I wish Singapore the best but maybe a first world type of governing policy that is elections may not be yet overall feasible for a 2nd world Singapore, where much of its citizens are constantly too caught up with superficials to make good judgment.

I have observed that Singaporeans usually don't stand together to make a strong impact, they don't have a good bonding culture. Singaporeans generally are too self-conscious with themselves to bridge the gaps between people.(A gold tap in a toilet, who can get more self-conscious than that?) TT Durai is not much different from some Singaporeans. Undermotivated by life, self-conscious, materialistic, superficial etc...

It usually have to take a few good citizenry leaders to lead a voice to point out flaws and to garner for support. I am hopeful the next generation perhaps will lead the positive change into a truly first world civilised and constructive Singapore, after they have grown tired of their parents' anti-social behaviour.

Without the dissemination of information from a neutral party, it is impossible to determine whether one is doing the right thing or not.

We need civil groups and public support for that to happen. Unless the government attempts to build a 3rd party accountability system throughout public institutions. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening in the short to medium term into the future.

Interesting how you link the need for corporate governance and transparency with politics in Singapore. I guess this episode has many lessons for us as Singaporeans watching the rise, fall and cleaning up of an icon in the charity sector. As a PR practitioner, I have also jotted down a few of my thoughts on the ethics of PR over this issue in the URL below:

http://coolinsights.blogspot.com/2007/01/ethics-and-integrity-in-pr.html

Hi Thor666,

Correct me if I interpret your comment wrongly, 3rd party accountability system = civil groups and politically aware/active citizens? Yup, I do agree that without a strong opposition there is a need for this too. The government has a responsibility to educate the youths about their constitutional rights and a neutral version of recent Singapore history. We can also play a part by discussing socio-political issues with friends to heighten the level of awareness. If each of us do that, then our impact would be much greater.

However, civil groups have to be strictly created from bottoms-up. Or else if the government is the one that sets it up, then it defeats the purpose as it's no longer an independent watchdog. Sad to say.... there are cases where the ruling party coop passionate civil minded individuals. Mr Raymond Lim (I think) of the Roundtable is a good example. He used to be very vocal about transport issues, but now.... well, he is an MP and the silence is deafening. Cooping is largely detrimental to any possible 3rd party accountability. Anyway, the societies act and a few other acts are most likely hindering factors too (read "How uncivil, really, is the Societies Act?" at http://www.dpa.org.sg/news/news_january_2000-3.htm)

Hi Charissa,

I agree with you that civil groups have to be created from the bottom up. Unfortunately like you note, individuals have been co-opted into the PAP pastures and in the process, have "lost their voice". (With regards to Raymond Lim, I think he has a near insurmountable burden to manage transport/traffic issues with the government looking to increase the population to 7 million. Tough days ahead.)

I actually don't think it's impossible for the government to actually create a 3rd party independent group - initiating a multi-partisan watchdog organization could be one - but that has to come from an enlightened PAP party. From precedents in history, it does seem that the ruling party is more interested in co-opting rather than putting vested interests aside. So on that point, I share the same opinion as you would - that civil groups have to be created from bottom up and that current legislation are hindering factors for such movements.

Hi,

Don't wish to come across as rude, but this article really says nothing new. I agree with Charissa especially the part where she emphasizes the "neutral" and not colored history.

I study in Australia and I have seen the damaging effects when people's histories are wiped out like the aborigines - they are just really lost and they dont have a sense of rooted confidence in either the present or future.

History is vitally important. We can do without propaganda.

Hi Thor666,

I went to your website to looky see and I was pleasantly surprised you managed to get hold of George Soros latest book. I read it myself and I must say it is really strong stuff. I dont mind admitting, I really had to read some chapters about 10 times bfr even begin to understand the basics, but once I understood them, it all made a whole lot of sense.

Sze Meng,

The KTM agrees with most of what you said, but he doesn't agree with the logic. While the KTM may sound like he's defending the Government, he is only being pedantic with respect to the flow and logic.

NKF is not the same as the Government. Durai was not elected by the people. Actually who appointed the NKF Board? The KTM was an NKF donor but nobody ever asked him who he wants on the NKF Board. :-(

We also have to be careful not to over-interpret the NKF fiasco. One tree does not the forest make. While your point that insufficient checks and balances may lead to disaster is undisputed, it does not hold that just because one Durai screwed up, there are definitely other Durai's lurking in the Government waiting to be discovered (not saying there aren't either. Just highlighting that you dun have sufficient evidence to make that leap of faith).

Finally, there is always a cost for regulation. We have to avoid knee-jerk reactions. Moderation is key.

Charissa, Janice & Thor666,

History is never neutral. The winner always gets to write (or re-write) his version. :-)

The brotherhood is right, we will have our own history and they can have theirs. Why do you think they (the brotherhood) have this fat man called the chronicler, ppl have been wipping out their history and they are just fed up, so they carry it with them wherever they go, this way, they know who they are and so do the rest of us who read about them.

Those boys are showing us the way forward, we will just have to follow, the rest of you in blogosphere had so many years to lead us, but you did nothing!

KTM:

Obviously NKF is not equal to the government and my thrust is that there is a need for check and balances, and don't always assume good people will not be affected by the seduction of power. Anyway, you do not dispute this fact. I want to be explicitly clear on the focus on my article.

Conversely, all of us also do not have sufficient evidence to say that there are definitely NO other Durai lurking in the government or statutory boards.

Also, in the US, a fair number of institutional donors or individual donors will direct difficult questions to the non-profit if they choose to donate.

The exposure of the 90s scandal in United Way and recent scandal of the Red Cross in misusing Sept 11 money is a function of investigative journalism and hard questions asked by many donors.

I do agree that moderation is the key, and I do not think the government has any knee jerk reactions to the NKF scandal. The public reaction is another matter altogether when the issue blew up in Dec 2005 =)

I just read this book called "The Wisdom Of Crowds" and it got me thinking about stuff in Singapore.

I remember when I was in National Service, we were made to go for a talk and asked to donate to NKF via Giro. Most of us signed up for the programme. When the scandal about NKF occurred and the truth about what was going on at NKF was revealed, I was disappointed but not surprised.

The reason for my lack of surprise was because I have always harboured the notion that something wasn't quite right with NKF. Did I have any proof? No. Did I actually have any first hand experience. Nope. Then where did the notion come from?

It came from my interaction with other Singaporeans. In taxis, I would hear taxi drivers complaining about NKF. At coffeeshops, I would hear the elders discuss about the issue. I cannot remember when it started, but from the noise around me, there was a signal that NKF wasn't all it was made out to be.

Did any of the other Singaporeans knew exactly the scope, magnitude and specifics of what was wrong? I don't think so.

The reason why I talk about this is because I think if the knowledge of the people in Singapore with an opinion about NKF had been aggregated, we might have seen some clear flags to indicate maybe an investigation would be warranted. Personally, I do not believe forming a committee in Singapore will help with the issue of accountability because of the way things are in Singapore. Such a group will probably suffer from the problems of groupthink and in my opinion already start with a clear idea of the answers they want to the questions that need to be asked and answered.

I feel that what is needed in Singapore is a way to aggregate the opinions of all Singaporeans and for our government to actually listen to us and not just hear us. The problem is sometimes I feel our government does not do that because they carry the idea that people need to be governed and only a select group of people have the ability, knowledge and experience to govern (and govern correctly) and only they know what is best because they are the experts. There is no recourse for us except elections but because of the nature of politics in Singapore, this is a mechanism that is ineffective. So while elections are important, it is a tool that can only be effective by the people who use them. And sadly, I agree with the writer of the article that maybe as a nation we have not valued its importance as much as we maybe should.

Finally, one reason why I believe this issue is important can be taken from engineering. As a system, I believe Singapore is a stable one. It will not break so easily. But the way Singapore's system is setup, if one component fails, there will most probably be a cascade which will make recovery difficult. And the ability to recover is what makes a system robust and fault tolerant no matter how large or unpredicted the perturbations to the system are.

Singapore is not setup like that.

KTM,

The point is that checks and balances are more important than "integrities" of individuals. People come and go, but transparency serves to mitigate any possible failings of individuals. Like Sze Ming noted, "good people with good intentions are not infallible".

On the other hand, we should be concerned with transparency and accountability issues even if there were no NKF issue. AFAIK (and correct me if I'm wrong), no legislative changes have been made to correct the root issue of charity organizations - that directors' powers need to be tempered with shareholders' control - like a business entity would.

Janice,

Off topic, but the George Soros book is an excellent read. I do think George Soros' idea of Open Society is a genuinely difficult concept to implement in real life, but I am optimistic that such a concept can be realized if the government and people are willing to strive to such an ideal.

Thor 666,

Thanks for reinforcing the point of the article on check and balance and not always relying on the "goodness of the individual". My article does not attempt to directly link NKF to the Government. Linking NKF to the Government is obviously imperfect (as there are different organizations and use different mechanism to select leaders), but the NKF situation is a case in point for my argument.

KTM did said, "While your point that insufficient checks and balances may lead to disaster is undisputed", but I think he did raise a good point that we should not assume that the parts of the government will implode like NKF.

However, I agree with that to a certain extent, because none of us can assume that there is NO Durai character in the government. Past government leaders who have been thrown in jail for corruption are cases in point, but at least the issue is not systematic in our government.

Thanks for contributing and pushing the discussion to focus on the issue of check and balances.

Timothy - I did read the Wisdom of Crowd and it is an interesting book.=)

He started with good intentions to do well by doing good. But in 1990 when NKF decided to pay for performance with 5% commission on donations raised, that was the start of his downfall. Greed! Without proper checks and balances, he could rule his fiefdom like a lord. Trust but verify is an important part of transparency and good corporate governance

Sze Meng & Thor666,

The KTM actually did not disagree with either of you. He was just highlighting some points for your consideration. :-)

Ian Timothy,

The KTM agrees wholeheartedly with your observation that "as a system, Singapore is a stable one .... But the way Singapore's system is setup, if one component fails, there will most probably be a cascade which will make recovery difficult". Question is: what can we do about it? :-(

The KTM agrees wholeheartedly with your observation that "as a system, Singapore is a stable one .... But the way Singapore's system is setup, if one component fails, there will most probably be a cascade which will make recovery difficult". Question is: what can we do about it? :-(

Learn from good engineering practices. Refrain from having a tightly-coupled system. Each subsystem should be sufficiently independent so that failure of one subsystem will not cause a catastrophic failure of the entire system. Implement watchdogs to monitor critical subsystem components.

Many times, the PAP government just pretend that they are striving to make the system better when in fact, they are doing the opposite. Take our president, for example. He is supposed to be the watchdog for a critical component in our system, our reserves. But look at all the grief and run-arounds that the ruling party gave our late Ong Teng Cheong when he decided to exercise his presidential powers. In the end, the truth is that our president is just a poodle, not a watchdog.

AnEngineer,

Well said. :-) There are actually two sub-problems in this problem:
(a) What is the ideal solution? As you rightly highlighted, the solution is probably a system with "subsystems (that are) sufficiently independent so that failure of one subsystem will not cause a catastrophic failure of the entire system".
(b) How do we get there?
Even if we know (a), i.e. what the optimal system should be, getting there is a big question mark. No ruling party will willingly make life more complicated and difficult for themselves. Can non-politicians do anything to effect the changes necessary for (a)?

KTM,

You have answered your own question of how to get there. No ruling party will make life difficult for itself. But if there is a possibility they will not win the next election, then the story will change.

In order for the system to be robust, the people must first believe political leadership is not the sole purview of the ruling party and it can be nurtured by the people in other forms of bodies or institutions. i.e. politiacl parties, NOGs, interest groups, the press, citizens groups. etc. Using OB markers and other tactics like press control does no service to helping create a robust system with robust subsystems.

This state of affairs leaves a bitter after taste and I am not sure "stable" would be my choice to describe it.

We should push for restitution for the NKF whistle-blowers. I heard one of them died a broken (and very bankrupt) man. Cross examine why the courts failed to let truth rather the the most-expensive-lawyers didn't get to win the case. Is it really set in stone that once a judgement is passed it cannot be overturned in Singapore?

Re-engineer said:
This state of affairs leaves a bitter after taste and I am not sure "stable" would be my choice to describe it.

I concur. An unstable, closed system that gives the illusion of stability is actually more dangerous than an open system with documented issues and limitations. How sure are we that the system is indeed stable? Because the designer claims so?

KTM said:
(b) How do we get there?

As Re-engineer has said, a good start would be to use our votes wisely.