Beyond NKF and the Rot- Checks and Balances
I am in London now and feel the urge to write something after being infected by tk's exuberance. Before I comment about the NKF's saga, I will like to tell everyone that yesterday I had a wonderful plate of Char Kway Teow in London's Chinatown and feel damn shuan. Also, I had Teh Beng in London! Even though it costed like 3 pounds, i was very happy for the entire day :)
Anyway, back to the rot in NKF.
The main cause of the NKF's fiasco seems to boil down to the lack of checks and balances within the NKF system. At the same time, the idea that choosing capable and morally upright personnel as an alternative to a comprehensive checks and balances system seems to have failed in the light of recent revelations.
So what is with ths overwhelming public outrage, is it something new?
In the Singapore charity scene, the answer is yes. But the problem it highlights, namely the lack of checks and balances is a pretty ancient one. To my knowledge, it can be traced all the way back to the Enlightenment in the 18th century, in particular Montesquieu's notion of separation of powers. The idea of separation of different branches of government, with clearly delineated roles and powers, hopefully checking and restraining one another, was coined in an era where many were disillusioned with the incompetence of the Absolute French monarchy.
Now replace the dissolute and incompetent absolute monarch with T.T Durai and you get a French revolution... Well, maybe just a tiny revolution in the charity circuit.
So what are the wider implications?
I am a realist and I don't have a very glowing picture of human nature. Power corrupts. Some damn idealists don't get it. Some pragmatists get it, try to design mechanisms to circumnavigate and reduce the problem, but hey it is natural to want to stay in power, it is afterall human nature. (If you don't get it, too bad)
You see, the problem is when there is a rot at the top. In my view, there are two types of checks and balances, simply internal and external. Internal checks and balances are almost certainly useless when there is a rot at the top. The super lazar will spawn new lazars or incorporate new minions outside his kingdom and bring them under his fold. Obviously the smaller lazars will want to ingratiate the super lazar right! Special creatures engaged by the super lazar to inspect his pig farm would not want to complain too much. For what? One who survives by counting pigs also want to have pork...
Anyway, that leaves the external checks and balances. This can apply to a charty organisation or a private company, because there is a regulator, or a higher strata of authority that exists. But what happens when you talk about a one party nation, such as the CCP in China? If the rot starts from the top, than it will spiral downwards and the whole system will probably collapse. Don't even think about the benevolence of UN....
Some argue that look, even if you have a comprehensive checks and balances system, it is not going to deter a resourceful and "evil" genius from committing crimes. You need to choose people of integrity and honor.
That is true, but the whole NKF saga shows that you need both, it is not sufficient to have one without the other. Character judgement is not an exact science. In all likelihood, T.T Durai became CEO of NKF because he was regarded as a man of honor by his assessors. But hey, remember human nature has a great potential to be corrupted.
You need a checks and balances system where people are given an incentive to dig up dirt. Because when those people dig up dirt, they may strike gold. So there is a likelihood dirt can be uncovered earlier. It is a matter of timing and damage control.
Just because there is a track record of choosing the right people does not mean the system is good. It is probably that hell has not broken loose. Sort of like the cliche calm before the storm. And when the storm comes, you want to be able move out.
Asap.

3 Comments:
Agree agree.
Just wish to point out one thing. It seems to me that T.T.Durai is made to be the big villian that needs to be eliminated together with his associates according to the press and the speeches by officials. However, it is clearly pointed out that the authorities are aware, at least to some limited extent, that such mishaps existed even before it is revealed completely but they chose not to act based on 'trust and the good track record' of NKF. Whether or not the government, i.e. the external regulatory party is just simply being 'misled' needs to be queried.
Even if there is no corruption found within the government this phenomenon reflects a very questionable political culture. People have been brainwashed into thinking that our leaders at the top are capable and non-corrupt, however, our elites have no sense of proper judgement when it comes to people of their own class. Ordinary Singaporeans are brought up in a way whereby they simply trust and do not question. Both factors added together, I can come to the conclusion that Singapore do not have a policing mechanism monitoring top-notch administration and policy making.
By the way, it is not true that internal regulation does not work. However, it requires people having strong moral courage or rather strong support to stand their grounds. With the state (or in this case, NKF's) machinery being in such strength, it is very difficult for such efforts to not give in. This reflects another problem: our people are unable to fight for their case because we do not have a strong civil society, which eventually can act as a rather effective regulatory power. This is definitely something we need to do something about.
I agree with most of what you have said. However I am very skeptical that internal regulation will work when there is rot at the top. By "work", I mean that wrong doings are uncovered relatively early after they are committed.
It is not just a matter of moral courage or strong support, it is a matter of asymmetrical information. A determined man of moral rectitude is unable to act because he simply does not have enough information to mount a strong case. Most people will choose to back down in the face of strong opposition by the defendants as they much to lose and little to gain. And that is why there is a need for structural reforms, a shift from just having "good people" to a system of checks and balances. On a state level, civil society seems the only realistic option with the backdrop of frail political opposition. But even that is contingent on the ruling power's willingness to secede some decision-making power.
I am not exactly sure whether you are familiar with Hong Kong politics. Just like to point out that cases like the rot of NKF, a public charitable organisation of such great scale, would likely to be uncovered rather early if it happened in Hong Kong.
The people of Hong Kong are trained to query every single policy statement politicians make such that they are able to get the most benefits out of them. Basically they trusted only their own judgements, and in addition there are numerous political parties, civil organisations and unions each with their own agenda. Once their individual interests are compromised in any way, there is no means to stop them from getting to the media, going onto the streets, bringing issues up to the legislative council and seeking justice via jurisdiction. Even an individual who feels that he should point out certain problems in any aspect of society can get to the media or the members of the legislative council to circumvent the problem of asymmetrical information.
Singapore and Hong Kong are different, of course. Hong Kongers have long learnt to fend for themselves and trust nothing else other then themselves, all thanks to the British colonial authorities which is corrupt all the way till the 1970s when ICAC was established, and inherently only have the interest of Britain at heart. Hong Kong's prosperity is owed to her capable people. Singaporeans, on the other hand, depend almost fully on the government; Singapore's prosperity depends on capable leaders we have. Singaporeans may be able to foresee problems but somehow do not know what to do (or cannot do anything?) about them. What if we have a leader like Tung Chee Wah who cannot make correct decisions and use the correct people at the correct time? Or T.T.Durai, who evolved into a person so contended and arrogant who feels that he's above the law and the people?
If you are interested, first visit this wikipedia article: Link REIT, and follow the links for more details of the case.
Post a Comment
<< Home