That was quick.
I've read of two organizations so far that have had officials leave or be removed because they couldn't do their job - not through their inability, but through a lack of required information. One didn't have access to financial information required to examine the financial health of a religious organization, the other a governmental one. In both cases, there's already global attention on the matter, so any effort to conceal such things only raises more questions.**
If such insults are reserved for those who say what people don't want to hear, and do what would push an organization out of complacency, then they're a goad rather than an obstacle.
And speaking of complacency, I might as well get this said before I forget. A state that speaks of respecting the right of travel of neighboring states, yet uses boat crashes, abusive language, and continued military threats, is not a state to treat with anything but the highest level of suspicion. Complaining that one's being unfairly painted as a state that holds grudges is something contradicted by having one's film industry release an animated flick showing an old wartime boundary line in still-contested waters. I wonder why neighboring states banned the flick, and who's painting white as black now.
Thanks for the twisted tailwind.
** Have questions? Ask questions. So I asked. I still won't question the prioritizing of drugs over other issues, but the sudden removal did make me wonder who benefits from concealment. In the drugs case, the other side to the matter is that there's more than one organization that doesn't want an investigation, and are using any soft spot to prevent it.