NKF scandal
A slighted tainted image
Shaken: People's trust on official transparency and Singapore's clean reputation abroad. By Seah Chiang Nee
Dec 23, 2005

The KPMG report is finally out. It shows the mess in the National Kidney Foundation was far worst than originally believed. A Q-and-A review.

1. Question What do you think of the Report?
Answer: It is very thorough but as expected in such an emotive issue, there'll probably be more questions than answers as far as the public is concerned. Generally it is comprehensive.
The timing of its release took political courage, coming when general elections are around the corner. It isn't doing the ruling People's Action Party any good. Some observers say it may cause it some votes, possibly even some seats. Others disagree.

2. Question: Why is government or politics affected?
Answer: Two out of three Singaporeans have contributed to NKF and many who feel cheated are blaming the government for poor judgment (in endorsing T.T. Durai) and dereliction of duty as a watchdog.
Its support for the NKF and the fundraising work of CEO T.T. Durai had given people confidence that the bulk of their money was really going to charity.

3. Question. What is the short-term impact?
Answer. For other developing nations, such hanky-panky would stir up less dust. For Singapore, the Report has shaken - at least for now - the fabric of public confidence on the level of official transparency and its reputation abroad for clean business practices.

4. Question. Will there be permanent damage?
Answer. It depends on whether the final outcome will lead to perpetrators being punished in a meaningful way. The government has promised to do so with the full force of the law if wrongdoing is established; no cover-up. With public emotions running so high it is inconceivable that no legal action is taken. In the unlikely event that nothing happens, the crisis - and bad vipes against the authorities - will continue to draw public unhappiness.
If the government is perceived to have tried its best to hit wrongdoers with "the full force of the law" it can regain its public standing. The Income Tax authorities could go through all individual accounts to make sure no one under-declared his or her earnings.

5. Question. What do you think of the Health Minister's response?
Answer. Mr. Khaw Boon Wan sat on a hot seat. He did much to allay public feelings by apologising for the government's mistake in its watchdog role that allowed the scandal to continue for so long. His promise to pursue a legal recourse with no cover-up helped allay fears among many people that Mr. Durai could not be charged.

6. Question. You spoke of an impact on politics? How?
Answer. It will likely have an impact on the coming election, but the extent is not yet certain. Some believe the opposition may, at best, even wrestle one or two GRCs (Group Representation Constituencies) from the People's Action Party partly as a result of the scandal.
The PAP is likely to end up with a worse showing than 2001. By how much is any one's guess.

7. Question. Do you see it leading to other repercussions?
Answer. Yes, it has already called into questions some longstanding PAP reasoning, one of which is that Singapore does not need a strong opposition in Parliament or a truly independent press to provide checks and balances as in other advanced countries. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's rationale is that an honest government is its own best watchdog. The NKF scandal now throws doubt on how effective this is. There's more...

8. Question. Like what?
Answer. It also fuels doubt on the government's high salary policy as a way of preventing high-level corruption. It rests on the rationale that if a person is paid enough money, it will keep him honest. In the case of Mr. Durai, who has not been charged with corruption, it shows that a high salary has failed to prevent him from accumulating more and more dollars, by (in the very least) dubious means.
... Even money meant for charity.
By Seah Chiang Nee