Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

the KPMG report is out. and the government has made its response, highlighting the few points:

1. those who are found to have broken the law would be punished.
2. the government would come up with stricter rules and regulations to ensure to govern charities
3. the problems with NKF started years ago and have been investigated. however, nothing was done because (a) the government gave NKF the benefit of the doubt and trusted them because of the good work of they had done before the troubles arose (b) those in power made it difficult for the auditors to find sufficient information to lead to the full scale investigation that was done this time round.

now of course the NKF saga raises a few interesting issues: governance of IPCs, whether the various agencies enforcing the different regulations regarding IPCs know what one another are doing, etc.

however, what i find most interesting arising from the NKF saga is that it parallels another situation.

NKF, for 25 years, did very well. they were the paramount of the people sector. and the problem with NKF only arose because Durai and his cronies manage to hold absolute power. it gave him the ability to cover things up, made it nigh impossible for his wrongdoings to be uncovered. until he himself made a terrible mistake. but by that time, the damage was done.

which other agency in Singapore holds (almost) absolute power? the PAP.

and for the past 50 years, they have done extremely well. as such, despite the pockets of its detractors, the people would probably be more forgiving of their mistakes and give them the benefit of the doubt, given that they have done well in the past, just as what the people (and the government regulators) have done for NKF.

and the PAP has such a strangle hold on the entire government that they are able, should they choose to, to hide, just as NKF did, any abuses of power and further strenghten their grip such that their position becomes unassailable.

thankfully, i believe that the PAP is still by and large closer in nature to the NKF before Durai take over than to the NKF after Durai took over. i believe that the PAP by and large still has the best intentions of the people at heart, even though they might not be as transparent as we would like them to be.

however, my concern is whether the PAP would change as NKF did. more importantly, what checks and balances are there to prevent the PAP from becoming NKF on a larger scale? what can the people do to ensure that our government is indeed working for the good of us rather than for themselves? would all these checks and balances kick in in time? or would things only come to head when far too damage has been done, just as in the case of NKF?

we have had the government regulating NKF. but, in Singapore, who regulates our Government?

who guards the guardians?