Who guards the guards, asks Shanmugam in rebutting WP MP's call for ombudsman

SINGAPORE - Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Thursday (March 3) rebutted the call by Workers' Party (WP) MP Leon Perera (Aljunied GRC) for an ombudsman, saying that setting up an independent agency to check on every aspect of government would replicate many parts of law enforcement agencies.

Singapore's system already provides many processes to check on wrongdoing including by the Government, whether it is corruption or foreign interference, said the minister. These include complaint systems, independent investigations by the police with outside persons sitting on panels, as well as judicial review, he added during the debate on his ministry's budget on Thursday.

Furthermore, having an ombudsman without any oversight from the Government would also raise the question: Who then deals with misconduct by the ombudsman or the officers within that office?

"Who guards the guards?" asked Mr Shanmugam.

"Take a hypothetical situation. Say you have an organisation where the top leaders engage in wrongdoing, or for example, say they set up a disciplinary committee to cover up what they did rather than actually investigate. You can ask 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'" he said, using the Latin phrase for the question he posed.

"And Mr Perera, I suppose if he was part of any such organisation, would be the first one to make such a point," the minister added.

Mr Perera had said that an ombudsman would be able to check on senior ministers, citing the risks of foreign influence with geopolitical tensions ratcheting.

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 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," he added, saying this would be similar to the practice in New Zealand.

Mr Shanmugam, referring to Mr Perera's previous parliamentary speeches on the topic, said the WP MP had a penchant for recommending that outside commissions and an ombudsman look into all matters, from caning to foreign interference.

But he questioned the efficacy of this, saying the ombudsman would have to replicate many parts of existing law enforcement agencies, including the intelligence agencies, so that it can investigate such complaints on its own.

"I would suggest it doesn't make much sense. Because how do you replicate, and at what cost, an entire investigative mechanism outside the Government?"

Mr Shanmugam added: "You've got to then set up an entire huge structure at the taxpayers' expense to investigate this. Rather than having a proper legal process, including a complaint system, an independent investigation set up, say by the police, with some outside people sitting on it, or judicial review."

As it stands, law enforcement agencies can already go to the President - an independent person who can give directions and authorise checks, said Mr Shanmugam.

"We institutionalised it such that the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) can go straight to the Prime Minister. But where the Prime Minister himself is the possible subject of investigations, or if the Prime Minister doesn't want to do something, the CPIB can go to the President. Not many countries have done this," he said.

Mr Shanmugam said there are systems in place and a variety of people who can lodge complaints and launch investigations into wrongdoing, including the Auditor-General's Office, the Attorney-General, the CPIB and the police.

 

And civil servants are obliged to go to a higher authority if they think their minister is doing wrong, "and if they believe that the higher authority is not acting properly, they can take it up all the way", he added.

These civil servants are, in turn, protected through the structure of the Public Service Commission, which appoints senior public officers, and the minister said such appointments "cannot be interfered with willy-nilly by the Government".

"I would say, look at all that first, and look at the ground situation before we start talking about replicating more and more institutions outside," he added.

On Mr Perera's reference to New Zealand, Mr Shanmugam said the situation there was different, noting that political parties are allowed to accept donations from locally registered companies, even if they are foreign-owned. He cited former National Party MP Todd McClay, whose party received a NZ$150,000 (S$138,000) donation from a company owned by Chinese businessman Lang Lin, after the two men had met.

Mr Shanmugam cited recent articles from The Guardian and Financial Times to make the point that New Zealand's international reputation for political integrity had taken a beating recently, with the country being described as "at the heart" of global money laundering.

"I would ask Members to perhaps do their research before they cite various countries and their institutions as models," he added.

In response, Mr Perera asked why many countries have an ombudsman if it was such a bad idea.

Unlike law enforcment institutions which sit on the organisation chart within the executive government and are “within that command and control hierarchy”, an ombudsman would report to Parliament, added Mr Perera.

“So when it investigates alleged abuses, it is seen to be an investigation coming from a different part of the Government...to do that has advantages in terms of vertical accountability that is felt by the society, and in terms of the strength and solidarity of our polity,” he said.

He also said that the practical issues of duplication can be resolved by having the ombudsman office direct the investigations while using resources from other agencies.

Replying, Mr Shanmugam reiterated that Singapore’s system already allows for such a process, where enforcement agencies, like the CPIB, can direct investigations and report directly to the President who is not part of the executive.

This is similar to Mr Perera’s suggestion, he added, saying: “I have explained how that is so. So I don’t understand what the argument is. Maybe Mr Perera hasn’t understood the constitutional structure and how the CPIB can go directly to the President.”