Relieving the weight of democratic expectations

COMMENT

The Presidential Election has turned into a debate over the role of the Head of State in Singapore’s democratisation process. All four candidates say that the reduction of the People Action Party's absolute power is a healthy development. But, they disagree over where the President should position himself in relation to this trend.

Regardless of who’s elected on 27 August, one intriguing question will linger: How did the race for Singapore’s stately Istana become as raucous as a Hungry Ghost event?

It is as if the election is being over-invested with meaning. Choosing the Head of State is a profound enough decision as it is, but to many voters this is also a key opportunity to put the PAP government in its place.

This is becoming a trend. It started with the General Election. It has even affected people’s day-to-day dealings with the public service: the Prime Minister revealed in his National Day Rally speech that hyper-emboldened citizens were making unreasonable demands of frontline staff – mundane interactions were turning into a battle of wills.

Now, the Government fears that people are burdening the Presidency with unrealistic expectations that it should be at the cutting edge of political reform. It’s not just the Government that is wary of this sentiment: the Workers’ Party is giving the contest a wide berth. It knows that the real battle for democratisation is building local government in Aljunied-Hougang and starting the struggle for more Parliamentary seats.

However, many Singaporeans feel they have been denied a voice for too long and are impatient to see even the office of Head of State play a more active role in Singapore’s reform. Clearly, we are witnessing a repoliticisation of Singapore society.

Singaporeans’ newfound political urges, though, are only half the story. We need to understand why those energies are flowing in the directions that they are. And, the answer must surely be a lack of better channels.

Over the decades, the government has systematically closed off or over-regulated the outlets for public grievances normally found in a democratic society, such as the press and political lobby groups. Suppressed public sentiments did not simply dissipate and die off. They built up until the chance came – at election campaigns or over government counters – to release pent-up pressure.

Thus, what the Government sees as an over-politicisation of the Presidential Election is a symptom of Singaporeans’ frustrated desire for accountability and voice. It is futile telling them that they should take the quarrel elsewhere if there is no elsewhere that the eye can see. The solution is as obvious as it is radical: allow the development of democratic institutions strong enough and credible enough to absorb the energies of a repoliticised public.

TIME FOR AN OMBUDSMAN?

One possible new institution is the Ombudsman – a people’s representative who functions as a trusted intermediary between them and the Government. A Scandinavian invention, it has caught on in many countries. It operates under various names: in Britain, it is called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration; in Portugal, it is the Provedor de Justica, or Provider of Justice.

The basic idea is to investigate citizens’ complaints from outside of the ministry or agency concerned, thus providing a credible check on government activity. It is most effective when coupled with “open government” initiatives, such as laws guaranteeing access to information.

It was first proposed here by the Constitutional Commission appointed in 1966. The Commission recommended instituting an Ombudsman to ensure an independent check on the acts and decisions of the public sector, apart from the principle of ministerial responsibility. The Ombudsman should have wide powers of investigation and the ability to publish his findings, the Commission said.

The government responded that it was not rejecting the proposal but that it was not yet the right time to institute it. Citizens had not yet developed a clear understanding of their rights and obligations – and many were illiterate, noted Law Minister E.W. Barker in March 1967. Thus, an Ombudsman would be “flooded by complaints by people who do not know what are the limits of his jurisdiction”.

This was a valid concern, but it was not insurmountable. In an editorial on January 4, 1967, the Straits Times had already offered a solution to the anticipated problem of gridlock. The newspaper argued that the office could be set up as a Parliamentary Commissioner, acting only act at the instigation of MPs who felt that they had been unable to make headway with their petitions.

GETTING THE POLITICS RIGHT

Over the decades, several respected Singaporeans have tried to revive the proposal. In 1990, ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh, then director of the new Institute of Policy Studies, said that Singapore could endure only if some existing institutions were restructured and new ones set up – including that of the Ombudsman.

In the 1994 Budget Debate, K. Shanmugam, then a backbencher, took up the argument. An Ombudsman would help retain people’s confidence in the system, he said. He elaborated:

“The Minister may say that there are existing channels. However, the existing channels all, by and large, rely on the system itself to act correctly... It is therefore preferable to have an intermediate institution which can provide for a quick and effective remedy, and reserving the final appeal to the Minister for extreme cases. The Ombudsman should have the right to review the facts himself if he feels necessary.”

The exact shape of the institution would have to be debated. What’s important is that the institution be independent and credible. It would have to be headed by a highly respected individual prepared to act doggedly for citizens, not on the side of bureaucratic expediency. It must be backed by the resources to investigate matters and the power to demand information.

Many Singaporeans evidently desire an Ombudsman-like institution so much that many are prepared to push the Presidency in that direction.

At Thursday’s forum organised by The Online Citizen, I asked Tony Tan if the time had come to develop democratic institutions such as an Ombudsman. He replied that it was certainly an idea that the Government should look at, “as a means for citizens to right their wrongs”.  He added, “And although the Government has not agreed to it yet, the Government has to review its position from time to time.”

The Prime Minister was spot on when he said in his National Day Rally speech that Singapore would have to get “get our politics right as well as our policies… and to get both right, you must start with the politics”. Instituting a strong Ombudsman would be a significant step in that direction.

The writer is an associate professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This is a condensed version of an article that first appeared on his blog, www.airconditionednation.com