It is safer and easier to remain silent in Singapore

I'm reading the 442 page KPMG report on NKF.

One thing I noticed and this is repeated many times in the report, is that there were many people who resigned from NKF.

I believe many of them knew what was going on. Some probably left because they could not condone what was being done. Some may have left because they were not "favoured". But many did leave and the turnover of staff was 40%! Few however blew the whistle. Those few who did were summarily dealt with by the organization severely.

This seems to be the prevailing trend in Singapore as far as dissenting voices against a powerful incumbent are concerned. As long as it is a dissent of considerable impact (especially when the allegations are true), there will be severe and unrelenting action taken against the perpetrator.

And in Singapore the system is such that if you do not have the financial muscle or social standing, you will probably go bankrupt before you even get to court. So most would simply settle out of court and pay damages. But damages on what?

This practice has the intended effect to strike fear into potential perpertrators and deter them from exercising any vocal opinions. And it has worked extremely well I must say. It had to take the incumbent himself to blow the whistle on himself for NKF's inconsistencies to have been finally uncovered. The NKF board must view this as a tragedy and a clear case of legal suicide.

This "scare-them-so-much-they-keep-quiet" tactic seems somehow extremely familiar. It wasn't originally thought of by NKF, but I just can't put my finger on where I have seen that before though.