What was the rationale for rejection of Ombudsman in 1965?

robertteh SG

It is clearly a case of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Had the PM and the cabinet not been given so much power the government would have listened or accepted such important recommendations made by the Constitutional Commission by the then Chief Justice Mr. Wee Chong Jin to form an Ombudsman in 1965 presented to the cabinet. (as posted by "servant" at www.findsingapore.net/forum)

Had there been a more accountable collective governance the whole body of MPs and government would not have let the PM and the cabinet lightly dismiss such important recommendation aimed at checking on exercise of executive and legislative and judiciary powers for more creative and collective governance as well as to prevent potential abuse.

The executive and civil servants would have been made to be answerable for persistent high-cost tax-and-recover and endless corporatization of public services causing much problems to the people.

Singapore has lost an opportunity to upgrade its corporate governance standards to prevent and check on abuses or wrongful actions and be subjected to collective checks and balances by the body of elected MPs through parliaments for the people.

No wonder we have experienced about the most drastic form of autocracy of any elected parliamentary democracy as seen happening in NKF and the Shin Corp losses for which no body among the ministers or top civil servants seems to be held answerable.

No wonder some civil servants have become so powerful behind the scene and even elected ex-President Ong Teng Cheong could not gain access to their asset records for the purpose of exercising the second key to look after people assets and surpluses.

No wonder ex-MPs like Chng Hee Kok were told off by some top civil servants without the mandate to chastise elected MPs for the people.

On hind sight it is a mistake to have rejected the ex-chief justice's recommendation to set up relevant checks on use of executive powers by the ministers and civil servants.

Let us hear what the post 65 MPs have to say about such unlimited powers of the executive and what suggestions they have to make government more open and accountable.

Atobe SG

How can the POWER OF ONE subject itself to any other Higher Authority than itself ?

One of the many functions of the 'Role of the Parliamentary Ombudsman is to act as a check and balance' to the abuses of government.

Can the POWER OF ONE accept such attempts at 'checks and balance' to their privileges and powers ?

Besides the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the other position that could check on the present Governmentis will be the Speaker of Parliament task is to remain non-partisan, and to manage and ensure the observance of parliamentary procedures by all elected Members of Parliament.

Unfortunately, in the Singapore context, the POWER OF ONE is a continuously insecure animal that is paranoid of seeing itself out in the doldrum.