Tommy Koh wants an ombudsman for Singapore

[Rumpole]

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

You should tell that to a 90 year old man who launched his personal book at a state venue. Hahaha.

 

[Rumpole]

This was the speech that caused Mr. Tang See Chim, whose speech is in post #8 above, to pour scorn on LKY for showing a lack of confidence in the civil service.

Read it to decide for yourself whether the reasons given by LKY then for rejecting the Constitutional Commission’s UNAMIMOUS recommendation for an Ombudsman are still valid in today's sophisticated Singapore five decades later. Oops, I forgot to mention that in 1967, LKY promised to review the decision 5 to 10 years later.

Isn't there a logical disconnect if the PAPzis have enough confidence in the civil service to raise their salaries to stratospheric levels but not even confidence to subject their performance to scrutiny by a truly independent Ombudsman with wide powers of investigation?

Here's the speech:

In rejecting for the time being the innovation of a Parliamentary Commissioner [Ombudsman] - let me say that we have not written off this proposition. Legislation for such an institution has just been attempted in Britain in a very limited sort of way. There is no possibility of any member of the public asking for a writ to be issued by the Commissioner for a matter to be investigated. It is very limited not only in the initiative of the inquiry but also in the fields where the inquiries can take place. If after five years it is found that we have a sufficiently high degree of administration to be able to take on the added burden of having every administrative decision scrutinised by some overlord, then I think the position should be reviewed. It must be a position which we would try to attain. But faced with the realities of what we have, and the knowledge that very often the whole machinery of government depends on the capacity of two dozen really good digits in the administration, to put upon them this load is bound to slow up the whole process of decision-making. If every Commissioner of Lands, every Housing Board executive who allocates flats has at the back of his mind when he makes a decision the thought that the wisdom of his decision will be called into question and all the paraphernalia - secret minutes passed between each other of the whys and wherefores and who and what for - can be regurgitated, it is bound to make him hesitate. "I am refusing accommodation in the Geylang Serai block of flats to Malays who have just had their attap huts burnt in Lorong 3." It is a decision made partly by the Board and partly by an unofficial committee of M.P.s who feel that this creation of a ghetto atmosphere would be bad and inimical for our own society. If every such decision can be reopened and it is said, "You have refused me a flat in Geylang Serai, although I am a Malay and that is a Malay area" – then it is bound to slow up the process of decision-making.

I am not saying this in wanting to protect or perpetuate this state of affairs. I would like to believe that in the next 5 or 10 years more and more able administrators will be trained to man the institutions of the State. A position may be reached one day when there is no decision taken anywhere along the line which would be any different if they were to sit back and think "What would happen to my career." There is no desire to hide the political hand. I say quite openly of what has happened in Geylang Serai and I am quite prepared to justify it politically, that it is wrong. They should be offered cheaper rent and be made to live in Tanjong Rhu or Queenstown or elsewhere. But if the officer who often has to take this decision on broad policy directives, finds he may blot his copybook because somebody has complained, and he was found to have exercised his judgment unwisely and erroneously, it is bound to slow up the process. He is bound in the nature of things to pass it up for a decision and ask for a directive, even on specific issues. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that we have not rejected this. We have only said, "Let us wait and see." First, how does it work in its limited form elsewhere? Second, in five years let us see whether we have more able digits in our administration to be able to take on this stringent test of knowing that every decision affecting every single citizen can be reopened for scrutiny.

 

[borom]

If Party in power not listening, he (TK) should join another party that will fight for it.
Better still start a new party or run for President to promote that agenda.
Otherwise no credibility.
In fact I think Ombudsman should be overseer by Elected President and be totally free from legislative,executive, and judicial interference.