Concept and Role of the Ombudsman
Institution in Asia in Improving and
Maintaining Public Service Delivery
by Dr. Rajani Ranjan Jha
Professor, Banaras Hindu University
1
Table of Contents
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Development and Dimensions .
.
.
.
.
8
Ombudsman in Asia
.
.
.
.
.
10
Role of Ombudsman in Asia
.
.
.
.
.
15
Ombudsman in Thailand
.
.
.
.
.
20
Ombudsman in Philippines
.
.
.
.
.
27
Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission –
Republic of Korea
.
.
32
Issues & Challenges
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
Lessons learned
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
.
2
Introduction
Ombudsman institution has been closely associated with democracy,
democratic development, governance and public administration in contemporary
world. It is viewed as an easy mechanism of grievance redressal in the hands of
common people against the power, discretion of the government and the
bureaucracy who operationalise them. With the development and consolidation
of democracy and democratic values, the rising aspirations of the people leading
to high expectations from their governments, the welfare philosophy emerging as
the inbuilt charter of governance placing heavy burden on governments to take
care of the citizenry provide innumerable points of contacts between the people
and the government leading to numerous kinds of grievances which people face
in their day to day life. If, these could be some how listed as they have been
done by Bernard Frank, they range from simple clerical error to oppression, e.g.,
injustice, failure to carry out legislative intent, unreasonable delay,
administrative error, abuse of discretion, lack of courtesy, clerical
error, oppression, oversight, negligence, inadequate investigation,
unfair policy, partiality, failure to communicate,
rudeness,
maladministration, unfairness, unreasonableness, arbitrariness,
arrogance, inefficiency, violation of law or regulation, abuse of
authority, discrimination, errors, mistakes, carelessness,
disagreement with discretionary decisions, improper motivation,
irrelevant consideration, inadequate
or obscure explanation, and
all the other acts that are frequently inflicted upon the
governed
1
by those who govern, intentionally or unintentionally.
It is not a mere stringing together of words but product of day-to-day real
life experiences in the field of government-citizen relationship.
In the above listed situation of grievances, redressal is often
discriminatory. Justifying the need of the desirability of having an Ombudsman
for England Lord Shaw cross rightly wrote in the preface to the Whyatt Report:
the man of substance can deal with these situations. He is near to the
establishment; he enjoys the status or possesses the influence which
will ensure
him the ear of those in authority. He can afford to pursue
such legal remedies... as may be available. But too often the little man,
the ordinary humble citizen, is incapable of asserting himself. 2
In fact, it is the common man who is most in need of protection against
such disadvantages. If left uncared, disregard of people's feelings may result into
grievous consequences. Dissatisfaction may lead to alienation and finally may
take the form of revolt against the system which obviously no government wants.
3
The rising force of terrorists and their impact on the different systems through out
the world though, at times differently put may also be taken note of in this
context. The governments, therefore, cannot afford to disregard the feelings of
their citizens. It is, therefore, imperative for the civilized human society to set up
stable, effective and trustworthy institutions to serve the people in various ways
and in a timely manner.
It is not only the stability aspect of the system that should be taken
account of in the state-citizen relationship but also other considerations
emanating from the very application of democratic polity. As a consequence, the
permanent and clear cut distinction between the government authority and the
governed has been significantly erased. In the democratic world of today the
relationship between the rulers and the ruled is not a static phenomenon like the
previous forms of governments but a changing one. 3 These who are in the
capacity of governors today become governed tomorrow due to the very nature
of democratic polity. Therefore, those who are the holders of power today must
also be careful that official lapses, omissions, injustices if tolerated today may
oppress them tomorrow when they will not be in power. The rulers and the ruled,
thus, equally benefit from the mechanism(s) that corrects governmental mistakes
and help prevent their recurrence.4
The main problem before the modern administrative system is how to
provide the citizens with an institution within the democratic framework which
enjoys his confidence and to which be can have easy access for the redress of
his grievances. It was equally important that such a system should be cheap,
easily accessible, quick, impartial, objective, independent and held in high
esteem.
It is basically to meet this need that many countries in recent decades
have adopted the institution of Ombudsman. The institution had its origin in the
Swedish constitution of 1809. Later, it was adopted by many countries and in
recent years more and more countries are opting for this institution on their own,
also because it has been recommended by the international institutions like the
UN, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Asian Development Bank etc.
as a means of ensuring good governance and better service delivery to the
consumers. However, to go back to the roots, the word Ombud is a Swedish
word which refers to a person who acts as a spokesman or representative of
another person.5 In Swedish public law, however, Ombudsman means an
appointee of the Parliament of Sweden for the supervision of the administration.
In Norway and Denmark it generally means a person who has a public duty
imposed on him which he must discharge. The English translation for
Ombudsman is Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration - a term used for
the Ombudsman in England. But, it is in the Swedish sense that the word
Ombudsman is generally used and understood all over the globe. In the United
4
States of America the term has been somewhat loosely used where any
complaint handling mechanism has been given the name of Ombudsman. As a
result, one finds, Ombudsman institution functioning both at public and private
levels in the United States like Ombudsman for Navy, Consumer Protection,
Local Government Business, Environment Protection etc.6 As we shall see later,
this trend got more currency in the development of Ombudsman institution in
later years in other parts of the world also.
The unrestricted use of the term 'Ombudsman' posed the possibility of the
very idea behind the establishment of this institution getting diluted or lost. This
concern was seriously taken note by many persons/scholars intimately
associated with the development of Ombudsman system. Prominent among such
persons have been Professor Donald C. Rowat of Carleton University, Ottawa
and Bernard Frank, Former Chairman of International Ombudsman Institute.
Rowat has rightly cautioned that if the unrestricted use of term Ombudsman were
allowed to continue because of its growing popularity, "the Ombudsman idea
may become its worst enemy."7 Efforts were, thereafter, initiated to define the
term Ombudsman. The committee of the International Bar Association resolved
in 1974 that the term Ombudsman should mean only grievance handling
mechanism and defined it as:
An office provided for by the constitution or by action of the
legislature or
parliament and headed by an independent, highlevel public official who is responsible to the legislature or parliament,
who receives complaints from aggrieved persons against
government agencies, officials, and employees or who acts on his
own motion, and who has the power to investigate, recommend
corrective action, and issue reports.8
Later, Gerald E. Caiden et al in the International Handbook of the
Ombudsman, Vol I. Evolution and Present Function, (1983) defined Ombudsman
broadly as:
The Ombudsman is an independent and non-partisan officer (or
committee of
officers...) often provided for in the Constitution,
who supervises the
administration. He deals with specific
complaints from the public against administrative injustice and
maladministration. He has the power to investigate, report
upon,
and make recommendations about individual cases and
administrative procedures.
He is not a judge or a tribunal, and he has no power to make orders
or to reverse administrative action. He seeks solution to problems by
a process of
investigation and conciliation. His authority and
5
influence derive from the fact he is appointed by and reports to one
of the principal organs of state, usually either the parliament
or
the chief executive. 9
On the basis of the above definitions some main elements and salient
features of the Ombudsman system may be derived.
Ombudsman is a high public official appointed by either the Parliament or
the Chief Executive. The office of the Ombudsman is provided for in the
constitution of the country concerned or it is the result of the legislation passed
by the national Parliament or state legislature, as the case may be. His status is
kept at a higher level usually equivalent to the Chief Justice of the highest court
of the country. As a high public official his security of tenure is guaranteed. He
cannot be easily removed from his office. Normally, the removal is done by the
legislature after determination of a cause supported by two-thirds majority of the
House.
A person appointed as the Ombudsman is generally a non-controversial
person who by his own merit commands public confidence and is hold in high
esteem. The success of the Ombudsman institution largely depends upon the
personal qualities and public image of the incumbent.
Ever since its origin in Sweden in 1809 the office has been so closely
associated with the legislature that it has been called as an "extended arm of
legislature." Not only the Ombudsman is appointed for supervising and
controlling the administration but also for protecting the rights of the individuals.
The Ombudsman gets his/her strength from the legislature. He is the
representative of people's representative. In this sense, he may be said to
represent the democratic element in society. In many countries while appointing
the Ombudsman the Leader of the Opposition is also consulted. This process of
consulting the opposition lends credence to the Ombudsman emerging as the
choice of both the government and the opposition, in fact, a representative of the
whole house. His annual report which the Ombudsman is obliged to present
annually are placed on the table of the House and may occasion debate and
discussion on his functioning. Some countries have the provision of Select
Committees of the House on Ombudsman to coordinate the activities of the
Ombudsman. Thus, everywhere there is a close linkage between the
Ombudsman and the Parliament/Legislature. But, this, in no may compromises
with the independent functioning of the Ombudsman.
Another very important aspect of the Ombudsman institution is its
independence. Even though an appointee of Parliament the Ombudsman is
totally independent of it. That the Ombudsman is independent of the Executive
hardly needs any reiteration. In fact, one may put it that the most striking element
6
of the office of the Ombudsman is its independence. In this context the very
appropriate remark of Bernard Frank "that the Ombudsman must be free from
any control by any other officer and, if he is subject to supervision, then whatever
he may be he is not an Ombudsman" beautifully brings out the seminal
importance of independence in the whole concept and operationalization of
Ombudsman system. Additionally, the Ombudsman should not only be
independent in terms of legal position of his office but he must also appear to be
so to the general people. The people in general should have confidence in the
independence of the Ombudsman.10
Apart from independence, objectivity in another important feature/element
of the Ombudsman system. The whole idea of Ombudsmanship is based on the
principle of impartial investigation by an office which is not a part of the
administration and who has no interest in being protective of any act and
omission or commission on the part of the administrative functionaries. The
Ombudsman office is in fact based on the premise that an objective, impartial
investigation from an outside independent agency who is not involved in decision
making will not only bring out the objective state of affairs but will lead to the
improvement of public administration. For Ombudsman therefore, to operate
with objectivity and fairness is very important.
An Ombudsman is a grievance redressal body against the functioning of
the complex, dingy, serpentive corridors of bureaucracy and government.
Therefore, the Ombudsman must be easily accessible by the general public
especially the poor, marginalised, disadvantaged sections of society who are
most in need of his help. Approaching the Ombudsman is not only easy but
inexpensive as well so that any body can approach him. In most countries of the
world the Ombudsman can be reached by personal visits, letter, phone (in many
cases toll free phones), fax and internet. With a few exceptions, approaching the
Ombudsman is direct and without any fee. Initially a fee of £1 was charged from
the complainants under the New Zealand Ombudsman Act, 1962 with the
provision of discretion to the Ombudsman to waive off in particular cases.
Subsequently, this also was abolished in New Zealand Ombudsman Act, 1975. 11
Ombudsman is empowered to call for information from any quarter and
has the right to inspect all government documents and files excepting those
relating to national security. Even in the case of papers relating to national
security the British system introduced an ingenious provision under which the
Ombudsman himself can see all the documents but shall not disclose any such
matter whose disclosure may be dangerous to the safety of the state.12 Thus, the
Ombudsman has access to all the government papers/files made available to
him concerning a case under his investigation.
7
A very unique and important feature of the Ombudsman institution is the
suo moto power enjoyed by it. Under this, the Ombudsman, unlike court and
many such other institutions, has the authority to act on his own motion or initiate
investigation without any reference from any complainant. He may start
investigation on the basis of newspaper reports, radio, television etc. But this
special power is not available to some Ombudsmen like the British and the
French.
One thing is very clear that the Ombudsman is different from a court of
Law. No counsels are required before the Ombudsman plus the procedure of
approaching the Ombudsman is user friendly, simple, easy, and available
virtually at no cost to the complainant. Unlike court it is quick, non-taxing and free
from botheration. Many matters of maladministration which cannot be raised
before a court of law are the favourite areas of the functioning of the
Ombudsman. Once a complaint is filed before Ombudsman he, in fact, is the
moving spirit. That the Ombudsman is different from a court of law must be clear
to the general public also especially in those developing societies which had a
colonial part. People fight shy of or are afraid of approaching a court of law
because of their not-so-happy experiences of the functioning of courts during
colonial rule.
In its classical sense, the Ombudsman's activities are related only to the
public sector. It is not concerned with the activities of the private sector. It is,
however, interesting to note that more and more institutions in the name of
Ombudsmen are being established in private sector also.
The Ombudsman has the authority to receive complaints against the
functioning of the government departments and agencies and to thoroughly
investigate them. On finding a wrong done to the complainant he also has the
authority not only to criticise the agency involved but also to suggest corrective
action so that the grievance of the complainant is redressed.
Finding fault with the agency complained against is not the main role of
the Ombudsman. His job sometimes is also to find a solution for the already
harassed complainant with the cooperation of the bureaucracy. For effectively
playing this role of a mediator between the problems of the complainant and the
bureaucracy what is required on the part of the Ombudsman is the social capital
of confidence building among the bureaucracy regarding his intention and role of
improving the public services and not an agency moving about to punish the
erring officials.
Finally, the institution of Ombudsman is a recommending body. It does not
have any enforcement, binding power of executing its decisions except in the two
Scandinavian countries - Sweden and Finland. His power in all other countries is
8
only of persuasion, mediation and conciliation. It is sometimes regarded as a
weakness of the Ombudsman system but looking deeply and from the practical
point of view of his role in influencing the administration the power of
recommendation is more appropriate in the sense that it makes him more
acceptable to administration. In this context Guy Powles rightly stays: “to give
him such (enforcement power) would be to depart from the peculiar and valuable
characteristics of this institution.”13
The Ombudsman, thus, is not a part of the governmental machinery, is
independent of its creators - the Executive and the Legislature, is a high powered
office which humanises the concept of administration by looking into the
grievances of the ordinary people free of cost, objectively and quickly. He, thus,
creates confidence of the common man in the government and administration.
He functions as the ray of hope for those who have been otherwise harassed and
exhausted at the hands of the faceless bureaucracy.
Development and Dimensions
Some scholars have tried to trace the origin of Ombudsman in ancient
civilizations, medieval periods etc. but as a watch dog of public administration in
modern age it definitely traces its origin to the Swedish Constitution of 1809.
It was, however, with the establishment of the Ombudsman office in
Denmark (1955) that the real spread and uniqueness of the Ombudsman system
started taking shape. The Danish model was distinct from the Swedish one at
least on three counts. Firstly whereas the Swedish Ombudsman. was a
prosecutor of erring civil servants, the Danish one was an investigator of
maladministration. Secondly, the Danish Ombudsman's report was in the nature
of recommendation whereas the Swedish one formed the basis of legal action
against erring officials including courts. Thirdly, where as the Danish model apart
from redressal of individual grievances provided guidance for a administrative
improvement, the Swedish model was based on the punishment of the individual
concerned.14 This, in the opinion of Jan-Erik substantially transformed the role of
the Ombudsman from a disciplinary body to an institution exercising its influence.
The Norwegian Ombudsman (1962) was more or less based on the Danish
model. Till now, the Ombudsman was confined to the Scandinavian soil.
In 1962 New Zealand, a commonwealth country, adopted the office of
Ombudsman. Known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
(Ombudsman). Out of the two terminologies: The Parliamentary Commissioner
and Ombudsman, the public, more frequently used and recognized the office as
Ombudsman.15The New Zealand model of Ombudsman. Influenced the
Australian, Indian (first established in 1971 at provincial level) and Pakistani
ombudsman system. The Ombudsman office in the U.K. officially known as the
9
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (1967) added some unique
features to the development of Ombudsmanship. Unlike its predecessors, the
U.K. Ombudsman could not be approached by the complainant directly but
through the "filter system" i.e via the Member of Parliament. England also
provided for a Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Ombudsman,
thereby, emphasizing that the Ombudsman was really an "extended arm of
Legislature" though practically independent in its investigation. England made a
major departure from Scandinavia in the Ombudsman system by appointing a
person from the non-judicial background to the post of the Ombudsman. It further
added other types of Ombudsmen for Health Services in 1972, and Local
Administration in 1975 etc. At the same time Canada, another important
commonwealth country started experimenting with the Ombudsman institution as
a grievance redressal body dealing with maladministration at provincial level
(1967). the French Ombudsman, Mediateur, added different flavour to the
Ombudsman system in 1973.
In the United States of America a lot of interest was created in the
Ombudsman institution in the late 1960s. Two developments in particular are
worth noticing in this context. One, the creation of "Executive Ombudsman", as
they were set up by the State Governors under the constitutional system of the
U.S. governed by the principle of separation of powers. Two, in the US the term
Ombudsman began to be loosely applied to any grievance handling mechanism
whether in public or private concern.
The native flavour of the African States also added to another dimension
of the Ombudsman institution. In the African continent apart from the classical
Ombudsman variety, it was established in the form of a Commission - a plural,
collegial body rather than a single member institution e.g. Tanzania (Permanent
Commission of Enquiry, 1966), Zambia (Commission of Investigations, headed
by an Investigator General); Nizeria (Public Complaints Commission), Sudan,
Prople's Committee for Administrative Control etc.16
It also needs to be pointed out that the practice of establishing
Ombudsman to look into special area of activities has been in vogue since
Sweden established its second Ombudsman for Armed Services known as
Militeombudsman in 1915. Since then one finds Ombudsmen for Health, Prison,
Privacy, Police, Ethnic Minorities, Disabled, Children, Data Protection, Equal
Opportunities, Ethic Discrimination etc. operating in different parts of the world.
Ombudsmen operating for Banks, newspapers, telecommunications,
insurance etc. are a common feature now.
Another area for which the Ombudsman institution has been appointed in
increasing member relates to Human Rights or Civil Rights. Earlier also the
10
Ombudsman has been known in many countries like Spain, Argentina, Columbia
etc. as Civic Defender or Citizen’s Protectors but after the disintegration of the
Soviet Union and the introduction of democracy in these areas earlier ruled by
totalitarian systems, the Human Rights component of the Ombudsman in addition
to his role of looking into the cases of maladminstration has emerged in a
significant way in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Central Asia etc. 17
The functioning of Ombudsman in the classical Ombudsman mould at the
supra national level like the European Ombudsman and in international bodies
like the United Nations, World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, World
Health Organization etc. also deserve mention.
Ombudsman in Asia
Asia can easily claim to be a continent of varieties and variations. It
abounds in varieties in terms of historicity as the Indian and the Chinese
civilizations are one of the oldest known in the history of mankind. In terms of
culture and civilizational moorings the Indian, the Chinese, the Japanese, the
West and Central Asian, the East Asian and Pacific region have their own
flavour. In terms of governmental systems Asia has been experimenting with the
multi party democratic system, one party democratic system, dictatorship, military
rule, monarchical system, constitutional monarchical system, Presidential and
Parliamentary system, Federal and Unitary systems, newly democratised
system, rule in/of Special Region System, one country two systems, rule based
on Islamic principles etc. It has highly developed region and very less developed
regions etc. No wonder why the governmental and administrative systems vastly
vary in Asia.
The regions of Asia differ not only in terms of political systems, but also in
terms of stages of democratic and economic development, democratic culture,
nature of political leadership, level of citizen participation in the democratic and
developmental process, the stage and nature of civil society. Naturally, all these
and many more variations and distinctiveness in Asian societies tell us that Asia
of today is experiencing not one but several patterns of development. Along with
high growth rates of the erstwhile tiger economics and the newly poised two
economic super powers of future world, this region also houses one of the
poorest,
illiterate,
ill-healthed,
ignorant,
discriminated,
maltreated,
maladministered, unequal citizens of this globe. All these developments - good
and bad, desirable and undesirable shape the political and administrative
systems in/of Asia. In the context of any discussion on Ombudsman institution, it
is worth noting that the long, democratic culture of Sweden, which is in some
respects even higher and more entrenched than in Western and some other
parts of Europe, established the institution of Ombudsman as a watch dog over
public administration. In contrast to this some of the newly democratised
11
countries of Asia (like Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan) are still straggling to safeguard
the first generation of human rights. Any discussion on the basic concepts of
Ombudsmanship as it is understood today, therefore, have first to be looked into
its natural habitat of Scandinavia. Thereafter, as the idea was accepted by other
nations it started adding to itself other dimensions and features in order to suit
the local conditions, administrative systems, historical experiences, needs and
requirements of a particular country adopting this institution. This development,
as deliberately discussed in part I of this write up, not only added several other
features to its conceptual horizon but also reflected the resilience and suitability
and adaptability of the Ombudsman system to different forms and stages of
governmental, economic, social, cultural, democratic and developmental
systems. Naturally, the form, some of the features (if strictly applied in reference
to the classical Ombudsman of Scandinavia) and details of objectives underwent
changes though the main concept and its broad elements remained almost the
same.
The foregoing description suggests that the presence of Ombudsman has
prophylactic effect on administration because it humanises the concept of
administration. It stands for fairness, objectivity and accountability in
administration. It thereby tones up the administration. It reposes confidence of
the common man in administrative system. The Ombudsman serves as the hope
of the poor man to get justice and fair treatment easily and virtually at no cost.
But the Ombudsman has no enforcement power. He has the strength of
persuasion, conciliation, mediation, his own transparency and integrity. The
Ombudsman enjoys the trust of the complainant and also of the person
complained against. If he does not his authority will be eroded and credibility
damaged.
In the context of Asia, the redressal of maladministration as an important
element of Ombudsman system assumes added significance because of the
colonial legacy as a result of which the ordinary people suffer enormously from
maladministration in their day to day life. The experience of their contact with the
local level administration - the functional face of the government is not happy.
This provides them with a feeling of helplessness and a governmental system
that is uncaring of its citizens. This, on the one hand, pushes them to indulge in
corruption in order to get their small pinpricks, irritation, removed and on the
other, it makes them vulnerable to join anti-social, anti-state and anti-government
forces. This ultimately leads to anomie, disorder and disruption in developmental
activities. In some cases it's war on the society and the state by such elements.
Therefore, Ombudsman's mandate of dealing with maladministration is very
important. In most of the Ombudsman Acts eg. Hongkong, Malaysia, Pakistan,
India, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, Ministry of Supervision, People's
Republic of China, Administrative Evaluation Bureau, Japan and though not
clearly mentioned but by implication in Sri Lanka, settling grievances of
12
individuals arising as a result of injustice, maladministration and illegality is the
important element of Ombudsman's concept and role.
Dealing with corruption forms another important aspect of the
Ombudsmanship in Asian countries. This is reflected in the Anti-corruption and
Civil Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea, Anti Corruption Bureau of
Malaysia, Commission against Corruption of Macao, Lok Ayukta Organizations in
India; the different proposed federal Ombudsman legislations in India,the office of
the Ombudsman, Philippines etc.
Maladministration and Corruption have the biggest impact on the quality of
administration, service delivery in areas that concern people in their day to day
life which results in non-delivery of services, bad quality of product, syphoning of
public money for private ends. It makes the system porous and affects the
security and economic development of the country. In this sense it is antinational, anti-development and anti-poor. In many countries of Asia where
welfare programmes are run for the unemployed, rural unskilled labourers,
tribals, the old, infirm, children and physically challenged persons and all those
people who are marginalised and not aware of their entitlements by the state,
corruption is the biggest hurdle in service delivery and their upliftment. In general
it badly affects the economic and social development of a country. There appears
to be an organic relationship between corruption and maladministration.
Corruption specially petty corruption at the lower levels of administration comes
from maladministration and also results into maladministration. Therefore,
corruption is viewed as a very important issue affecting the public service
delivery. According to an estimate of Transparency International (TI) only in India
crores of rupees are spent by the people as bribe money for getting their day-today services. There is hardly an Indian who has never had to pay bribe for
getting small, small things done from the administration. By taking care of the
injustices caused as a result of maladministration the Ombudsman not only
strikes at the very root of corruption, but also makes the delivery of public
services easy, smooth and accountable to the public.
The third important component of the Ombudsman institution in Asia
specially concerning the newly democratised countries of Central Asia have
added to the role of the Ombudsman as a defender of human rights and civil
liberties. Even in Central Europe Human Rights have been an important agenda
for Ombudsmen since the days of the establishment of European Commission of
Human Rights in mid 1950s. The protection of the human rights and civil liberties
of the poor, weak, marginalised remain very much on the agenda in Asia. A new
context has however been added. After remaining a part of the Russian
totalitarian system for more than eighty years the newly democratised nations of
Central Asia namely the Republic of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyz Republic are in the
nascent phase of democracy and nation building. Therefore, one of the most
13
important tasks of the state is to establish and ensure that the Fundamental
Rights and freedoms of the people, necessary for a dignified human existence,
are followed in practice in their countries. This onerous task of overseeing and
maintaining human rights has been given to an elected body of the national
Legislature i.e. Institute of Ombudsman of the Kyrgyz Republic (est. 2002) in
Kyrgyz Republic and Office of the Authorised Person of the Oliy Majlis of the
Republic of Uzbekistan for Human Rights (Ombudsman) in Uzbekistan (Revised
in 2004). Their main mandate is "to protect human rights and freedoms in cases
of non-observance or violation by various state bodies and officials."18 They are
authorized to look into cases of both grievances and complaints.
Another elements associated with Ombudsmanship all over the world is
related to systemic reform or one that is related to reforms in law which has been
the cause of grievance to a complainant(s). Whenever, the Ombudsman in
course of the investigation of a grievance/complaint finds that a particular law is
bad owing to which injustice has been done to a complainant, he may suggest
the government to amend the impunged law suitably. Since the Ombudsman
comes in close contacts with those complainants who have been harassed
unjustly treated because of faulty law, he is best suited to suggest reforms in
public administration by recommending suitable changes in law to the
government. This aspect of Ombudsman has been well recognised in almost all
classical Ombudsman systems (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc.) and the
potentiality of improving public administration on the basis of the
recommendation made by the Ombudsman has been duly recognised in Asian
countries also by giving this power to the Ombudsmen in Hong Kong, South
Korea, Thailand, Japan, Indonesia, India, Uzbekistan, and Malaysia - to name a
few. Apart from its wider aspects, this role of the Ombudsman should also be
seen in the light of the Third Millenium Goals of the UN which emphasises on
achieving justice and prosperity for the marginalized, weak and the poor. It thus,
calls upon the Ombudsman to see that the laws are interpreted in favour of the
weak and poor people. By so doing the Ombudsman will infuse into
administrative functioning the content and quality of inclusiveness so urgently
required in Asian context. 19
Another aspect of the Ombudsman institution that emerges from his role
as a mediator and which has everywhere been emphasized is the persuasive
nature of the functioning of Ombudsman. Finding out the fault is not enough for
the Ombudsman. His role is to remove those faults to the satisfaction of the
complainants. Though law may not sometimes specifically demand this role from
the Ombudsman yet, as Gellhorn points out, Ombudsman always and
everywhere try to arrive at a negotiated settlement between aggrieved citizens
and righteous officials.20 He, thus, looks at a complaint not only from the narrow,
legalistic point of view but from the point of view of the individual complainant
who has a complaint and who wants his point of view to be accommodated so
14
that his suffering is over and he gets a relief. He, thus, humanizes the concept of
administration. This role of the Ombudsman comes out very prominently in the
functioning of Administrative Evaluation Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and
Communications (MIC) of Japan where the Ombudsman in his report does not
use the world recommendation but “cases mediated and non-mediated.”21 The
Indonesian Ombudsman is also authorised to dispose of the grievances through
mediation and conciliation. One of the main mandates of the Ombudsman in the
Republic of South Korea the Anti Corruption and Human Right Commission
(ACRC) is to resolve social conflicts through mediation. In such mediation
process the Chief Ombudsman presides over the meeting which is attended by
people of different groups. 22 The concept and role of Ombudsman in Asia is
closely associated with strengthening democracy and good governance. By
acting as a link for communicating complaints against the government, the
Ombudsman strengthens democracy and introduces the concept of a
government which is open to criticisms from its public the way they have been
treated by their government and also the government which is open to correction.
Additionally, by demanding an explanation from the government the Ombudsman
introduces an element of transparency and check on governmental functioning. 23
Thus, the gap between the government and the people is considerably reduced
owing to the bridge of understanding and corrective measures provided by the
office of the Ombudsman.
The Human Development Report of 2002 on the theme "Deepening
Democracy in a Fragmented World" has said that good governance and
establishment of an Ombudsman are important steps to make democracy
effective and meaningful for the lives of the ordinary people. The Ombudsman
brings all the elements of good governance in administration, such as,
transparency, objectivity, efficiency, accountability, economy and human touch in
administration. By striking at the root of maladministration such as injustice,
delay, negligence, unreasonableness, improper, discriminatory and unjust action,
oppressive behaviour on the part of the administration, the Ombudsman, in fact,
promotes good governance and thereby improves the delivery of public services.
By his very questioning the improper use of discretion the Ombudsman provides
way for good governance by checking the possibility of its misuse. The presence
of Ombudsman has therefore, a "tonic effect" on administration simply because
the officials are always careful that rules and regulations, if applied wrongly, their
decision may be questioned by an independent, objective, impartial, high
powered authority access to whom of even an ordinary citizen is direct and
nothing can be hidden, manipulated from him since the office and the office
holder personifies transparency, honesty and integrity in administration. The very
presence of Ombudsman changes the perception of bureaucracy in dealing with
cases brought before them for decision making. No wonder the Ombudsman has
been described as "an administrative doctor" and "auditor-general of human
relations accounts."
15
Role of Ombudsman in Asia
The very idea of establishing Ombudsman institution has been to ensure
that people get open transparent, caring, responsible and responsive public
administration which is free from maladministration. In case of any deficiency, if
pointed out, they be removed with the intervention and help of Ombudsman
institution. The idea has been that the small - small grievances that one faces in
day-to-day life should be removed without much botheration, cost and any fear of
reprisal from the person/ agency complained against. The Annual Reports of
Ombudsmen show how they have been able to provide relief to the complainants
in a variety of cases concerning different service agencies ranging in the case of
Federal Ombudsman of Pakistan, from non-delivery of mails, non-payment of
insurance claims, death claims, delay in issuing modified Computerised National
Identity Card (CNICs) wrong billing, wrong irregular reading of electric meter etc.
These complaints related to several government departments Ministries and
federal public agencies and public utilities companies such as WAPDA, SNGPL,
PTCL, SSGCL etc and some of which accounted for highest number of
complaints in the year 2008.24 The intervention of Ombudsman, Thus, led to
better public service delivery. But for the Ombudsman, the harassment and
suffering of people would have been more intensified. The Ombudsman of
Pakistan adopted citizen friendly approach in receiving complaints from the
complainants. The new format of receving complaints developed by Ombudsman
in 2008 is more polite. The use of information technology started in 2008 for online registration of complaints is cost and time saving. What is interesting and
useful to note is that the Federal Ombudsman provides a clear, elaborate
explanation of what constitutes maladministration. Through several initiatives
taken by the Ombudsman office the grievance redressal system has been
strengthened in Pakistan. The Ombudsman office disposed of 21,368 cases in
2008. Initially when the Federal agencies were formed, the complaints
concerning these agencies were not coming to Ombudsman. Was it because of
some confusion regarding the jurisdiction in these and other outsourced service?
But after the Law and Justice Division opened that cases of maladministration
such as over billing, poor service, theft liner loss etc. which caused
dissatisfaction to people will come under the jurisdiction of Ombudsman the
Ombudsman started looking into such cases as well. Accordingly, the
Ombudsman provided redressal to many types of grievances probably also
relating to outsourced services.25
The administrative system of Hong Kong has been described as one of
the best in the world because as a British colony from 1841 to 1997 it adopted
the British administrative practices. The Ombudsman has been looking into the
cases of maladministration through its direct and indirect investigation and the
idea is to put the complainant back to the same position he would have been had
16
it not been for maladministration.26 Under its indirect investigation the
Ombudsman deals with general grievances of the complainants arising as a
result of maladministration, such as, water seepage in building, government
measures for street management, control of road side banners etc. 27 The
Intervention of Ombudsman, thus, helps in maintaining public service delivery
satisfactorily. Under direct investigation which may be regarded as a special
function of the Ombudsman of Hong Kong, if the Ombudsman in the course of
investigating an individuals complaints finds that despite the resolution of
individual grievances, the broader aspect of fundamental issues need to be
looked into he may do so through his direct investigation. In the year 2008, to
name some cases the Ombudsman looked into such issues as Granting of
Disabilities allowance, Maintenance of Life Safety by Electrical & Mechanical
Services departments and the system for developing question paper in Public
Service Examination etc.28 These investigations were done with a view to
improving the public delivery system. The Ombudsman report notes with
satisfaction that 95% of its reports were accepted for implementation. The
Ombudsman report while dealing with maladministration in public services also
briefly dealt with the problem of outsourcing of services by the government
departments. The Ombudsman felt the need to monitor the contractor's
performance by the departments since the department primarily remained
accountable for the services contracted.29 Ombudsman also felt the need of
updating policies and legislation for proper administration. The general view held
in the context of the functioning of the Ombudsman is that the Ombudsmen are
concerned with administration and not policy aspect of an issue. The
Ombudsman of Hong Kong however, draws no destination between policy and
administration. In the opinion of Ombudsman if an unfair administrative decision
emanated from an unfair policy, no investigation would be complete without
examining the validity of the policy itself.30 Regarding complaints arising from
outsourced services the approach of Ombudsman has been not to directly
intervene in the matter but to refer it to the department concerned. And the
department concerned usually listens to the views of the Ombudsman with
seriousness.
In the case of India although the focus of the proposed federal level
Ombudsman? has been on corruption, some of the state level Ombudsmen
particularly in Maharashtra, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh have grievance redressal role to
look into the cases of maladministration. In their own way these Ombudsmen
have been providing relief to the complainants in various matters and helping in
the delivery of public services. One such important area related to the payment of
pensions of retired petty level employees like village school teachers, peons,
constables, clerks and various categories of non-gazetted public-servants many
of them needy and indigent, who had earlier failed to settle their claims even after
running from pillar to post, got their claims settled with the intervention of the
Ombudsman. Still, the speed with which these were settled cannot be said to be
17
satisfactory.31 Similar experiences have been recorded by the Ombudsmen in
Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. The Ombudsman provided relief to the
complainants also in such cases as changing a non-working electricity
transformer, clearing sewage of a locality, allotment of house to a flood victim,
getting High School Certificate corrected, payment made to a person whose
house had been taken on rent for official purpose by the State government etc.
Many of the Ombudsmen functioned with the view that elimination of
maladministration is as important as eradication of corruption and that both these
maladies go hand in hand.32 The office of the Ombudsman of Philippines also
notes in her Annual Report for the year 2008 that Ombudsman's attempt to
accelerate the delivery mechanism system led to the timely payment of pension
to many people which prevented them from paying bribes to the officials
concerned.33 The Indonesian National Ombudsman Commission it its objectives
specifically mentions as one object "to improve the protection of the rights of the
citizens in order that they may obtain and enjoy better public service, justice and
prosperity."34 While providing public services, the Deputy Ombudsman of
Indonesia wants that the Ombudsman should keep in view his role "as the
overseer of the bureaucracy in the performance of its duties more specifically
related to their activities in providing public services to the citizen" especially the
poor and the vulnerable section of society.35
New Public Management and Ombudsman
The Ombudsman institution is the product of a phase of administrative
development when the concept of the State was one of provider of public
services concerning as many areas of citizen’s life as possible. Therefore, it was
thought that by taking care of the maladministration aspect of service delivery in
public sector through the instrumentality of Ombudsmanship the State would be
able to redress the grievances of the people and restore/increase their
confidence in governmental function which is an essential part of a democratic
system. However, with the introduction of the principles of New Public
Management whose salient features are shrinking the size of the state by
reducing the number of personnel and areas of operation through privatization
and outsourcing of public services, running the state/.administration based on the
philosophical assumption of the superiority of private sector based on efficiency,
economy (reducing expenditure), accountability, quality of service etc. in
comparison to public sector which, in many cases, turned out to be a synonym
for delay, inefficiency, negligence, unaccountability and uncareful approach to
the quality of services provided to the citizens now known as stakeholders.
Under this paradigm shift which has became the mantra of the new public
administration throughout the globe, privatization, competition and outsourcing of
services have emerged as the order of the day. How this has impacted upon the
concept and role of the Ombudsman institution in general and in Asian countries
18
in particular? For looking at this issue objectively and before focusing on the
Asian scene, it would be better to examine the situation in some of the advanced
countries of the world where this process was introduced first and therefore its
impact and ramifications were also felt earlier on the administrative system in
general and Ombudsman's office and his role in particular.
The first and foremost impact of this process on the state system has
been that this process opened more and more areas of public sector for private
operators specially in health, education, telecommunications, gas, old age
pensions, banking, insurance, house building, electricity and water supply,
railways, airways, ports etc. Many new management authorities were also
created outside the departmental structure. Thus, the basic question as far as the
role of the Ombudsman is concerned is: Do the Ombudsmen have jurisdiction in
the activities of such areas which earlier belonged to public sector but now are
transferred to the private operators? What about the grievances of stakeholders
arising out of maladministration in these newly privatised service providing
sector? Do people have a mechanism in place to turn to in case of a complaint
against these service providing agencies? It is a common experience that in any
system of governance complaints are bound to arise? This begs another
question: Should private sector be included within Ombudsman's jurisdiction
because of vanishing public-private divide? The Ombudsmen in Australia and
Canada have been of the view that it should be included within Ombudsman's
jurisdiction because a complaint based on maladministration is bound to arise
both in public and private sector. What should the Ombudsman do in such a
situation? It has been suggested by the European Union Ombudsman, that
instead of being a reactive, passive onlooker, Ombudsman should be proactive
and as a people's defender he should initiate a process so that such a system is
included either in the constitution or law is suitably amended to guarantee
effective supervision of the citizen's rights in these areas." 37 It is argued that in
the absence of such provision the very concept of accountability in administration
is lost and the Ombudsman cannot intervene on the poor quality of service
provided to the citizens. The Ombudsman of Alberta in his Annual Report of 1995
points out that if no watchdog or appeal process exists on complaints about
outsourced services, then the concept of accountability is at best watered down
or at worst non-existent."38 In the light of this thinking the Ombudsman of Alberta
opined that "currently he has no authority to investigate complaints about the
action of private agencies under contract to government." 39 In this context how
absolutely necessary is the need of such a supervisory machinery is illustrated
by the example of the city of Amsterdam where the Ombudsman lost jurisdiction
when Housing sector was privatised in 1990s but, it is reported, later, the city
council resolved that in future proposition of any privatization of municipal
services there should be a section appended on the role of the Ombudsman. 40
This clearly shows the felt need of extending the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
19
to outsourced service sectors in order to take proper care of complaints of
citizens.
Regarding the question of extension of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to
such outsourced services the New South Wales Ombudsman held the view that
responsibility can be transferred but not accountability... “a public sector body
which contracts out a service remains accountable” for the way, the service is
provided, and this remains the case even where the service is provided under
contract." The Ombudsman further adds:
The point is that the agency is accountable for the way it has
arranged for the service to be delivered... This is an omission on the
part of the agency for which it is responsible. 41
In line with this thinking the Ombudsman may ask the outsourcing
department concerned to instruct the contractor for providing effect
service. In the UK Ombudsman Act, however, because of an ingenious provision
the jurisdiction of Ombudsman covers not just the administrative action
carried
out by but also carried out on behalf of departments and public
sector bodies. 42 This provision acts as a convenient safety net in extending the
jurisdiction and role of the UK Ombudsman without having the need of any
statutory amendment.
Another obvious impact of NPM has been reduction in the size of the state
by down sizing or right sizing the work force under public sector and reduced
budget. As reported, in the UK alone during 1979 to 1997 there was a significant
reduction of about 34% in the number of civil service from 735000 to 482000.
What has been the impact of these reductions on Ombudsmen in developed
western countries? Both these reductions in personnel and budget cuts have
severely affected the role performance of the office of the Ombudsman in
Canadian provinces and Australia. It is reported that because of the uncertainty
of their continuing in service the Ombudsman staff are unable to concentrate on
others' problem and this provides more and more chances of maladministration
even within Ombudsman office not to talk of other offices. The Ontario
Ombudsman is said to have reported that a 20% cut in budget and 27 employees
affected the area of direct service delivery in Ombudsman's office. 43 What is the
situation in Asia?
Another question pertains to the issuance of citizens charter by various
departments as a bench mark of efficiency, economy and quality in providing
timely services to the stakeholders. They claim to provide effective redressal
mechanism in case of grievances. What has been its impact on the work load of
the Ombudsman? What if the standard and quality of services promised under
charter plan are not actually provided? Moreover, the grievance redressal
20
mechanisms provided by the departmental agency concerned is from within the
system itself. It is not independent and probably as objective as the Ombudsman.
Under the situation can the complainants go to the Ombudsman for redressal?
How should the Ombudsman take these complaints? Should he find a way out
for grievance redressal? or should he declare them as out of his jurisdiction and
sit quietly? There are some of the questions regarding the role of the
Ombudsman under NPM.
In this context it is interesting to note that whereas the Ombudsmen of
Newzealand, Australia, Canada & Western Europe have raised issues of threat
to their role, the experience of the UK Ombudsman has been contrary to the
general perception. A study shows that there had been neither budgetary cut nor
staff reduction in UK Ombudsman's office. On the contrary his jurisdiction and
work load, infact, increased owing to the addition of such bodies under the
jurisdiction of Ombudsman as the offices of Director of Electric Supply, Director
General of Telecommunications, Director General of Gas Supply, Director
General of Water Supply etc. 44 This may be purely a limited situation for
sometime but in order to make a long term assessment the situation needs to be
closely studied based on factual data for a longer period or should we take this
situation as a special product of British system and situation?
NPM is proving to be a reality in Asian countries also. There is increased
emphasis on reducing the size of the state, its personnel along with economy in
managing public administration. Outsourcing of public services are gradually
being done and the concept of outsourcing is getting internalized and accepted.
Appointments are increasingly being made in some service providing sectors on
contract. Disinvestment of public sectors specially the loss making one (but
sometimes the profit making also) are being done. Many areas of public services
like telecommunications, infrastructure development, gas, electricity, health,
education, transport, banking, port, airport, insurance have been opened for
private players. The process, however, in general is slow but varies from country
to country. But it appears that a serious debate and discussion even among
Ombudsman organizations are yet to emerge on this issue. Among the national
Ombudsmen only the Annual Report of 2009 of Hong Kong Ombudsman briefly
and clearly mentions about implications of outsourcing. Treading on the same
line as the UK Ombudsman the Hong Kong Ombudsman maintains that
"departments remain ultimately accountable for services contracted out." 45
In the light of this the role of Ombudsman in Thailand, Philippines and
South Korea has been discussed and examined.
21
Ombudsman in Thailand
Primarily influenced by the Swedish model of Ombudsman system, the
Ombudsman of the kingdom of Thailand initially started functioning as the
Parliamentary Ombudsman based on the constitution of Thailand enacted in
1999. The office, however, under went a substantial change under the 2007
constitution. Not only its name was changed from Parliamentary Ombudsman to
Ombudsman but its mandate and jurisdiction were also extended. The original
intention of the 1997 constitution to have a machinery to consider and investigate
complaint of injustice, illegality or maladministration done to a person by a civil
servant, member or employee of a government body, state agency, state
enterprise or local government remained unchanged. 46 The founding fathers
wanted a constitutional body not only to safeguard the peoples' right but also "to
inspect the exercise of state power."47 The constitution, therefore, increased
Ombudsman's authorities beyond "investigating and deliberating the facts of a
complaint against all levels of government or state officials regarding a
negligence to perform their duties to include an investigation on the constitutional
and justice organization's unlawful performance of duties (excluding the
proceedings of the Court), monitoring of political office holders and government
official's ethical conducts, monitoring, evaluation and provision of
recommendations on constitutional compliance and opinions on necessary
constitutional amendment."48 Thus, the area of operation of the Ombudsman has
been extended to many important aspects concerning the functioning of the
political system of the country. The monitoring of the ethical standard of the
political office holder's and government officials is one such onerous duties. The
constitution also gives enormous suo moto power to the Ombudsman to
investigate any case even without receiving a complaint, which may have
adverse impact on the public or where the safeguarding of the public interest is
rerquired.49
The form of the Ombudsman also changed from a single member body to
a three member commission one of whom to be designated as the Chief
Ombudsman. Interestingly, the Chief Ombudsman acting as the President of the
commission is not appointed by any other out side body but is to be elected by
the 3 member Ombudsman from among themselves at their first meeting as per
Section 242 para 2 of 2007 constitution. The result of this meeting is thereafter
disclosed to the President of the Senate as to who of the three will be the chief
Ombudsman. Presently, General Teeradej Meepien is the Chief Ombudsman.
Under, Section 244 of the constitution (2007) the role, powers and duties
of the Ombudsman are: to consider and investigate the facts of complaint in
cases involving negligence to perform duty or performing beyond jurisdiction,
performance of duty which causes grievances to the complainant or the public
whether under their powers or not and investigate negligence or unlawful
22
performance of duties by constitutional or judicial organizations. The
Ombudsman has further power to take action in connection with the ethical
conduct of the political office holders and state officials. Additionally, his powers
and role extend to study, evaluate and prepare recommendations on
constitutional compliance and observation on constitutional amendment. The
Ombudsman is obliged to send an annual report containing the outcome of
investigations and operation of his office to the cabinet, House of
Representatives and the Senate. However, if there is any question of
constitutionality of law the Ombudsman shall refer it to the Constitutional Council
for decision. In case a complaint contains any question of the constitutionality or
legality of any regulation, directive or action, the same shall be referred by
Ombudsman to the Administrative Court. The Ombudsman has to evolve
mechanisms and working systems for effective implementation of the ethical
standard. Constitution treats violation of ethical standard as a breach of
discipline. In any such confirmed case of violation of ethical standard by political
office holders, the Ombudsman has to report the matter to the National
Assembly, the cabinet or the relevant local assembly concerned. Serious cases
of offences concerning corruption shall be referred by the Ombudsman to the
National Counter Corruption Commission.50 Thus, the jurisdiction and role of the
Ombudsman do not extend to cases concerning investigation of corruption.
Under section 280 the Ombudsman has been given the powers and duties
in the formulation of Code of Ethics and increasing awareness regarding these
Code of Ethics among government servants and political office holders. In the
event of their violation section 279 enjoins upon the Ombudsman to report to the
concerned Code of Ethics regulator. If the action taken proves to be unjust, the
Ombudsman may initiate an investigation and disclose the findings to the public.
The Chief Ombudsman has also been made a member of the Senator Selection
Committee and the Constitutional Court Judges Selection Committee.51
The Ombudsman is not permitted to have a jurisdiction on policy matter of
the Cabinet, sub-judice matter pending trial or on which any court has passed
final judgment, disputes between private parties, disciplinary action against
government employees, cases concerning corruption etc. Out of the many other
channels of complaints like court, government investigative agencies etc. the
Ombudsman is yet another mechanism available to the citizen which is not under
the government but independent and under the constitution. It can ask for any
document, information from individuals or agencies in connection with the
investigation of a case. The law on the Ombudsman provides it with authority to
institute a criminal case against non cooperating or interfering/obstructing
government and private agencies. It also provides for the punishments they may
be awarded in such a possible situation.52 Needless to add, the Ombudsman is
different from court in terms of expediency, speed, fair, transparent and
23
accountable complaint procedure. In the light of fresh facts, the Ombudsman has
the power to reconsider a case already decided and terminated by it. 53
Like in the case of other Ombudsmen, the Ombudsman in Thailand has
an important role as a law reformer also. Sometimes, in course of the
investigation of a case the Ombudsman may find that the government official
concerned acted lawfully but because the law itself is defective or outdated the
complainant has a grievance. The Ombudsman shall forward his
recommendation for amendment of the law in question to the concerned agency
for suitable amendment.54 The Ombudsman of Thailand has no power of granting
punishment but only the power of recommending to the government agencies for
remedying and improvement of the grievances of a complainant. If the
recommendations of the Ombudsman are not complied with or acted upon, in the
first instance, he may write to the Minister of the department concerned for
suitable action. If this does not give the desired result, the Ombudsman can send
the case to the Prime Minister for proper direction.
After waiting for some reasonable period of time if the Ombudsman finds
that no action has still been taken by the government and if the case is
concerned with larger public interest the Ombudsman may use the last resort
available to him i.e. submit a report of such case to the National Assembly for
immediate consideration and may reveal the contents of the report to the public
through media.55 Hereafter, the role of the Ombudsman ends and the role of the
political parties, civil society and the media begins to mobilize public opinion or
what has been aptly described as "the mobilization of shame" or "social
judgemental process" against the government of the day. The strength of the
Ombudsman lies in the strength of the society and the people to the extent they
can put pressure on the government in case of non-compliance of Ombudsman's
recommendation.
The additional powers of the Ombudsman include to investigate the
negligence or unlawful performance of duties on the part of the constitutional and
judicial organizations. This excludes the judicial proceedings of the courts. As
stated earlier, the Ombudsman's role also include the monitoring of the code of
ethics for political office holders and state officials and the monitoring, evaluation
and recommendations on constitutional compliance and amendment. The
intention of the constitution in granting these addition powers appears to enable
the Ombudsman to make investigation at both individual and organizational
levels. The formulation and enforcement of ethical standards for political office
holders and government officials under the authority of the Ombudsman is an
important landmark in ensuring the development of a standard, corruption free,
ethical society in the country. The task of spreading awareness and observance,
monitoring and reporting cases of violation of code of ethics has also been
assigned to the Ombudsman by the constitution. Similarly, the Ombudsman's
role regarding monitoring, evaluation and making recommendation on
24
constitutional compliance functions is another important development in the polity
because earlier there has been no such organisation performing this function.
Thus, the Ombudsman has been assigned a very-very important role in
the delivery of public services to the people. Apart from the traditional function
the constitution has created additional important functions of supervisory nature
for the Ombudsman which, if properly utilised, will change the functional quality
of the government in many respects including public service delivery.
In order to perform the new powers and functions the Chief Ombudsman
through his announcement of 15 Nov. 2007 started the process of restructuring
the office by creating three new bureaus namely the Constitutional and Judicial
Organization Investigation Bureau; Ethical Standard Promotion Bureau and the
Constitutional Compliance and Evaluation Bureau. The Ombudsman also
developed five strategies and goals to be achieved through their accomplishment
which is to "remedy people('s) grievances in proactive manner with efficient,
standardized and just operation."56 The Ombudsman started awareness
programme to inform people regarding the roles, powers, duties and complaint
submission procedure through the dissemination of information by various
methods such as organizing lectures, publications in the mass media, use of
promotional sports, seeking time on Television and radio, video tapes,
distributing publicity items like Calendar, Bags, T-shirts, display boards,
organization of exhibitions in collaboration with government departments and
organising meetings with regional people with mixed audience varying from
government servants, private organizations, University and school students and
teachers, community leaders, local politicians etc.57
Similarly, for formulation and promoting ethical awareness among political
office holders and government officials the Ombudsman organised lectures,
seminars, workshops etc.58 Regarding his constitutional compliance role the
Ombudsman instructed government agencies to collect data and prepare
summary report of their constitutional compliance and send them to the
Ombudsman. The same was collected and sent to the President of the House of
Representatives, President of the Senate, Prime Minister and President of the
Opposition's Liaison Committee etc.59
During the fiscal year 2008 the Ombudsman completed 2877 cases out of
which 749 cases were beyond jurisdiction, in 1216 the government departments
had acted lawfully, remedied cases were 570 in which unjust treatment was
rectified; 2 similar complaints related to constitutional questions so were referred
to constitutional court as one case; 251 cases where Ombudsman gave opinion
and recommendations to relevant agencies for improvement of work procedure
to provide people justice; in 12 cases of corruption the Ombudsman instructed
the agency concerned for investigation and report back to Ombudsman. Among
25
the complaints cases the Ministry of Interior, Local Administration Organizations
Royal Thai Police and Ministry of Education ranked in that order with 629, 434,
411, 143 complaints respectively.60 Thus, the intervention of Ombudsman in
public service delivery not only rectified unjust treatment but also sent opinions
for improvement in work procedure to provide justice to people.
Regarding formulation of Code of Ethics the Ombudsman issued a Most
Urgent memorandum on 27 Nov. 2007 to the Secretariat of the Cabinet to inform
all government agencies to formulate their own Code of Ethics by 23 August
2008. On its part, the Ombudsman issued a list of nine core values of ethical
standard for political office holders and government officials which must be
adopted. These core values included: 61
Adherence to morality and ethics
1. Adherence to good conscience, honesty and accountability
2. Give priority to national over personal interests. No conflict of interest
3. Adherence to righteous, fair and lawful conducts
4. Provide convenient, courteous and impartial service
5. Provide complete and accurate information to the public without
distortion
6. Focus on work effectiveness, standardization, quality, transparency and
accountability
7. Adherence to a democratic system under the constitutional monarchy
8. Adherence to an organizations professional ethics
It further added that besides the above, the agency may include other major
values and professional ethics, if any applicable to the professional
characteristics of each organization. It was also mandatory for the developed
code of Ethics to contain how the provision will be implemented in practice and
mechanism for effective enforcement along with punishment procedure
corresponding with the severity of the act. During the year the Ombudsman
constantly monitored the formulation of code of Ethics by different organization.
The Ombudsman developed Code of Ethics for Ombudsman and his office which
was put into operation since 18 August 2008.62 Thus, Code of Ethics numbers 5,
6, 7, 8 specifically relate to public service delivery. With this the Ombudsman has
power to maintain and improve the standard of public services by overseeing
them and listening to complaints arising out of their non-compliance.
During 2008, 61 legislations were completed within the timeframe
prescribed by the constitution. The constitutional court considered decisions on 7
enacted legislations in conflict with the constitution. Interestingly, the
Ombudsman Bill and the counter corruption Bill were among those considered in
conflict with the constitution as they were passed without fulfilling the quorum
required for such Bills. In yet another case the ministership of the Prime Minister
(Mr. Samak Surdravej) was terminated by the constitutional court on the ground
26
that after assuming his office, the Prime Minister continued to receive material
benefit from Face Media Co. Ltd. which is prohibited by section 267 of the
constitution.63
In certain cases the non-clarity of the constitution as to which agency will
implement some of these measures has added to the work of the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has given this task to its office to examine the "various
government agencies" operation outcome reports and revising report. their
compatibility.64
The Ombudsman entered into problem solving collaborations with different
public sector agencies.65 The Ombudsman also signed MOUs with many public
utilities agencies like the Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT Public
Company Ltd.), the Provincial Waterworks Authority, the Provincial and
Metropolitan Electric Authority, the Royal Police, the Ministry of Interior etc. to
collaborate in solving peoples problems. The Ombudsman notes with satisfaction
that this had a good impact.66
A variety of cases dealt with by the Ombudsman show how the
Ombudsman has been not only providing relief to the different strata of people
but his investigation has led to improvement in the system. One such case
related to a death sentenced prisoner who was transferred to another prison and
was maltreated there. After investigation by the Ombudsman the case not only
brought into open the prejudice of the officers in their functioning and provided
relief to the complainant by transferring him to a prison in his home province but
it also improved the system concerning correction officer’s exercise of power. 67
Similarly a case concerning complaints on officials acting beyond their lawful
authority was detected by the Ombudsman and the complainants were provided
remedies.68 In a complaint on the exercise of state power in fixing compensation
on account of flood in a particular case caused damage to the complainant. The
Ombudsman suggested the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative to liaise with
relevant agencies to consider granting more compensation to the complainant as
per cabinet's resolution of 30 January and 20 Feb. 2007. 69 Action was taken on
the recommendation of the Ombudsman against a government agency that failed
to take action against polluting manufacturing plant which was causing in
convenience to the residents in the neighborhood. 70 Because of Ombudsman’s
intervention a system was developed to monitor such units on a regular basis.
All the above cases show that because of the strengthened constitutional
position of the Ombudsman not only was the Ombudsman able to redress the
complaints of the complainants but by taking a longer view of improvement in
public administration suggested measures which put the system in place so that
people may not have to suffer in future for the same problem. Thus, the
Ombudsman played a very important role in improving the delivery of public
27
services in Thailand. Even though he has recommendatory power only the
Ombudsman in Thailand has been assigned by the constitution powers, duties,
and role which will lead to transformation in the system of public administration,
public ethics and public delivery. The Ombudsman of Thailand is a unique type of
institution with a lot of constitutional functions - some of them assigned to any
independent authority for the first time. NPM has impacted the administrative
system in Thailand as far as increased efficiency, transparency and
accountability is concerned. The Ombudsman's jurisdiction in Thailand does not
attract the private individuals and private agencies. But, the outsourcing of
services has not led to reduction in Ombudsman's jurisdiction because the
Ombudsman can investigate any complaint of such outsourced services through
the public authorities that outsourced the service to the individual/firm under
Public Private Partnership. Another reason for the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
is also because the budget used for PPP is the public fund. Because of additional
functions assigned to the Ombudsman under the constitution 2007, there has, in
fact, been an increase in the jurisdiction power and role of the Ombudsman in
Thailand. Unlike the experience in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, there
has been no budgetary cut for the Ombudsman and his office.
Ombudsman in Philippines
The Ombudsman in Philippines (OMB) otherwise known as Tanodbayan
is a high powered constitutional authority created under the Republican
Constitution of 1987 "as the constitutional accountability authority in
government."71 It is the main governmental agency to fight corruption in public
services and thereby save the people from injustices, maladministration and
provide them better, accountable public services. As a corruption fighting lead
agency, the OMB adopted a number of strategies, approaches and work plan to
deal with the hydra-headed monster of corruption. To begin with, the OMB
devised a three pronged approach in fighting corruption i.e. enforcement,
corruption prevention and education and promotion.72
Under its corruption enforcement strategy the main objective of the OMB
is to ensure that both the general laws of the country and specially the corruption
laws are enforced throughout the country. As per Section 13, Article XI of the
1987 constitution as well as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (Republic Act No.6770)
the Ombudsman has been entrusted with five major functions and duties. First, to
investigate anomalies and inefficiency in public service through fact finding
investigation and preliminary investigation. And both these processes can be
initiated by the OMB either on the receipt of a complaint or on its own initiative. 73
Fact finding stage includes gathering of all sorts of documents/source materials
by the OMB so that the prosecution of the respondent is done when the case is
filed in a court of law.74
28
Second, to prosecute cases before Courts of Law. Like the Swedish
Ombudsman in Sweden, the Philippines Ombudsman has the power and the
duty to prosecute cases before the anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan
and other normal, regular courts of law. The OMB has Prosecution Bureaus
throughout the country for this purpose. However, the office of the Special
Prosecutor prosecutes cases before anti-graft court. Third, the OMB has
disciplinary jurisdiction over all elected and appointed officials except the
members of the Congress and the judiciary and those officials holding positions
which are removable by impeachment. During administrative adjudication the
complaining parties are given opportunities by the Ombudsman to support
allegations by providing evidences, proofs etc. If there is substantial evidence
against the person complained against then, punishment ranging from
reprimand, suspension or even dismissal from service are imposed on the erring
public official(s) or employee(s) concerned.75 Fourth, the job of the OMB is to
provide "public assistance to citizens by ensuring the delivery by government of
basic public services."76 The Ombudsman performs this role by examining the
causes of inefficiency, red tapism, maladministration etc. and eliminating them.
Fifth, to prevent graft and corruption the OMB studies and evaluates the system
for the development and adoption of such practices which can minimise
opportunities of corruption in public services.77 The other side of this function
relates to sensitize, make people aware of the evils of corruption and seek their
cooperation in its minimization/eradication. The OMB has been given necessary
powers to perform these roles.
The jurisdiction of the OMB extends to all officials and agencies, including
the Cabinet Members of the government, government owned and controlled
corporations and private individuals acting in conspiracy with the above
officials.78
The foregoing remarks suggest that the OMB has the mandate of the
constitution to perform several roles and functions. He is the official critic of the
system who is constantly engaged in studying the laws, practices and
procedures in government with a view to improving them. He is the main
mobiliser of the governmental system whose role is to see that the citizens get
regular, quality public services without any disruption. He is the watchdog - a sort
of supervisor who is authorised by the constitution to look at the performance of
the government officials and employees. Finally, his role is that of the dispenser
of justice which imposes administrative sanctions and prosecutes faulting
government officials.79
In order to perform its role and functions, independently and fearlessly the
1987 constitution guarantees the OMB and Deputy OMB high powered status
(rank of Chairman and members of a Constitutional Commission), insulation from
29
political influence and interference, fiscal autonomy, fixed term of office of 7
years to be removable only by the process of impeachment. 80
The OMB is supported by the officials and employees of the overall
Deputy Ombudsman (ODO), the offices of the Deputy Ombudsman in (DO) in
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military,
and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) and the Office of the Special
Prosecutor (OSP). The main seat of office of the OMB, ODO, DO-Luzon, DO
MOLEO and OSP is in Quezon city. DO Visayas and DO Mindanao have their
offices in Cebu city and Davao city respectively. In addition, there are regional
offices in Calamba, Laguna, Iloilo city and Cagayan de Oro city. Nationwide the
OMB has a total staff of 1,007.81
Under its enforcement strategy during 2008 the OMB performed as a
watchdog, mobiliser, official critic and dispenser of justice.
A total of 13,225 complaints were received by the OMB office from
January to December 2008 - an increase of 22% from 2007 but slightly less than
the figure of 2006 which was 13,602.82 Out of 13,225 in 2008 around 3,750 were
sent for fact finding investigation. The time taken in fact finding depends on so
many factors, such as, whether the complaint relates to one or many
individuals/organizations, what is the level of cooperation of the government
agencies etc.
The OMB has adopted Life Style Checks (LSCs) as an innovative
investigation strategy to determine the ill-gotten and unexplained wealth of
officials and employees of the government. During 2008, 52 LSCs were
completed and 486 were under investigation. The OMB is working in close
cooperation with the Department of Finance in revenue generating agencies to
fight corruption through LSCs. OMB prosecutors and 125 OMB investigators
have been given and benefited from special trainings on LSCs. Misuse or abuse
of government vehicles is a common phenomena in developing societies.83 The
OMB of Philippines introduced a new programme called Task Force Red Plate
(TFRP) to prevent misuse of government vehicles by public officials throughout
the country. Nineteen government servants were suspended without pay from
office under this programme. Oplan Red Plate Visayas Joint Task Force was
created in 2008 to institute criminal and administrative cases against government
officials and employees caught nationwide misusing government vehicles.
Similarly, Task Force Marshal was created in January 2008 to identify, locate,
and arrest individuals who have warrants of arrest issued against them by the
graft court and other courts.84 Another programme Tanodbayan Against
Government Employees Involved in Trafficking (TARGET) was launched to look
into human trafficking and other corruption cases.85 There is also one
30
Environmental Ombudsman in Philippines to look into the implementation of
environmental laws in the country.
The Ombudsman conducted fact finding investigations into swine loan
programme, corruption in the Department of Public Works and Highways
involved in irregular bidding for road projects funded by the World Bank.
Seventeen officials of the department were found to be involved in this
irregularity against whom criminal and administrative violation cases were filed. 86
To investigate a mega scam involving Php 728 million fertiliser fund, the OMB
created Task Force Aliono in which so far criminal and administrative complaints
have been filed against one governor, three Congressmen, 13 officials and
employees of the Department of Agriculture and 5 private persons.87
Under preliminary investigation and Administrative Adjudication 8,526
cases were "acted upon" in which OMB sanctioned/punished 1163 public officials
and employees. These included dismissal from service (396), suspension,
reprimand, fine, preventive suspension, admonition etc. 88 The OMB also created
a task force to forfeit ill-gotten or unlawfully acquired assets.89 In 2008, 416
informations were filed before the graft court, Sandiganbayan which included city
Mayors etc.90
Under the mediation cases of OMB a total of 800 cases were taken up. Of
these 393 (49%) were successfully mediated, 152 (19%) failed and remaining
255 (32%) were closed. The Ombudsman mediation system has been evolved to
deal with non-graft cases or cases concerning maladministration where the
complaint relates to cases such as harassment in tax fixation by local authorities
etc.91
As pointed out earlier, the public assistance function of the Ombudsman
ensures the delivery of basic public services by government. In Philippines there
is the office of Resident Ombudsman who attends to the requests of the public
for facilitating their matter with a government agency. They also study the system
and suggest ways for improvement so that public delivery of services is smooth
and free from corruption. Payment of pension is one area where retired people in
many Asian countries prefer to pay bribe/gift rather than be harassed. A visit by
Ombudsman's public assistance unit achieves the same result/objective without
resorting to corruption. In 2008 the OMB received 13,986 requests for public
assistance. The OMB reports that of this 84% resulted in successful intervention
and improved service delivery by government. Due to the intervention of OMB
the process for issuance of different certificates and clearances were fast
tracked. The OMB successfully attended to 56,019 such requests. 92
As a prevention for corruption strategy the OMB introduced Integrity
Development Review (IDR) Programme by which the government agencies are
31
asked to study their own systems to find out: "What is it in the structure, systems
and procedures of these agencies that make them vulnerable to corruption?" 93
The departments/agencies, thereafter, devised their own counter-corruption
strategies and by 2008 a total of 18 departments had their IDR. The Philippines
Supreme Court is one such prominent organization which has also adopted IDR
exercise.94 Because of the introduction of IDR not only corruption was reduced, it
also led to better public service delivery. Reforms in public service delivery
system were introduced in many sectors due to the joint efforts made in this
direction with the collaboration of PPP, NGOs, civil society etc. In road sector
reforms uniform policy on fee collection was introduced. 95 A Honesty Team was
created to monitor police men associated with visible postings, such as, traffic
law enforcement, check points, regulatory offices issuing clearance and license
to public. In Philippines Vetran Affairs Office it shortened the processing time of
pensions from 6 months to 60 days. Similarly, processing period for burial
assistance claims were reduced in 92% cases from 90 days to 10 days. 96 "IDR
also provides venue for a ready citizen groups and other primary stakeholders to
voice out their concerns and help ensure better public service delivery through
their involvement in Integrity Development Committees (IDCs)". 97 Thus, these
efforts of the Ombudsman have helped in improved public service delivery in
Philippines.
OMB's Social Service Caravan - an outreach programme meant for poor,
underprivileged section of society in which the OMB visits poverty stricken places
alongwith the representatives of service oriented agencies and not only give free
legal aid, medical and dental services but also attend to requests for documents,
certificates and clearances. OMB issued 56,019 clearances and certification in
such pending cases which included authenticated copies of birth, marriage,
death certificates etc. These certifications and clearances are required by
persons going to retire or applying for promotion or joining an appointment in
government.98 The occasion is also utilised for educating youths regarding many
evils e.g. danger of taking prohibited drugs etc. In 2008 OMB organised 11 such
Karavans benefitting 21,000 Philippios.
In line with the above and with a view to provide sustainability to its fight
against corruption the OMB has taken several steps for increasing public
awareness on the bad effects of corruption. The OMB writes a regular column
entitled "The Essential Things" which appears in the Business Mirror, plus she
also anchors a programme on radio. The OMB has also reached out to schools
and communities by ensuring the participation of students and others in
corruption prevention campaign through the establishment of Junior Graft watch
Units (JGUs). As a part of anti-corruption promotion the OMB has taken several
initiatives such as the establishment of Centre for Asian Integrity (CAI),
strengthening by training on whistle blowing system, training of Anti-Fixing and
Anti-Red Tape, i.e. organising seminars on public accountability, collaborating
32
with the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus (PPSJ) which basically aims
to create a graft-intolerant culture in the country, seminars on Promoting Integrity
in Schools and Best Practices in Governance etc.99 The OMB also organised
anti-corruption road shows in the cities of Cebu and Urdaneta where more than
20,000 people, half of whom were students, participated.
Thus, the office of the Ombudsman of Philippines has initiated a series of
strategies and programmes to fight corruption in public services so that the
system of public service delivery is strengthened and people get a corruption
free, accountable, responsive public administration. Some of the measures
adopted by the OMB in Philippines may be fruitfully adopted by other Asian
Countries. In short, the institution has evolved in a multifarious ways. It not only
ensures the delivery of public services by promoting good governance but is
actively involved in fight against corruption.
Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission - Republic of Korea
A new experiment based on old experiences in dealing with public
complaints has been made in the form of Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights
Commission (ACRC) in the Republic of Korea by amalgamating the earlier three
separately existing institutions of public oversight, namely, the Ombudsman of
Korea, the Korea Independent Commission against Corruption and the
Administrative Appeals Commission. It was established on February 29, 2008.
The idea behind establishing this new organization is to provide the people "one
stop service of addressing public complaints, filing administrative appeals and
fighting corruption by a single organization in s speedier and more convenient
manner."100 Structurally speaking ACRC is a fifteen member body which consists
of one Chairperson, 3 vice-chairpersons, 3 standing Commissioners and 8 NonStanding Commissioners. The three vice-chairpersons help the chairperson by
taking charge of complaints and grievances, anti-corruption and the Prime
Minister Administrative Appeals Commission.101
Article 12 of ACRC Act provides a list of functions to be performed by it.
To put in brief, it includes formulating and implementing policies to protect
people's civil rights and remedy civil rights violations, combat corruption,
investigate and handle grievances of people, recommend rectification or submit
opinions related to those complaints, recommend for improvement of the system
if found necessary, providing guidance and counselling related to filing of
complaints and confirm and guide complaint handling, operating the on line epeople postal sight; establish and operate government call centres, cooperate
and support the activities of local Ombudsman, mediate and arbitrate conflicts
involving a majority of people; handle complaints of corporate sector to solve the
difficulties faced by them.102
33
So far as complaint resolution role of ACRC is concerned, it receives and
settles petitions concerning violation of civil rights of the people, grievances
arising out of unfair administrative measures or maladministration. The ACRC
recommends rectification. But if it is found that the cause of complaint is not the
wrong application of law but the law itself which needs to be reformed, then
ACRC expresses its opinion on the unreasonableness of the system to
administrative agency. One of the important function of the ACRC is to provide
guidance and counselling to people regarding enquiries relating to laws,
institutions, procedures, administrative agencies for complaint filing and handling.
With the help of ICT the ACRC operates "e-people" portal - a novel experiment in
providing on line connectivity to the people for filing and handling of complaints. It
removes confusion in people's mind as to where a particular complaint will go?
Similarly another mechanism of connecting the people with the administration
introduced by ACRC is telephone no. 110 of Government Call Centres
throughout the country. People can avail enquiry and counselling facilities by
dialing this telephone number. The ACRC helps local Ombudsman offices by
providing knowledge and information in the handling of public complaints.103
The ACRC has the authority to request for explanation, documents, data
from administrative agencies in the course of investigation. It can also request
administrative agencies, complainants, parties to attend as witness and submit
opinion. Under article 45 of ACRC Act in order to quickly resolve an issue of
social conflict involving many people and parties it can mediate and start the
conciliation process at the request of a party or ex-officio.104 If in the course of
complaint investigation and handling the ACRC finds illegal and unfair treatment
in official conduct of relevant administrative agencies, gross negligence or
unjustifiable intention, the Ombudsman and the relevant local Ombudsman may
request the Board of Audit and Inspection to conduct an audit and inspection. 105
Unless limited by law or the privacy of an individual, the ACRC may publish
contents of recommendations made or opinions submitted, results of handling
and reasons for non-implementation of recommendation(s) on the part of
administrative agencies. It can submit special report to the President or the
National Assembly for improving an unreasonable system. In the course of
investigation if it finds unreasonable laws, the ACRC can submit its opinion on
the revision and repeal of such laws to the National Assembly or the relevant
local Council.106 The ACRC can impose fine upto 5 million won to any person
who obstructs, refuses, erodes or deliberately delays performance of duties
without valid reasons.107 The recommendations of the ACRC are not legally
binding but by constantly monitoring and follow up actions it encourages
government agencies to implement them.
During 2008 ACRC received 29,433 complaints (2,061 cases carried over
from 2007) and handled 27,509 complaints. Out of this 5,725 cases (20%) were
resolved as per complainants demand108 i.e. through corrective recommendation,
34
expression of opinion and settlement by mediation and agreement. Additional
863 related to dismissal, 4,890 to guidance and 16,031 to transfers.
The Commission resolved through mediation 3,948 (14.3%) cases in 2008
which was 31.3% increase in comparison to 2007.109 Mediation is regarded as an
advanced form of complaint resolution in which issues involving lives of many
ordinary people and often cause of social tension and conflict are resolved by
agreement through talking and compromise in the presence of the Ombudsman
on the site and the parties concerned. If need be alternative solutions are also
suggested and decision is arrived at. In 2008, 32 such cases were resolved by
mediation which included noise along the road connected to Incheon bridge,
establishment of an elementary school, relocation for river dam construction
etc.110
The ACRC made corrective recommendations for 1,286 complaints (4.7%)
in case of public grievances. Out of these 376 cases related to central
administrative agencies, 381 against local governments and 521 against
government invested organizations. Cases related to revocation of refusal of
permission on new university campus for opening a glasses shop, 112 damage of
27 years caused by noise in Military firing range etc. 113 The cases decided were
10.1% more than the previous year. The ACRC visited 152 administrative
agencies which showed high rates of unacceptance and did not take action in
1,355 cases. It requested them to be more positive towards recommendations of
ACRC. The ACRC adopted the practice of announcing both recommendations as
unaccepted and also best practices followed by these agencies. But before
making announcement of unaccepted cases the ACRC gave opportunities to all
administrative agencies to express an objection or to make recommended
corrections. This emerged as a good practice which made ACRC not only aware
of their difficulties but it also enhanced the credibility and authority of these
announcements in the eye of the people.114
During this period the guidelines were prepared and implemented to
quicken the speed of complaint handling. As a result of this change "business
could reduce the turn around by 3.2 days" and the complaint resolution rate went
up by 1.4 percentage point.115
The very idea of introducing "e-people" and "government call centre" as a
complaint handling mechanism with the help of Information and Communication
Technology was inspired by the motto of "No voice left unheard". 116 "e-people"
was designed to integrate all channels of communication with administrative
agencies, civil petitions, proposals, policy discussions and to promote
communication/dialogue between the people and the government as a complaint
settlement system. With the connection of 43 central administrative organizations
and 246 local autonomous governments and 14 major public organizations, it
35
marked the heralding of an era of "a government-wide on line complaint handling
system... in all public organizations in Korea." 117 It, thus, became world's best
one stop complaint handling service. With the start of "e-people" now people do
not have to travel to distant government offices nor ponder over which
governmental machinery to approach. Petitions or proposals posted on e-people
is automatically classified and sent to the most appropriate agency. In addition, it
allows complainants to see the whole complaint handling process and get
information through e-mail. Naturally, such a transparent, quick process of
handling complaints reposes trust and confidence of the people in governmental
system and its working. The complaint handling is quick and faster. The time
needed on average for complex complaints filed with multiple organizations
which was 36.1 days in 2005 was reduced to 9.2 days in 2008. 118 General
complaints required 12 days in 2005 but only 6.9 days in 2008. Complaint
handling through e-people not only reduces time, saves people from making
journeys, harassment, corruption but cost effective also. As a result of this
innovative complaint handling services system despite 24% in the per
investigator work load the satisfaction level of complainants increased
tremendously from 30% in 2005 to 51.2% in 2008.119 It becomes easy to identify
laws and procedures that need improvement as a result of feed back on epeople. This effort has been duly recognized at the national and international
levels.
e-people was awarded the best prize for its work related to the
communication with the people and dispute management and resolution of
complaints at e-Challenge 2008 (European e-government and Information
Technology Conference) in October 2008.
Introduction of government Call Centre on telephone No.110 from May
2007 provides counselling on all issues governed by administrative agencies.
Once dialled, this number connects people to counsellors who direct which
agency of the government to approach. If he finds any difficulty he turns over to
tripartite conversation system by which the people, counsellor and the particular
government agency concerned may have conversation to settle the issue. This
gives people a sense of participation in solving their problems. Since the
inception of this system around 2.9 million people have used this service. 2.5
million calls were made in 2008. The Call Centre received 1523754 calls and
disposed of 1325545 under counselling services. Presently, about 6000
counselling cases are handled every day.120 From Monday to Friday operating
hours of these Call Centres are from 8 am to 9 pm and on Saturday from 9 am to
1 pm. Call received on Sunday are reserved for next working day. The Call
Centre also informs people about social safety net support measures of each
organization so that people can take benefit.121
One area that concerns the ACRC in a major way is how to protect the
socially and economically vulnerable section in society to stabilize their livelihood
weakened because of economic recession. For this ACRC plans to improve
36
systems in areas directly connected with the livelihood of people, such as,
housing, education, health etc.122 Showing its concern for these people the
ACRC asked for ideas from people about ways to strengthen the livelihood of the
disabled and the self employed who are the most vulnerable to an economic
crisis. As one organization which is constantly engaged in the improvement of
the system and institutions for better public services delivery, in response to the
opinion of the ACRC about 100 unfair institutions and regulations were
improved.123 The ACRC introduced on-site local counselling of grievances in
order to provide better administrative services. A Counselling Unit for Civil Rights
Consisting of theACRC's investigators and lawyers visited North and South
Jeolla Provinces, North and South Gyeongsang Provinces, North and South
Chungcheong Provinces and Gangwon Provinces. The Counselling Unit settled
96 cases by agreement through on-site mediation meetings. It also visited the
multicultural families and those who were not physically active which included the
solitary elderly to know their difficulties and settle grievances. 124 Again, through
on-site local counselling the ACRC received 182 complaints from the foreign
nationals on issues such as delay in payment, industrial accidents, physical and
verbal violence, immigration etc. Because of ACRC counselling not only the
conditions of foreign workers improved but the image of Korea also improved. 125
Thus, the role and functioning of ACRC Korea shows that it has achieved
tremendous success in terms of resolution of complaints by employing ICT, by
adopting alternative dispute resolution mechanism for solving individual and
socially important issues through agreement and mediation, by reducing the
formal rigidity of the system and by providing better public services to
decentralised and socially vulnerable sections of society including the foreigners
living in Korea. As per the claim of chairperson ACRC because of all these
innovations and new developments Korea is gradually ushering into the status of
"a nation without unfairness."
Issues & Challenges
As discussed earlier everywhere the Ombudsman have been trying to
improve the public service delivery in Asia. The major issues that emerge in this
context are the following.
First and foremost issue is the availability of public services to the people
without any discrimination i.e. equality in access to public service delivery.
Generally it is found that public services are available to the powerful, rich, those
who have access to the portals of power but not to the common people, the
marginalised, the poor, uneducated, economically deprived sections in society.
Therefore, the first issue is to ensure equality in access to public service delivery
which should be easily available as a right, entitlement of citizenship. It should be
37
free from bias, prejudice of religion, colour ethnicity, race, gender etc. The
relationship is one of service provider and service receiver.
Second, timeliness, regularity and the quality of public services delivered
should be ensured. That the availability of public service is on time i.e. when it is
required, needed. The old saying: flood relief reaches when there is drought
summarises this point. The availability should be on a regular basis and not
erratic, irregular and casual. The quality aspect of public services delivered are
very important. Mere delivery of services are not important what is important is
that it should be standard, useful, and quality product.
Third, public service delivery should be made accountable. In case of nondelivery, bad-delivery, inferior quality of service delivery is made, the
person/agency responsible for it must be held accountable. There is, therefore,
the issue and need of fixing responsibility and accountability which should be in
the knowledge of the public or be made known to the public/citizens if we really
want to maintain and improve public service delivery.
Fourth, to make the delivery of public services transparent - that which any
citizen can check for himself. The rules, regulations of delivery of public services
should be the sole criteria of its delivery. No other consideration, no scope for
behind the scene manipulation. The process of delivery mechanism should be
open, transparent and for anybody to go and see.
Fifth, value for money in public service delivery. In any consideration of
public service delivery the tax payer's money spent is an important issue. Are the
people getting the public service in lieu of the money spent on it? Therefore, the
issue involved is to bring the consideration of economy and efficiency in the
delivery of public services. The whole rationale of privatization, competition and
better service delivery under NPM is based on this assumption.
Sixth, which public services are being provided by the government/public
agency and which ones are being outsourced and on what terms and conditions
should be made known to the people.
Seventh, availability of correction mechanism, ensuring people's right to
complain in case of complaint(s) regarding any aspect of public service delivery
should be provided. That people have easy access to voice their
grievances/complaints to a machinery established for this purpose is needed.
First, it has to be ensured that there is a machinery/mechanism in place whether
the public service is delivered by the government department/agency or has
been outsourced to a private party/contractor. Problems/complaints are bound to
arise whether the service is provided by the public sector or private sector. The
second connected issue here is that the mechanism provided is real, functional
38
and effective. The people should know which type of complaint will got to which
agency and how much time it will take in rectification process.
Eighth, special emphasis on social justice dimension of public service
delivery. Every where in Asia and the world, in recent years one finds increasing
attention and growing emphasis being paid on the rights, entitlements and public
service delivery of those who are physically challenged, old, infirm, elderly,
children, women, economically vulnerable, poverty stricken, illiterate,
unemployed, ethnic minorities etc. The issue is how to make the public services
available to these sections of society who, most of the times are not in a position
to raise their voice in case their claims are bypassed. How to hear the voice of
the unheard section of society in public service delivery, is the issue.
Ninth, our experience of the government's functioning in some countries of
Asia tells us that the public sector alone is not capable of providing effective,
efficient public service delivery because of the sheer size of the population and
magnitude of various dimensions of public service delivery coupled with lack of
resources. For the sake of maintaining and improving public service delivery
there is, therefore, a need to forge an alliance in the nature of Public Private
Partnership of the public sector, private sector, NGOs and other self help groups
in maintaining and improving public service delivery. Who is best suited to forge
such an alliance and coordinate it for functionality? The obvious answer is the
Ombudsman because of his non-partisan character, independence, objectivity,
integrity, visibility, eminence, high powered constitutional/statutory position.
The challenges in the management and effective public service delivery
are many, varied and multi-dimensional. Some of them relate to the structural
level, procedural level, institutional and individual level. But before we take up the
above, let us discuss some obvious challenges which any system of public
service delivery is facing in most countries of Asia.
Maladministration remains the main problem in maintaining and improving
delivery of public services in Asia. Therefore, dealing with maladministration is
the biggest challenge for Ombudsman in Asia. The complaints arising out of
maladministration range from anything to every thing - from simple clerical error,
oversight, spelling mistakes in school, college certificates, water seepage, odour
from garbage container, delay in pension, disability allowance, speedy
completion of over bridge, noise pollution, flood compensation, to injustice,
violation of rights, violation of prisoner's rights, location of a school, setting up a
glass shop in the University area, getting recognition for participation in war for
the country etc. Tackling the challenge of maladministration is more important for
the marginalised, the poor, the elderly single and those who cannot help
themselves. Maladministration may lead to corruption and corruption may result
in maladministration. Sometimes, maladministration may be there not because of
39
corruption but because of the Weberian traits of bureaucracy i.e. for being rule
bound, pro-file but not pro-people, stickler of forms, apathetic. Where law is silent
they do not use discretion for helping the poor and needy etc. The level and
extent of maladministration depends on the administrative culture of a country.
Many countries in Asia are still undergoing the process of hangover of colonial
rules and regulations. But there are others like South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam
etc. who are marching on the road to fundamental change. The level and extent
of maladministration as a challenge, therefore, will differ from country to country.
Naturally, the response will also differ and therefore, the effectiveness of the
Ombudsman in maintaining and improving public service delivery will vary from
country to country. In essence, removing maladministration from public service
delivery is helping the poor.
Another major challenge in the effective delivery of the public services is
the extent and amount of corruption existing in any country. Corruption, as has
been mentioned earlier in detail is the biggest challenge. What is important is that
it not only affects the delivery of services but also the accountability aspect of it. It
badly affects the running of decentralised programmes of the government for the
welfare of poor, unemployed, old, infirm, tribals etc. in terms of delivery
(sometimes non-delivery), quality and standard of services provided. Here also
what effective steps have been taken to minimise corruption is important. In
taking the steps against corruption, since the high and the mighty are involved, it
is difficult to arrive at a national consensus to have a powerful, effective anti-graft
institution in place. Even when they are established, tracking corruption cases
and getting the support of the political and administrative class is crucial. Here
also the administrative and political culture pose a big challenge. In countries
likes South Korea, Thailand, Philippines a new beginning has been made in
dealing with corruption.
Still another challenge to effective public service delivery is outdated rules,
regulations, procedures etc. Sometimes, as has been observed in many
countries of Asia, the people have a complaint not because of the wrong
application of law but because the law, procedure, regulations are defective and
need corrections. Therefore, a major challenge in effective public service delivery
is the presence and continuation of such outdated laws which need to be
changed. Here also, in some countries like India, Lokayukta - the state level
Ombudsman functioning in many states of India, suggested some reforms in law
for better, effective functioning of the Ombudsman institution have not been
attended to for so many years. The moot point is how the law makers - the
political class view the office of the Ombudsman. This begs another question
what type of change/transformation the political class desires? Is it cosmetic or
substantial and transformational? Much of the cooperation of the political class
will depend on the nature of the political elite and their world view in terms of the
system they want to have in place.
40
Yet, another challenge relates to change the attitude of the civil services
who have been so long basking in the security of service-tenure and hiring and
firing them from services became a difficult job. The disciplinary proceedings take
a longtime in enforcing accountability and awarding punishments. Here also the
attitude towards their service and public service delivery is important. Under NPM
the scene is changing but here also the experience in the Asian countries are
diverse and varying.
Another challenge is connected with the nature of citizenry. Are the
citizens well informed of their rights, entitlements and are demanding, pro-active,
conscious or just docile and inactive. Therefore, one of the biggest challenge in
terms of delivery and effectiveness of public services is to make people aware of
their rights and entitlements. Apart from their own rights the people should be
aware of the Ombudsman institution. How to make Ombudsman visible among
the people is another challenge? This is true of almost all countries in Asia.
Getting quick response from the government department/agency
concerned formed a challenge in many countries of Asia. This naturally affected
the speed in quick disposal of complaints and delivery of public service. This was
more felt in the case of decentralised services where information had to be got
from regional centres.
Lessons learned
Harnessing the use of Information and Communication Technology for
filing of complaints (Phone, Fax, Internet), quick communication in seeking
information and resolution of complaints is the emerging trend throughout Asian
countries. But most of the countries limit themselves to the use of ICT for filing
complaints only. Only S.Korea has made full use of ICT for advanced on line
complaint handling system for enhancing public service delivery. By introducing
two dynamic programmes like "e-people" and government call centres on
telephone No.110 "on line plaza" all the administrative agencies have web
connectivity. Initially huge investment was required but now it is helping in saving
time, money (4 billion won annually), needless journey, eliminating confusion
regarding whom to lodge complaints etc. People can see the progress of their
complaint on line themselves. In Thailand the Ombudsman has introduced Case
Tracking System (CTS). It is however, reported that it stops after complaint
making and is not as diversified as in South Korea. Thus, increasing use of ICT
for effective public service delivery by the Ombudsman is the lesson learnt from
South Korean experience.
The use of mediation and conciation by the Ombudsmen as the alternative
dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism is another lesson learnt in the
41
management of public service delivery. It has certain inherent advantages as
decision making is participatory and mutually agreed. Hence, decision taken
have more chances of being successful. ACRC Korea has adopted mediation at
all levels of complaint handling. Mediation also minimises litigation and personal
grudge plus humanizes administration. But where as in South Korea
Ombudsman employs mediation for conflicts involving majority of people where
the interests of the general public are involved, in the case of Hong Kong
Ombudsman it is for minor cases of maladministration, that too with the consent
of parties. Consequently, in Hong Kong mediation is not a preferred mode where
as in Korea it is increasingly becoming popular and more acceptable form of
conflict resolution and public service delivery. Though, the basic mandate of the
Ombudsman in Philippines is corruption fighting, as ADR the Ombudsman has
adopted mediation for resolving cases of maladministration. In cases such as
land disputes the Thai Ombudsman has used site-visit and mediation as a
method of resolving the problem peacefully.
It is the general practice that after receiving complaint the Ombudsman
office sends it to government agency concerned for their views. Once this view is
received, a practice is emerging among many Ombudsmen to know the views of
the complainant thereafter. The Federal Ombudsman of Pakistan arranges
"hearing proceedings" after receiving a report from the government or public
agency. Sometimes, the parties may arrive at mutually agreed solution. This is
also in the nature of mediation. By a suitable amendment where there is no such
provision resolution by mediation may be added.
Similarly, the unique/indigenous practice of roping in 5000 Administrative
counsellors by Administrative Evaluation Bureau (AEB) of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs and Communications (MIC) Japan who are not from government
department but private knowledgeable citizens is a good practice. They act as a
link between the local people and administration. This may be treated as a good
example of PPP in running public administration and establishing good human
relationship. It is reported that of the 175,306 cases handled by the MIC in 2007
fiscal year around 60% were received by administrative counsellors.127
In almost all countries the Ombudsman's reports are recommendatory in
nature and legally non-binding. In cases where these reports are not accepted or
complied with, the Ombudsman sends special report to the legislature or the
President, as the case may be. The practice adopted by ACRC, Korea to make
the report as convening as possible in the first instance, and, then consulting the
government department/agency concerned in order to know their
views/difficulties regarding non-compliance is a good practice. In such an
eventuality, the Ombudsman not only understands and appreciates the practical
difficulty of the agency concerned but with some mutually agreed corrections it
becomes the recommendation of both which has greater chance of
42
implementability. This is also a new lesson in managing public administration in
general and public service delivery in particular.
As an independent public agency of the constitution the role of the
Thailand Ombudsman in determining moral and ethical standard for political
office holders and government officials may be considered in the context of other
countries in Asia as well. The role of the Ombudsman in promoting ethical
awareness among political office holders and state officials may be usefully
employed in many Asian countries. The idea of Thailand Ombudsman in
developing a collaborative network through signing of MOUs with different
government agencies to collaborate in solving people's problems has yielded
good result. Collaborating other public-private agencies in effective service
delivery is another good practice worth serious consideration.
So far as dealing with corruption for improving mechanism of public
service delivery is concerned the steps taken by the Ombudsman of Philippines
such as Task Force Red Plate (to check abuse of government vehicles - a
common practice in many Asian countries), Integrity Development Review (a
diagnostic tool for assessing the robustness of corruption resistance mechanism
and for identifying the vulnerability of government agencies to corruption), and
Life Style Checks are good measures which may be adopted by other Asian
countries interested in curbing corruption and improving public service delivery.
The practice of having Mobile Complaints Counter (MCC) and Integrated
Mobile Complaints Counter (IMCC) for public especially belonging to far off
places in rural areas in different provinces of Malaysia introduced by Public
Complaints Bureau of Malaysia is a good example of reaching out to far off
places. Similarly Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) a process of getting feedback
from complainants coming to Ombudsman offices may be fruitfully utilised by
Ombudsman offices for improving their own services delivery mechanism.
In conclusion, the lesson learned out of the functioning of different
Ombudsman offices in Asia is that the effectiveness of the Ombudsman in public
service delivery is determined by a number of factors. First, the objective and
intention with which the Ombudsman office has been established. Second, the
structural support he has been provided in terms of budget, support system etc.
Third, what are his powers, functions, jurisdiction and expected role. In an era of
NPM whether he has jurisdiction over outsourced services should be clear.
Fourth, how much support he has been getting from the politico-administrative
class whose functions he is supposed to supervise. Fifth, how he is looked
upon/viewed by the government departments/ agencies - as a critic, problem
solver, fellow traveler in removing the problems of the people especially ordinary
people, by ensuring better delivery of public services or as competitor. Sixth,
Ombudsman's image and his own role perception, his vision of developing
Ombudsman institution within the framework of given powers, his ability to reach
43
out to people, media, forging alliance with civil society, NGOs in accomplishing
his role become important. In the context of Asian countries there is no dearth of
functions as far as improving public service delivery is concerned. Even while
functioning within his jurisdiction, with a little imagination the Ombudsman can
carve a public space for himself.
REFERENCES
1. Bernard Frank, "The Ombudsman and Human Rights - Revisited",
Reprinted from Israel Year Book on Human Rights, Tel Aviv University,
1976, Vol. 6, P.134.
2. Justice (British Section of the International Commission of the Jurists,
Chairman, Sir John Whyatt) The Citizen and the Administration: The
Redressal of Grievances - A Report, London : Stevens, 1961, p. xiii.
3. William A Robson, The Governors and the Governed, London : George
Allen and Unwin, 1964, p. 2.
4. Walter Gellhorn, Ombudsmen and Others: Citizen's Protectors in Nine
Countries, Mass. Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 1967, p.1.
5. R.L. Narsimhan, "The Ombudsman Proposal : A Critique" in L.M.
Singhvi (ed), Law and the Common wealth, Delhi, National, 1971,
p. 24.
6. Bernard Frank, Ombudsman Survey, International Bar Association,
Ombudsman Committee, Pennsylvania : July 1974 - June 30, 1975, p.2.
7. D.C. Rowat (ed.) The Ombudsman : Citizen's Defender, London: George
Allen and Unwin, 1968, p. xxiv.
44
8. Frank, n.1, p.133
9. Quoted in Roy Gregory and Philip Giddings "The Ombudsman Institution :
Growth and Development" in Roy Gregay & Philip Giddings (ed.) Righting
Wrongs, Ombudsmen in Six Continents IOS Press Ohmsha, 2000, p.4.
10. Frank, n.1, p.133
11. Ibid, p. 145.
12. Niall Macdermot, "The Ombudsman Institution", The Review : International
Commission of Jurists, No.21, Geneva, December,1975, p.41.
13. Guy Powles, "Ombudsman and Human Rights Commission", "The
Review: International Commission of Jurists, n.21, December, 1978, p.32.
14. For details see, Jan-Erik Lane, "The Ombudsman in Denmark and
Norway", in Roy Gregory and Philip Giddings (ed.), Righting
Wrongs : Ombudsmen in Six Continents IOS Press Ohmsha, 2000,
pp.149-151.
15. Geoffrey Sawer, The Ombudsman and Related Institutions in Australia
and New Zealand", The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, Vol. 377, May 1968, p. 64.
16. See, Victor Ayeni, "The Adoption of The Ombudsman Plan in Nigeria",
The Ombudsman Journal (1984-85), No. 4, pp. 3-32.
17. Roy Gregory and Philip Giddings, n.9, pp. 1-18.
18. See AOA Fact Sheet of the Oliy Majlis of Republic of Uzbekistan for
Human Rights (Ombudsman) p.2.
19. Annual Report, National Ombudsmen, Indonesia, 2007, p.94.
20. Walter Gellhorn, n.4, p. 433.
21. Based on the response of Hiroaki Sumida Assistant Director, AEB in
Interview Guide.
22. See Chapter 2, of ACRC Korea Ombudsman Annual Report, 2008, pp.4144.
23. See, Extract of Keynote address by Prof. John McMillan Commonwealth
Ombudsman, Australia in a Seminar and Training on Local Ombudsman,
in Medan on 22 June 2004, and Yogjakarta 25, June, 2004, pp. 2-3.
24. For details, see Wafaqi Mohtsib (Ombudsman) of Pakistan, Annual
Report, 2008.
25. Ibid, p.31.
26. MJA Cooray, “Ombudsman in Asia: A Case Study of Hong Kong and Sri
Lanka” in Roy Gregory & Philip Giddings, n.9, p.84.
27. See, The Ombudsman Hong Kong Anuual Report, 2009, p. 31.
28. Ibid, p.26.
29. Ibid, p.11.
30. See, Cooray, n. 26, p.84.
31. See, Rajani Ranjan Jha, "The Lokayukta in Bihar : Expectations and
Achievements (1973-1983)", The Ombudsman Journal, No.4, 1984-1985,
pp. 52-53.
45
32. Rajani Ranjan Jha, "The Ombudsman Scene in India" in Roy, Gregory &
Philip Giddings, No.9, p. 261. Also see, Rajani Ranjan Jha, "The
Ombudsman in an Indian State : Andhra Pradesh” in Arun
Chaturvedi (ed.) Indian Contribution to Political Science, Printwell,
Jaipur, 1991, pp. 1171-172.
33. See, Marking Milestones : The 2008 Annual Report of the Office of the
Ombudsman, Diliman, Quezon City, 2009.
34. Annual Report, National Ombudsman Indonesia, 2007, p.92.
35. Ibid, p.95.
36. This section has been influenced by Roy Gregory and Philip Giddings
“The Ombudsman and the New Public Management” in Roy Gregory and
Philip Giddings, n.9,pp.425-440
37. Ibid, p.427.
38. Ibid, p.429.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid, p.428.
41. Ibid. p.431.
42. Ibid, p.431. For another view see, Norman Lewis “The British Ombudsman
Experience” in Norman Lewis, S.S Singh (eds) Ombudsman: India and
World Community, Indian Institute of public Administration and British
Council Division, British High Commission, New Delhi, 1995, pp.78-91
43. Gregory & Giddings, n.9, p.431.
44. Ibid, pp.433-434
45. Ombudsman Hong Kong Annual Report,2009, p.10.
46. AOA, Fact Sheet, Ombudsman of Thailand, p.1.
47. Annual Report, The Ombudsman of Thailand,2008, p.17.
48. Ibid
49. Ibid
50. Ibid, p.20.
51. Ibid, p.21.
52. Ibid, p.26.
53. Ibid
54. Ibid
55. Ibid, p.28.
56. For details see, Ibid, p.34.
57. Ibid, pp.77-81.
58. Ibid, pp.74-76.
59. Ibid, p.77.
60. Ibid, pp.51-52.
61. Ibid, p.58.
62. Ibid, p.60.
63. Ibid, p.63.
64. Ibid, p.65.
65. Ibid, pp.66-69.
46
66. Ibid, p.72.
67. Ibid, pp.93-103.
68. Ibid, pp.113-115.
69. Ibid, pp.124-125.
70. Ibid, p.129.
71. Marking Milestones: The 2008 Annual Report of the Office of the
Ombudsman, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines, p.7.
72. Ibid, p.1.
73. Ibid, p.7.
74. Ibid, p.20.
75. Ibid, p.8.
76. Ibid, p.44.
77. Ibid, p.43.
78. Ibid, p.9.
79. Ibid, p.9.
80. Ibid, p.10.
81. Ibid
82. Ibid, p.20.
83. Ibid, p.21.
84. Ibid, pp.24-25.
85. Ibid, p.25.
86. Ibid, p.27.
87. Ibid, p.29.
88. Ibid, pp.29-30.
89. Ibid, p.33.
90. Ibid, p.35.
91. See, Success Story on Mediation, Ibid, p.38.
92. Ibid, p.4.
93. Ibid, p.3.
94. Ibid, p.46.
95. Ibid, p. 47.
96. Ibid, p.49.
97. Ibid, p.51.
98. Ibid, p.54.
99. Ibid, p.62.
100.
See, ACRC Korea: Ombudsman Annual Report, 2008, p.8.
101.
See, AOA Fact Sheet ACRC, Republic of Korea, p.4.
102.
Ibid, pp.1-2.
103.
See, ACRC Korea: Ombudsman Annual Report, 2008, p.13.
104.
AOA Fact Sheet, ACRC, Republic of Korea pp.2-3.
105.
Ibid, p.3.
106.
Ibid
107.
Ibid, p.4.
108.
See, ACRC Korea: Ombudsman Annual Report, 2008, p. 27 & 18.
47
109.
Ibid, p.28.
110.
Ibid, pp.42-45.
111.
Ibid, p.30.
112.
Ibid, p.35
113.
Ibid, p.38.
114.
Ibid, p.18.
115.
Ibid, p.19.
116.
Ibid, p.48.
117. Ibid, p.20.
118. Ibid, p.50.
119. Ibid
120. Ibid, p.53.
121. Ibid
122. Ibid, p.22.
123. See, the remark of ACRC Chairman, Yang Kung, Ibid.
124. ACRC Korea: Ombudsman Annual Report, 2008, p.58.
125. Ibid, p.59.
126. See,Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) of Pakistan Annual Report,2008,
p.68.
127. See, Japan’s Administrative Counseling System, January 2009,p.5.
48