Workers’ Party MP Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) has once again brought up the idea of instituting an independent organisation with investigative powers, such as an ombudsman.
He made his proposal during the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament on Thursday.
Typically, an ombudsman i s an official who handles complaints from the public against the government.
Mr Perera said an ombudsman would “provide independent oversight” like in countries such as New Zealand.
He added: “An office of an ombudsman would create investigative resources behind a legitimate institutional check that would be seen to be legitimate. In the current climate, there is more of a need for this.”
In the context of the current geopolitical situation and the risk of foreign influence, he said, “Ministers, including the Home Affairs Minister and Prime Minister himself, would be extremely high-value targets for foreign interference, particularly given what some might say is Singapore’s significant role in Asean.”
An ombudsman, he said, would be able to check on senior ministers, as it would “create investigative resources behind a legitimate institutional check that would be seen to be legitimate. In the current climate, there is more of a need for this.”
Responding, Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam, said that the Government has “added checks on itself” over the years. He said Mr Perera’s suggestion of an ombudsman made no sense and could
He explained that Singapore already has mechanisms in place for investigations, even if it’s the “Prime Minister himself is the possible subject of investigations.”
But the WP MP pressed on, saying, “If instituting an independent organization with investigative powers against the executive government, such as an ombudsman, is such a bad idea, why are so many countries doing that? I made a long speech, which I do not intend to and I cannot anyway repeat, in September of 2020 when I gave detailed arguments for an ombudsman.”
Mr Perera persisted. Many countries have incorporated the institution of an ombudsman, he said, adding that it was a point he wanted to get across.
“If you were to go to opinion leaders, and if you were to conduct public opinion polls in those countries, I am not at all sure that the majority of people would say that ‘Well, this is a bad thing, let us remove this institution and then things will get better’.”
Mr Shanmugam had earlier explained that in Singapore, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is in place, and it is set up in such a way that it can go to the Prime Minister. And if it is the Prime Minister himself who is under investigation, the CPIB can go to the President.
“CPIB has the resources to carry out the investigations and it has the ability to tap on other agencies for the appropriate additional help or work that needs to be done,” he added.
However, in his rebuttal, Mr Perera expressed the concern that at present law enforcement institutions are on the organisation chart within the executive government and “are within that command and control hierarchy at the end of the day.”
An ombudsman would sit, he added, “fundamentally in a different place organisationally,” and would be seen as an investigation coming from a different part of the government.
/TISG