STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR AT THE THEMATIC DEBATE OF THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON “STRENGTHENING THE ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 15 MARCH 2023

1 Thank you, Co-Chairs, for convening this thematic debate on strengthening the accountability, transparency, and institutional memory of the Office of the President of the General Assembly (OPGA).We also thank the Secretariat for providing its written update on the functioning of the OPGA and the implementation status of the eighteen recommendations of the Task Force. Singapore associates itself with the NAM statement delivered by Algeria and the ASEAN statement delivered by Malaysia, and would like to make the following points in our national capacity.

2 Let me start by saying that I agree with the earlier comments made by Mexico that, according to the Charter, all principal organs of the United Nations are equal. However, the General Assembly has unequalled credibility and legitimacy that arises from the fact that it is the only universal policy-making body of the United Nations. Therefore, it needs to be treated with an importance that is deserving of its critical role, not only in the United Nations, but within the multilateral system. If the General Assembly is the world’s Parliament, the President of the General Assembly is its Speaker. Surely, in our respective political systems, we give the Speaker of our legislative body due importance, not only in terms of protocol, but also in terms of budgetary and administrative support. In our view, the President of the General Assembly is integral to the effective and efficient functioning of the United Nations as a whole. In this regard, I will make some specific proposals.

3 First, it is clear that there is insufficient funding from assessed contributions for the OPGA. We heard earlier from the Secretariat, in response to my question, that only US$240,000 is allocated from the regular budget. We believe that this is woefully inadequate. We also believe that an over-reliance on the Trust Fund could erode the accountability and transparency of the OPGA over time. It is important for the OPGA to operate in an independent fashion. We would therefore propose that the zero draft, that you will prepare soon, provides very clear decision language to make concrete progress on the availability of funding. We think that at least 50 per cent of the OPGA’s funding should come from the regular budget.

4 Second, it is time to remove all administrative obstacles and aggravations, intended or otherwise, directed towards the functioning of the OPGA. It is quite clear that many of these aggravations and obstacles were the result of either systemic design, or benign neglect. I would like to believe that it is the latter. Therefore, as the Under-Secretary-General (USG) for General Assembly and Conference Management Movses Abelian said, let us do the drafting and put in the language that is necessary in the draft resolution to remove all these remaining obstacles. The problem is that, for a long time, the PGA has been treated as if he or she is a Secretariat staff member. It is time to start treating the PGA as our representative, as the Speaker of the world’s Parliament. In this regard, the provision of funding for non-calendar meetings, for example, is absolutely vital. If the OPGA has to pay out of the Trust Fund for non-calendar meetings, then it poses an undue burden on the OPGA, especially if the PGA comes from a small country which may not have the resources or network to mobilise funding. Even if the PGA can mobilise funding, surely we are not electing a PGA to spend his or her time traveling with a hat in hand to mobilise funding. That would not be an appropriate use of the PGA’s time.

5 Third, we need to increase the number of staff in the OPGA funded by the regular budget. I would also welcome the idea of a cap on the total number of staff in the OPGA, that the 77^th PGA had earlier suggested. In other words, we increase the number of regular budget funding for permanent staff in the OPGA, but also recommend a certain cap as a guideline. Let’s make this happen. Please put forward the language to make that happen. At the moment, there are only five funded, permanent posts available to the OPGA. It seems to me that we clearly need additional posts at the middle-management level, for instance at the P-3 and P-4 levels. It is also important that we establish these posts in a way that ensures continuity, so that the staff is not rotated out to other departments of the Secretariat.

6 The fourth specific suggestion I have is on secondments.Secondments have worked very well, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to secondees and recognise their contributions.However, I think it is important to start thinking of some guidelines for secondees.Let us think about putting together some guidelines on how secondments work.For a start, we need to have transparency about the secondments.How many are seconded and from which countries?This should be made available right at the beginning of the presidency.It is not that we are suspicious of them, but it is about transparency.Over time, we would like to see which are the countries that provide secondees.This is to thank them, and at the same time try to diversify the sources of secondments, to give an opportunity to those countries that may not have had the chance to provide secondees.Part of the guidelines could also address the issue of whether we need some kind of code of conduct for secondees in the OPGA.It may not be something that we can do immediately, but it is important to start that discussion now.

7 The fifth specific suggestion I have is with regard to continuity and sharing of knowledge between the incoming and outgoing PGA.It was said by the USG earlier that while there is the possibility of a transition period of three months, funding is only available for a period of one month.I think it is time that we did something about this.It is not sufficient to have a transition of one month.We are open to initially having a funded transition period of two months, and eventually perhaps moving to a longer period after we assess whether a two-month period is sufficient.

8 My sixth point is that in discussing matters concerning the OPGA, we would greatly benefit from the experience and advice of the current and former PGAs. Co-Chairs, I would suggest that both of you write formally to the Council of former Presidents of the UN General Assembly. Perhaps you have already done so. They provided a briefing to us last month. I would suggest that the co-Chairs ask them as a Council to give us a paper with recommendations on how we can improve the functioning of the OPGA with the view to enhancing the transparency, accountability, and effectiveness of the OPGA.I think such a document from former PGAs would be very helpful for us as we reflect on our work.

9 A final point is a comment on our own working methods. We look forward to receiving the zero draft and starting negotiations. However, what we would like is an ambitious outcome. While we would like a consensus resolution, we do not want anyone to have a veto on an ambitious outcome. We would suggest that the co-Chairs work towards an ambitious and consensus outcome, but if that is not possible, to be ready to present a draft that enjoys the widest possible support to the General Assembly for a decision. It is time that we make decisions and stop lamenting about the lack of progress, because we as members of this body are sovereign and we can make decisions through whatever means necessary. Thank you very much for your attention.

. . . . .