you song or not?

To be effective it must be independent. If the Ombudsman is under PM office then it just shows that they lack confidence in the civil service. Uniquely Singapore - an office that is supposed to serve as a check on maladministration ends up being seen by the public as a grand wayang and reduces instead of increases confidence in public institutions.

 

[Rumpole]

At post #8 is a good speech in Parliament by Tang See Chim, then MP for Choa Chu Kang, on 15th March 1967.

 

[Dreamer1]

To be effective it must be independent. If the Ombudsman is under PM office then it just shows that they lack confidence in the civil service. Uniquely Singapore - an office that is supposed to serve as a check on maladministration ends up being seen by the public as a grand wayang and reduces instead of increases confidence in public institutions.

I don't trust this joker Tommy Ah Koh,even when it is obvious to all that it is all over for PAP,he still tries his little effort to save PAP,because he fucking thinks that Spore habis w/o fucking PAP,not very clever as he thinks he is - so fucking proud that he is different from PAP,for what?he has been helping PAP to prolong their fucking rule,useless chap.

 

[Rumpole]

I don't trust this joker Tommy Ah Koh,even when it is obvious to all that it is all over for PAP,he still tries his little effort to save PAP,because he fucking thinks that Spore habis w/o fucking PAP,not very clever as he thinks he is - so fucking proud that he is different from PAP,for what?he has been helping PAP to prolong their fucking rule,useless chap.

That is because you are a Sinkie. Probably part of the daft 60% - vote mainly on the basis of whether you like a person's smile or handshake or whatever.

Let me give an example. Suharto ruled Indonesia for decades. Most of the smart people eventually saw that there is no point resisting unless the masses have somehow awoken to Suharto's misdeeds instead of being happy and content with handouts during election time. Many of the politicians that helped topple Suharto were those that benefited under his rule.

In politics there are no permanent enemies or friends. Wake up my dear Dreamer.

 

[Rumpole]

So, has the civil service now improved by leaps and bounds from 1967 standards to justify the son of 1967's Sinkie Prime Minister introducing this long delayed check?

If like his father, he still lacks confidence in the civil service, then why the hell is the current Prime Minister paying them and himself out of this world obscene salaries?

Some food for thought yah! Anyway, Mr. Tang is still alive and professionally active:

http://www.davidlimpartners.com/tang.html

Here is his speech of 1967:

"Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now come to the second recommendation of the Commission, and that is the creation of the office of Ombudsman? The Government has rejected the Commission's recommendation without giving any substantial reasons for doing so. The Government's only reason is that the time is not opportune and that the introduction of such an office should be deferred until the results of the experiment in New Zealand and elsewhere are known. Here may I refer to the reason given by the Prime Minister in this Chamber this very afternoon? The Prime Minister's reason appears to disclose a lack of confidence in our civil service. The Prime Minister, having said what he did say in this Chamber, I think the efficiency and fairness of our civil service can only be vindicated by the establishment of such an office. I am afraid I do not consider the reason given by the Minister for Law and National Development and the reason given by the Prime Minister good reasons. New Zealand has had an Ombudsman since 1962 and by all accounts the office is a great success. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote part of a speech by the Honourable J. R. Marshall, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Commerce and Minister of Oversea Trade of New Zealand, to the 11th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, at page 213 in the Conference Report?

He says:

`On the basis of three years' operation of the office [meaning the office of Ombudsman], we in New Zealand can commend the institution to the serious consideration of other members of the Commonwealth. But this commendation is subject to some reservations. In the first place, we do not recommend our system except in our own circumstances. For others we recommend only the idea of an Ombudsman. Constitutional development of this kind must grow out of the needs and experiences of each country.'

I am of the opinion that we are in a stage of constitutional and political development when the establishment of such an office would benefit our administration. The office of Ombudsman safeguards the citizens against two ills which are the result of the growth of modern government. These two ills are, to put them shortly,

(1) misguided decisions by authorities in the exercise of their discretion;

(2) maladministration.

As Dicey, one of Britain's great constitutional lawyers, has said, and I quote: "Wherever there is discretion, there is room for arbitrariness." It is quite possible nowadays for an individual's rights to be accidentally crushed by the vast government administrative machinery. Hundreds and thousands of administrative decisions are made by our Government departments each year affecting the life of every citizen. Some of these decisions are bound to be arbitrary and unjustified. Under our present institution of government, there is no easy way for the ordinary citizen to gain redress. Courts are not quite an appropriate forum for the investigation of these complaints. Quite apart from the fact that they are expensive and slow, the courts cannot go behind a Minister's decision and exercise their discretion on his behalf. Members of Parliament are ineffective in that they cannot have access to departmental files. The same reason goes for the Press. The advantage of the Ombudsman is that, unlike M.P.s and the Press, he is politically neutral and has the power to call for departmental files to get at the full facts of the case. Unlike the courts, he does not require elaborate court procedure and no fee, or at most only a small fee, is charged for his services, so that his action is cheaper and faster when compared with the review by the courts. The creation of the office of Ombudsman not only would safeguard our citizens from the arbitrary decisions of those in authority and from maladministration, but would also serve as a protective shield for the civil service. It will protect them from unfounded allegations and accusations. This will further increase the confidence of the public in our administration.

The fact that there is a difference in the development of Singapore and the development of the countries at present having an Ombudsman is, as I see it, no argument. All studies so far show the desirability of introducing such an institution and it is significant that almost all the countries that have conducted studies into this office now accept the principle of having such an office. The latest example is the United Kingdom. We have an efficient and honest civil service. We are rightly proud of it. We should not, however, be content. The creation of the office of Ombudsman will be a step forward. It would be a step towards greater efficiency and incorruptibility of our civil service. Its introduction will be the first in this region and it will be the pride of Singapore."

 

[Equalisation]

How many bullets per minute?

 

[blackmondy]

I'm looking forward to Tony Tan's book with the chapter of how he made his son siam NS....

 

[kingrant]

He should be our next President!

 

[Froggy]

To be effective it must be independent. If the Ombudsman is under PM office then it just shows that they lack confidence in the civil service. Uniquely Singapore - an office that is supposed to serve as a check on maladministration ends up being seen by the public as a grand wayang and reduces instead of increases confidence in public institutions.

Exactly my point, the very reason it should be in the OM office.

:oIo:PAP :oIo:LHL :oIo:LKY

 

[Dreamer1]

That is because you are a Sinkie. Probably part of the daft 60% - vote mainly on the basis of whether you like a person's smile or handshake or whatever.

Let me give an example. Suharto ruled Indonesia for decades. Most of the smart people eventually saw that there is no point resisting unless the masses have somehow awoken to Suharto's misdeeds instead of being happy and content with handouts during election time. Many of the politicians that helped topple Suharto were those that benefited under his rule.

In politics there are no permanent enemies or friends. Wake up my dear Dreamer.

Brother Rumpole,Sorry,wrong.I voted mainly on the basis of whether PAP or Non-PAP,nothing more.so actually staill a minority,catching up real fast.
Pak harto's rule,actually I agree with MM LKY that Indonesia was not ready for democarcy,so timing is just riight,Indonesia is going forward now as a Democracy nation,Allah bless them,
Agree that in politics and probably biz there are no permanent enemies or friends.cheers

 

[enterprise2]

Thought that Pritash asked for that in last election!!

 

[eErotica69]

No need simi LJ Ombudsman whatsoever, just have more Opposition Parties in Parliament! The quality ones I mean.

Make it 20 to 30 seats!!

 

[Rumpole]

Brother Rumpole,Sorry,wrong.I voted mainly on the basis of whether PAP or Non-PAP,nothing more.so actually staill a minority,catching up real fast.
Pak harto's rule,actually I agree with MM LKY that Indonesia was not ready for democarcy,so timing is just riight,Indonesia is going forward now as a Democracy nation,Allah bless them,
Agree that in politics and probably biz there are no permanent enemies or friends.cheers

No need soli lah. You have the right to blindly vote PAP at every erection if that is what you want.

Indonesia is a real country whereas SG is a city and LKY nothing more than a mayor. LKY should know his place and not comment on things out of his depth.

If LKY had accepted the 1967 Constitutional Commission's recommendation, SG would as Tang See Chim said be the pride of this region. Instead he chose the other path and the rest is history which will be objectively rewritten after his death. He can write as many books he wants in the mean time, it would be to no avail. Yes, Allah is great and has clear eyes too. Cheers.

 

[zeddy]

I'm looking forward to Tony Tan's book with the chapter of how he made his son siam NS....

That chapter on how Tony Tan's son Siam NS is not open to public.. That info is only for their family archives..

 

[Dreamer1]

It is interesting that the Philippines had first ombudsman since 1988,25 years ago,(Mr.CONRADO M. VASQUEZ 1988-1995 )and yet it remains largely corrupted,now President Noy seems to be determined that he wants to eliminate corruption,see how much he can achieve?On the other hand,Spore is very much smaller,and less corrupted at this stage,there is no doubt that an ombudsman would be useful,but that is why LKY + LHL,both do not want one.
http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/index.php?home=1&navId=MQ==&subNavId=ODM=

 

[Rumpole]

At post #22 is the Parliamentary speech in 1967 of the then Prime Minister.

 

[laksa]

Speaking to reporters ahead of the launch of a new book of his on Wednesday afternoon, Koh, who turns 76 in November, said a review process was something he has advocated since his undergraduate days.

76 years old and still launch book, working etc..