MR ROBERT Tang Hin Ching ("Ombudsman can tackle graft in civil service"; last Friday) suggested having an ombudsman to deal with complaints of corruption in the civil service.
In jurisdictions with such an office, citizens aggrieved by the action of any public servant may lodge a complaint with the ombudsman. The ombudsman is usually empowered to investigate the complaints, advise on corrective actions and recommend prosecutions.
Unlike the judiciary, however, the ombudsman is usually not able to make binding and enforceable decisions. This may prompt some to question the efficacy of such a system. Nonetheless, to carry out investigations well, the ombudsman is usually independent of Parliament and the civil service.
In Singapore, an office of the ombudsman would be unnecessary in the light of existing and proposed measures.
Under the Constitution, the director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is able to conduct investigations that the Prime Minister does not consent to, as long as the President, in exercising his discretion, agrees to such probes.
This affords the CPIB some degree of independence from the Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service in carrying out investigations. Also, the President may veto the appointment of the CPIB director if he does not agree with the recommendation by the Cabinet or minister in charge.
The recently announced measures, such as the one-stop corruption reporting centre, a review of the Prevention of Corruption Act and an increase in the CPIB's manpower, would certainly strengthen our stance against corruption ("S'pore steps up efforts to stay free of corruption"; Jan 14).
Still, our best defence is perhaps the strong public service ethos of our officers, and their recognition of the need to act in the best interests of Singapore.
Grace Morgan (Ms)
In jurisdictions with such an office, citizens aggrieved by the action of any public servant may lodge a complaint with the ombudsman. The ombudsman is usually empowered to investigate the complaints, advise on corrective actions and recommend prosecutions.
Unlike the judiciary, however, the ombudsman is usually not able to make binding and enforceable decisions. This may prompt some to question the efficacy of such a system. Nonetheless, to carry out investigations well, the ombudsman is usually independent of Parliament and the civil service.
In Singapore, an office of the ombudsman would be unnecessary in the light of existing and proposed measures.
Under the Constitution, the director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is able to conduct investigations that the Prime Minister does not consent to, as long as the President, in exercising his discretion, agrees to such probes.
This affords the CPIB some degree of independence from the Prime Minister, Cabinet and civil service in carrying out investigations. Also, the President may veto the appointment of the CPIB director if he does not agree with the recommendation by the Cabinet or minister in charge.
The recently announced measures, such as the one-stop corruption reporting centre, a review of the Prevention of Corruption Act and an increase in the CPIB's manpower, would certainly strengthen our stance against corruption ("S'pore steps up efforts to stay free of corruption"; Jan 14).
Still, our best defence is perhaps the strong public service ethos of our officers, and their recognition of the need to act in the best interests of Singapore.
Grace Morgan (Ms)
