|
.... in 1999 THE National Kidney Foundation has tracked down and taken legal action against a woman who sent a defamatory e-mail about the organisation. Madam Tan Kiat Noi will have to pay NKF $50,000 in damages and legal costs and is making a public apology in today's edition of The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao. Another 48 others who circulated her e-mail would also find themselves the subject of legal action, said the NKF yesterday. While this is not the first case of legal action taken against defamatory remarks made over the Internet here, it is perhaps the first against a person who used e-mail -- conventionally perceived as a private and direct form of electronic communication -- to make such allegations. The NKF would not say how they tracked down Madam Tan, who sent out her e-mail on April 5 to a group of people, save that it used her e-mail address. As for the 48 others, two-thirds had used their company's Internet accounts. In her e-mail, Madam Tan claimed that her brother-in-law's application to NKF for dialysis treatment had been rejected. She claimed that the NKF did not help the poor and needy, paid its staff unrealistically high bonuses and urged members of the public not to donate money to it. Ms Matilda Chua, NKF's senior associate director, said concerned donors had alerted the NKF to the e-mail. "On average, about 10 to 12 donors would call us up a day to tell us about it." She said that Madam Tan's claims were baseless, malicious and untrue. Madam Tan's brother-in-law never applied for treatment and, contrary to her claims, NKF employees were paid an average bonus of 1.4 months last year and were not given a 13th month bonus. Madam Tan said in her apology notice that she "thoroughly" regretted her irresponsible conduct and unconditionally retracted the statements in her e-mail. She could not be reached for comment yesterday. NKF's Ms Chua said that the rest who had used their company accounts to broadcast Madam Tan's e-mail were "putting their companies in trouble". "It's the same as using the company letterhead," she said. Some firms had actually helped the NKF in their investigations into the matter, she added. She declined to give further details. In a statement issued yesterday, the NKF said that it needed to take legal action as the constant assault on its reputation might deter patients from approaching the organisation for assistance. Mr Rajesh Sreenivasan, of the law firm Rajan & Tann, which has been engaged by the NKF to pursue legal action, reckons that the number of people who have received the defamatory e-mail reached into the hundreds. "The e-mail is forwarded again and again. It catches on like wildfire and obtains a certain degree of credibility. That is why it is important to stop it," he said. This is the third time the NKF has taken legal action against people who had defamed it. In August 1997 and again, in December last year, it took two men to task for alleging that NKF CEO T.T. Durai travelled first class on Singapore Airlines, and for insinuating that he had used NKF funds meant for patients. Both issued public apologies and paid out undisclosed sums in damages and legal costs. The New Paper May 1999 |
| Return to top |
|
Acting Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan has come out in support of the National Kidney Foundation in the wake of recent publicity surrounding its reserves. Mr Khaw, a regular donor to the NKF himself, says it would be a sad day in Singapore if, as a result, there was a donation backlash, and this affected patients. In recent days, there has been much publicity on the NKF and the amount of reserves it has. But the Minister said the NKF has been innovative in its fund-raising and that is why it has been able to encourage a lot of regular donors, like himself. And donations must be continuous. Mr Khaw said: "It is a continuous process. It is a large operation now. I don't know how much they spend but with a thousand over dialysis patients on continuous dialysis, the demand is big and you can never be sure when the donation will dry up. I hope the publicity will lead in the correct direction - that is to cause more awareness of the problem of dialysis, of people with kidney failure, and by all means donate. I continue to donate." The Minister, who has made transparency his trademark since he took over the health portfolio, urged the NKF to continue to remain transparent about the donations. And he said while donors want 100 percent of donations to go to the beneficiary, that was not possible as some money needs to go to pay for further fund-raising. Charities must also abide by the rules of fund-raising. He said: "I'm sure the Commissioner if Charities has certain rules and code of conduct and if they are not fulfilling it, then the MOF will react but in this case, I don't think so. Otherwise, they have been around for many years, MOF would have reacted many years ago." Mr Khaw added that donating to charities should be encouraged. "It's good for Singaporeans to promote, be encouraged to give to charity. It's good for you. I take my hat off to the NKF. They have been able to raise that kind of money over the years and we wish them well."
|
| Return to top |
|
Non Profit Organisations (Guidelines on raising funds) Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (a) whether there are clear guidelines for non-profit organisations on raising funds from the public and on the utilisation of these funds; and (b) if there are, what is the monitoring mechanism in place to ensure compliance with these guidelines and thereby to ensure public confidence in such organisations. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker Sir, it is important to have clear guidelines on the raising and utilisation of funds to maintain public confidence in our non-profit organisations and their programmes. There are essentially three questions the public is most interested in. First, what methods are used to raise the money? Second, how much of the charity dollar is used to raise funds? And, finally, how is the money spent or saved? The Government launched the Council on Governance for IPCs in January this year to look at best practices for IPCs. IPC stands for Institution of a Public Character. IPC status is conferred under the Income Tax Act. IPCs are authorised to accept tax deductible donations from the public. They are regulated by IRAS or by central fund administrators, which are organisations authorised by IRAS to grant IPC status to other organisations whose objectives are similar to theirs. The Council is chaired by Ms Lim Soo Hoon, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Community Development and Sports. It has seven members from the people sector with wide experience in the local charity scene, and three members from the public sector. The Council is studying ways to better improve fund-raising practices and ensure that IPCs' use of funds is transparent and in line with international best practices. It is working on a code of best practices for the IPCs, and will also recommend how existing fund-raising regulations could be refined to better support informed giving. Let me now describe what the current rules are, which the Council will improve upon, as appropriate. First, on fund raising methods. Today, we do not regulate fund-raising methods, except when fund-raising is conducted in public places. This is then regulated by the Police under the House to House and Street Collections Act. Under the House to House and Street Collections Act, any individual or organisation wishing to solicit donations in the streets or other public places is required to obtain a licence from the Police. One of the conditions is that fund-raising expenses must not exceed 30% of the total funds raised. Enforcement comes under the Police. Second, on fund-raising efficiency. IRAS also imposes a 30% limit on all fund-raising expenses by IPCs. The 30% limit is stipulated under Income Tax Regulations 2004 and enforcement is by IRAS and the central fund administrators. Third, on effecitive use of funds. Currently, there are no benchmarks for measuring the effectiveness of IPCs as they cover a wide range of activities and charitable sectors. The Council on Governance for IPCs will be studying this matter. All IPCs are required to submit their audited financial accounts to IRAS and their central fund administrators every year. IPCs are also required to post their financial reports online, hyperlinked to IRAS' website, so that the public can better scrutinise their use of funds. This requirement to post financial information online began in 2002. At that time, only about 15% of the IPCs or 170 of the bigger IPCs were required to post their key information online. However, from 1st January 2004, all IPCs are required to post their financial information online to allow free public access. Today, all 821 organisations with IPC status have done so. Donors have an important role to play in demanding accountability for the way their donations are used. They should be aware of the financial needs of different IPCs, choose the charities they wish to support, and be satisfied about how their donations flow through to the beneficiaries. IPCs, on the other hand, must understand that increasing accountability to the public is critical for ensuring a continuing flow of donations for their causes. The Government believes that charity dollars will go up with informed giving. Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (Sembawang): Sir, can I ask the Minister what is the basis for the 30% cap on the funds that can be used for fund-raising expenses? Does the Minister think that this is high, eg, if we take a donation of $6 million which allows the organisation to use up to $1.8 million just for fund-raising expenses alone? What is the basis and whether this is high in his opinion? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, our general approach to regulating the charities is to adopt a very light approach. I think we do not want to over burden the charity sector with very tight regulations. As Members know, the charity sector comprises a wide range of causes. Some are very small organisations, others are larger organisations. So, when we had this rule of 30% for fund-raising expenses, we were looking more at the majority of charities, which are much smaller organisations, and therefore to stipulate a 30% rule is not unreasonable, because the amounts they raise are small and the costs of overheads of raising funds are also high. But, of course, if the organisation is large, then I will agree with the Member that 30% seems on the high side. We urge all organisations to always look carefully at the amount they spend in raising each donation dollar and to make sure that this expense is kept as low as possible. Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, do I take it that it is also not within the remit of the Council on Governance to determine how much a charity or an IPC can keep as its reserve in its accounts in order to meet its future expenditures? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, as I mentioned, there is a wide range of charitable causes. Some require long-term commitments when they take on the role of looking after their beneficiaries and, therefore, it is prudent for them to have a sensible policy, especially those which are able to raise sufficient funds that will see them through multi-year projects. So, we do not have a specific rule on how much charities should set aside for their reserves. But we urge all charities to disclose this adequately in their statments. Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, could the Minister tell us whether the National Kidney Foundation is in full compliance with all the current guidelines that he mentioned just now in the collection and utilisation of the funds that it receives from the public? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the NKF is in full compliance with the regulations. Mr Sin Boon An: Sir, while I understand that the Minister wants the IPCs to have some say in how they want to use the money, surely, within the spirit of good governance, would they not want also to give an indication of how they plan to spend the money, so that they will know how much money they are going to keep, what they are keeping the money for the future, to give an indication why so much money is kept? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, I would not disagree with that motherhood statement. We would like all charities to disclose fully. I think what the Member is probably referring to is the NKF. As the NKF has explained in their press releases, when they take on a kidney dialysis patient, it is not for one month, it is not for one year. They are committed to the patient for the rest of his life. And I think it is a very prudent policy for them to maintain sufficient reserves to keep the organisation going for many years. If we look at the reserves of the NKF in relation to their annual expenditure, their annual expenditure is in the region of $50-$60 million, and their reserve is about three or four years' worth, that, in my opinion, is not unduly large. Parliament 19 Apr 2004 Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for granting me this opportunity to speak on this topic, and to all Members of this House for being charitable enough to listen as it is already past six o'clock. I wish to speak on this issue of charity practices as the recent developments over the National Kidney Foundation (NKF)'s reserves have highlighted practices that are too varying in nature, too polarised and, I think, this has already been spoken on twice this year, in dire need of better governance. It is my hope that some of the issues I have raised here can be taken on board by the Council of Governance as they mediate on the guidelines that will be announced soon. Firstly, NKF needs to be applauded for being creative, having long-term vision and for branding itself so well that so many people immediately can recognise what it does and donate generously. There are inherent good practices that one can learn from. Forward-planning and amazing reserves up to $189 million is not wrong in itself. But when it comes to such large charities, it must also be seen as an equal responsibility to exhibit good corporate social responsibility and be accountable to all their shareholders, that is, each and every donor. In reference to this particular comment, I would like to point out a few areas where I think corporate social responsibility means sharing with the public clear information. The most important criterion to a member of the public is what comes back to the beneficiary. In this case, NKF, in the public domain, has made two announcements of 52 cents coming back to the beneficiary, as well as 56 cents. One has been passed off as a computing error and the other has been accounted for as well. What I am raising here with this incident is that different definitions do go into making up what comes back to the beneficiary in terms of a precise dollar value. There needs to be greater consistency in the factors that go into such computation. Another example - operational costs. Comparing an apple for apple, NKF cites an example of $31,200 per annum to help a patient on dialysis. Kidney Dialysis Foundation (KDF)'s figure is $15,079. The manpower resource for NKF is one person to two beneficiaries. And KDF works with a much smaller manpower pool. The subsidies granted to the beneficiaries are also not very clear, from both the websites. Therefore, it becomes imperative that as these guidelines are being mediated by the Council, it is my hope that very clear criteria are spelt out so that the public will know once and for all what are the factors to look for, what goes into the computing, and then make a considered decision. I do not wish to knock NKF here. But what I would like to point out, using them as a case study, is that it is difficult for the public to become a wise donor if basic issues on monetary value on each charity dollar given to the organisation, or operational and administrative costs, as depicted by the organisation, are not consistently applied. This includes transparency issues on salaries of top management - the CEOs. After all, public listed companies - the banks - recently announced what their CEOs are earning. And when we talk about mega dollar charity organisations, transparency issues should cover such areas too. The second part of this is to highlight the proportion that is allocated to fund-raisers. It is currently at 70% back to the organisation and 30% - up to 30% - back to the fund-raiser. The recent NKF shows over the two weekends have reaped about $14 million from the very generous public - well and good! Thirty percent of that can roughly amount to $4 million, which is also well and good. Because this means we can really churn a good fund-raising industry. However, there are some outcomes that one must be a bit cautious about. Bigger charities can throw bigger money to lure more money; sometimes crowding out, in the absence of enlightened donors, the smaller charities. Secondly, fund-raisers' creativity - after all, they have a 30% stake in this business - can lead to a staple fair of stunts in some particular cases, as we recently saw, each more demanding than the last in an effort to lure the charity dollar. Thirdly, the most important - what are we then leaving as our heritage to our children or to the next generation? A warped sense of values - as we are now dangerously close to linking charity-giving to how hard or how well they perform their stunts, what kind of celebrity performs the stunt. In the whole issue, as already mentioned by the Minister, there are issues here for governance on how funds are raised, if we are going to remain watchful on how values are going to be transmitted to our younger people. Another area of fund-raising is cross-selling. The recent one, as in the papers, is Aviva (the insurance company) and NKF. Cross-selling and sharing of databases - this is an area which I would also hope that the Council will look into. The third part of this that I would like to raise is the attention on how the charity dollar is used. We have seen in some organisations aquariums galore, in some instances, TV sets, plasma screens, plush surroundings, water features - nothing wrong with that at all. What is more important is the system with which the dollar was lured. Was the donor given a whole spectrum of things that are needed by the charity, so that the donor can make a considered choice of where to put his or her one dollar? And it was not told instead that, "Here, this is our need. Could you please donate to this item? We need it badly." What I am talking about here is enhancing the capabilities such that the individual donor can make good and well-considered decisions. And, fourthly, the whole issue of the IPC status. We have big umbrella funds - health endowment fund and the education endowment fund - and it is sometimes an auto registration if you come from a particular field closely related to health or education that you do get your IPC status. Maybe this needs a review under the guidelines that are to come. We have asked earlier when these guidelines are due. It is my hope that, in the interim, when the new set of guidelines comes on board, we still have instruments that will govern any practice that may not be so conducive, as it has already been acknowledged that the current guidelines are a little bit too broad. At the end of the day, I totally agree with what the Minister said earlier. It is important to note that as Singaporeans become more sophisticated and ask the right questions, they want to know where to park the precious charity dollar. If Singaporeans themselves are too easy going on where they would like to place their charity dollar, then we are just opening the doors to charities which will work less hard in being as transparent as they ought to be in sharing the information with the public. And, lastly, it is my hope that bigger charities will allow smaller charities to piggyback on their fund-raising efforts so that both can share proportionately the goodies that Singaporeans are willing to give them. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang):Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have gone through this debate a couple of times, once in the Committee of Supply and, also, this afternoon during the Questions for Oral Answer. In responding to the Member, I would just like to clarify a few points. First, on the press release put up by NKF. I am not aware of the details. I think they put up the press release and explained the differences between 52% and 56% go to the beneficiaries. I recall also that they indicated in the press release that about 26% goes to the reserves. So, actually, if you add up the two numbers, nearly 80% goes to the beneficiaries. I think that puts NKF on quite a sound record. The vast bulk of the money goes to the beneficiaries, both immediately as well as in the reserves. Secondly, on the operation cost of running a dialysis centre. From my experience in the Ministry of Health, I can tell you that running a dialysis centre is very, very expensive. The NKF looks after more than 2,500 patients and the average cost is more than $25,000 or $30,000 per patient. That is the reason why the NKF requires a budget of $50 million to $60 million. These are not small sums to run the centres. As I mentioned this afternoon, when NKF takes on a patient, it is committed to the patient for life. I have met patients, both locally and overseas, who have been on dialysis for more than 20 years. The medical record of NKF is extremely good, better than world standards. So, the patients that go to NKF are actually treated to very high medical standards and therefore they live much longer. That is the reason why they need more funds. And there is nothing wrong in putting these funds in the reserves because they are committed to the patients for their lifetime. On the point about cost and salaries of CEOs, this is a decision by NKF whether to disclose the salaries of the CEOs. Here, I have some sympathy for their dilemma. If they do not disclose, then there will be critics who say they are not transparent. If they disclose, there will also be critics who will say that whatever they pay are too high. So I think they are caught between a rock and a hard place. I think it is their decision not to disclose. We also discussed earlier this afternoon about the proportion of expenses towards fund-raising. And the reason why we set the 20% rule is to have a reasonable cap that will facilitate fund-raising for the smaller charities. Smaller charities require high overheads in fund raising. So if we were to lower the cap to something below 20%, then I think we will constrain the smaller charities. On the issue of cross-selling and the sharing of databases, I think NKF has come up to clarify its position. So I see nothing objectionable to its position. What they are saying is that they will only release this data if there is consent from the donors. I think that is a very sensible position to take. On aquariums and TV sets, if you have been attending dialysis three times and each time it takes long duration, I think it is nothing wrong actually to have aquariums and TV sets to keep the dialysis patients occupied. We do have aquariums and TV sets also in our blood donation centres. So these are not unusual, I would say, distractions for the patients to keep them busy. On the running of the IPCs, our administration is to appoint administrators for different groups. So it is not true to say that if you belong to the education or the health group, you get your IPC status automatically. The fund administrator in each group has certain criteria by which he evaluates applicants who want IPC status, and these criteria are set by IRAS, and we make sure that people who apply have to qualify before they are given this IPC status. Let me conclude by saying that it is not a zero sum game. I think there is room for the big charity organisations and there is room for the smaller charity organisations. And if both groups go out and convince Singaporeans, I think Singaporeans have big hearts and are willing to donate to the wide range of charities. We have 1,300 charities registered in Singapore and we have 820 IPCs. So there are more than 2,000 organisations out there doing good for Singaporeans, largely run by volunteers. And Singaporeans, by and large, if you convince them of the worthiness of the causes, will open up their wallets. So I do not see this as a zero sum game. I urge all the VWOs to continue their good work and continue to solicit the donations from Singaporeans. One way to do so is, of course, to have good corporate governance and to be transparent as to how the donation dollar is going towards the beneficiaries. The more people are convinced that the money which they contribute goes directly to the beneficiaries, I think the more they will be willing to donate. As for the smaller charities, I think there is a case to be made for them by combining their resources so that they go out and operate as a group or as a cluster. I think there are efforts made by the Community Chest and other groupings so that clusters of smaller charities can go out and solicit the donation dollar as a group. So these are some of the ways in which they can get a bigger share of the pie. Parliament 19 Apr 2004 |
| Return to top |
|
By Susan Long THE article that provoked the lawsuit Controversy stalks the National Kidney Foundation, with critics lambasting its fund-raising methods, brazen self-promotion and work practices. Is the NKF just a cutting-edge charity ahead of its time, or is there more to those rumblings? A RETIRED contractor who wants to be known only as Mr Tan used to be a National Kidney Foundation (NKF) donor until he was hired to install some bathroom fittings for its new headquarters at Kim Keat Road in 1995. Inside chief executive T.T. Durai's office suite on the 12th floor of the $21 million building, he says he 'lost it' when he had to install, among other things, a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold-plated tap. 'I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at least $1,000. It was crazy. If you're Bill Gates and own your own multinational, whatever you want, fine. But you're a charity, using donors' money,' he huffs. After his outburst, he was told to 'just do' his job. The shower stall remained, but the taps he eventually installed were 'scaled down' to an upmarket chrome-plated model. To this day, the 54-year-old belongs to NKF's die-hard detractor camp, unmoved by its shining success in social entrepreneurship and its track record in saving lives. As he puts it: 'After that day, not a cent from me. I'm not going to pay for gold-plated taps.' Asked for its response to the contractor's story, the NKF's public relations arm sidestepped the details and said yesterday: 'Since you can't give us details of the contractor... it is difficult for us to give an answer to enlighten your readers.' In the past fortnight, the NKF has hogged the headlines. Propitiously, the news of its amazing $189 million in reserves broke the very day it celebrated its 35th anniversary on April 7. Since then, a stream of more than 130 people - former employees, former donors and disgruntled members of the public - have e-mailed or called this newspaper to let off steam about its hard-sell tactics, thick carpets and controversial chieftain. At the same time, about 30 others, individuals and organisations, have sent in letters of support for the organisation, praising its dialysis programmes and pledging continued donations. So far, the NKF kitty appears none the worse for wear despite all the caterwauling. On April 11, its 11th NKF Charity show raised $6.7 million, just a fraction short of last year's $6.8 million. Last night, it netted another $6.4 million. These serious sums of money - how the NKF gets it, spends it and accounts for it - have been a well-gnawed bone of contention among its naysayers. Way before details of its $5 million tie-up with insurance giant Aviva unleashed a ferocious debate on donor privacy issues, charges of 'invasive' fund-raising have dogged the outfit. But the NKF has made no bones about gunning for the charity dollar - the more the merrier, just like any other profit-and-loss business. Relentless innovation over the years has brought new ways of fund-raising: greeting cards, live charity shows, donations via SMS, consultancy services, even selling its spare telemarketing capacity to private companies. In the social service sector, the NKF is the unparalleled paragon of the art of 'heartsell'. Most impressive of all, notes Mrs Tan Chee Koon, executive director of the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre, is its ability to tap on the health screening it conducts for heartlanders to ensure a 'sustained pool of regular givers'. Unlike many charities which rely on large, one-off infusions from wealthy foundations, NKF's bread and butter is the $3 to $5 monthly Giro donations from about one million ordinary Singaporeans. With such a big base of small heartland givers - its website says nearly two out of every three Singaporeans are donors - the pennies add up. Every day, seven days a week, some 100 'prevention evangelists' and nurses fan out to companies, army camps, condominiums and churches islandwide to test the blood, body fat and urine of at least 1,600 people daily. Since 1997, more than one million Singaporeans have undergone these free health screenings, which are followed typically by an impassioned pitch: 'This is something we're doing for you; is there something you'd like to do for us?' A voluntary sector consultant notes: 'Even old grannies are not spared the spiel. Most are pressured to do a Giro contribution for a minimum of six months. Nothing they do is illegal, but it's all very aggressive. Nothing wrong with that, but when they push the fund-raising envelope, they tend to be insensitive to the larger consequences for the charity sector.' But the NKF's head of what it calls 'prevention marketing', Ms Shirley Tan, makes no apologies for the 'heartfelt pleas' it delivers along with its basic health checks, which she notes would cost at least $60 in private clinics. She says these are 'free-will offerings' and the 'evangelists' have no financial targets to meet at each venue.
NKF chairman Richard Yong, 63, a former private banker who has been on the NKF board for 18 years, makes clear that lucre is the necessary lifeblood of the organisation. Every cent literally buys time for each patient. And the NKF's mission to save the lives of those with kidney failure is undeniably daunting, which explains why there are no other self-funded, non-profit dialysis providers in the world. Each patient is admitted for life - or until they are lucky enough to get a kidney transplant. The average life expectancy of those on dialysis is 10 to 15 years, at a cost of $150,000 upwards a head to the foundation. Mr Yong says patients themselves pay from nothing to $800 each month for three-times-a-week dialysis which would cost at least $3,000 each month outside. The incidence of kidney failure here - increasingly a lifestyle disease closely associated with diabetes and hypertension - is now the third highest in the world, trailing only affluent countries like the United States and Japan. This, coupled with a fast growing grey-haired population, means that the NKF has plenty of costly work cut out for it. Its money-minting machinery, however, was not always so hard-nosed or well-oiled. Starting out in an unprepossessing Singapore General Hospital attic with just two beds and one metal tray in 1969, Mr Yong says, it battled the same growing pains that less publicised, cash-strapped charities face today. When it set up its first dialysis programme in 1982 in Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, it dispensed free treatment with little regard for outcomes and costs. In 1986, it ran out of money, so he and other board members had to make the heart-wrenching decision of who among their 32 patients should continue with dialysis, and who would have to be sent home with morphine to die. 'I couldn't sleep; I couldn't eat. Who were we to play God?' he recalls. It hit home then: It was important to have 'healthy reserves that can withstand even the most dire economic times', and self-generated income 'so that we can be independent, instead of on our knees, poor and begging for life'. So the irony is that, despite being one of the oldest, the NKF is yet one of the most progressive charities here. As a mature 35-year-old, it is looking at sustainability and continuity issues for the next 100 years, even as most other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) grapple with day-to-day survival issues. In the international arena, it is such a trail-blazing model of social entrepreneurship that American universities like Harvard, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have done case studies on it. Locally, however, it is so far ahead of its time that society has yet to keep pace. Unlike in the West - where charities aggressively campaign for the charity dollar, professional fund-raising is a bona fide industry and tie-ups with commercial entities are old news - the social sector here unfortunately is still in its infancy. According to Mr Terry Farris, head of charity management for Asia at European private bank MeesPierson, the fact that it costs money to raise money - the accepted norm, he says, is now 15 to 20 cents out of every dollar - may not have sunk in here yet. Many VWO chiefs note there still exists an arcane expectation that non-profits should survive on the 'goodwill and sacrifice' of volunteers, even though it is recognised worldwide that the public good is much better served by hiring professional managers at market rates.
THE NKF has tried to break away from the 'third-tier' image charities suffer from, by sourcing for talent worldwide and paying them fair market value. According to NKF's honorary treasurer Loo Say San: 'Many Singaporeans prefer not to work for charitable organisations, so we go overseas to hire.' It does its recruitment drives at top institutions like the Indian Institutes of Management and Beijing University, competing with the likes of General Electric and Morgan Stanley for the best brains money can buy. Since 2001, it has also tapped the skills of a steady stream of MBA interns from top business schools like Harvard and Stanford. It staff strength is 947, a figure that NKF defends as necessary to man the three shifts of dialysis sessions, each lasting four hours, which its 22 centres around the island run daily. Pressed for details on staff composition, Mr Yong said 'more than half are medical personnel'. The rest are spread among the administrative, marketing, fund-raising and communications departments. The taboo it seeks to break is that charity is synonymous with poor quality. As Dr Gerard Chuah, an eye surgeon and chairman of the NKF Children's Medical Fund, says: 'What bothers me is when people say, why can't you continue to function out of containers? Hello, just because we're a charity doesn't mean we have to operate in a hovel out in the rain. 'Would you ask a family member of yours who has an honours degree to work in a container? We want to get the best people we can find who will run good programmes to save more lives.' Even when administering its dialysis and patient rehabilitation programmes, the NKF approach is controversial. You might call it 'tough love'. According to Mr Job Loei, a dialysis patient who also helps counsel new admissions at NKF, those wallowing in self-pity are set straight. NKF demands that patients co-pay for dialysis, hold down jobs and stick to their diet - or pay more. Patients' fees, for example, are reduced by $50 to $100 as an incentive, if they find a job, get promoted, tie the knot, give birth, or even when their school-going children score As. It helps patients find jobs, provides courses to upgrade their qualifications and holds personal grooming classes to help them remain attractive to their spouses. If their children's grades slide, it even helps engage, and provides subsidies of up to 80 per cent for, tuition teachers to coach them. As Mr Yong says: 'We don't dialyse them to go home and sleep. We want them to have jobs, bring home the bacon, contribute to the economy, have normal relations with their spouses and their children to do well in school. We say openly to them: 'If you want to die, go and die by yourself; don't come to us'.' As a result, 93 per cent of NKF dialysis patients work, support their families and lead productive lives, compared to less than 60 per cent worldwide. The general philosophy is: No free rides.
LIKEWISE for employees, adds Mr Loo. They are constantly reminded that their wages come from donor dollars. To prevent wastage, there is an extensive list of fines, from $5 for getting to work five minutes late, to $30 for forgetting to switch off the lights. All staff functions are held in the in-house auditorium 'for fear of being labelled spend-thrift' if they venture outside. For the record, Mr Yong says, there is no such thing as 'first-class travel'. Senior executives, from directors up, including CEO Mr Durai, fly business class. The rest fly economy. Little is known of Mr Durai, 56, apart from the fact that his name T.T. (Thambirajah Tharmadurai) means a charitable man in Tamil. A former president of the then University of Singapore Students' Union, he graduated with a law degree and worked in the government legal service for six years until 1977. The elegant and eloquent man eschews publicity and, despite 3 1/2 hours spent with top officials at the NKF last week, this reporter received only a handshake from him. No quotes. His staff know him as a 'visionary' who cares deeply for NKF patients and knows each one by name. He is also a 'tough taskmaster' who works from 6am to 10pm, and eats and showers in his office. He is said to run a tight, results-oriented ship, with a labyrinth of departments within departments and units within units. But even the most embittered acknowledge it is a 'dynamic' workplace and training ground. Its staff turnover is high; employees are so often poached that managers now have to sign three-year contracts. One downside cited by former employees is a corporate culture described as 'cagey', in which staff are discouraged from discussing finances. Despite much public prodding and the Finance Ministry's encouragement to charities to reveal the salaries and benefits of their top employees, NKF top guns are sticking to their guns not to allow more public disclosure. What they keep reiterating is: 'Although the NKF is a non-profit organisation, the people who have chosen to work in the NKF are private individuals, who are entitled to their privacy.' But therein lies the chink in an otherwise spiffy armour: NKF's forward-looking business model lacks the financial transparency that would enable it to stand tall and get out of its controversy-laden shell. After all, if it is governed by the creed of the marketplace, it should also appply rigorous standards of disclosure and accountability. As a VWO analyst notes: 'You can find out how much any CEO of a public company makes, so why not them? How can it be that when they feel like it, they can be 'private', but when raising funds, they are 'non-profit' and 'public'? If any member of the public asks, why shouldn't the information be made available to them?' As society matures, says Mr Farris, people will have higher expectations of non-profit governance. 'Like it or not, if you turn over as much as $67.5 million a year, you're a business, though it be the business of doing good,' he says. 'As a charity, you have to always remember: You are spending other people's money.' On the NKF's part, so often has it been bad-mouthed - which it attributes to 'professional jealousy' - that it seems to have developed a persecution complex of sorts. 'Why is it us, always us?' is a plaintive cry its board members often utter. It has also gone beyond plaintive cries, to being the plaintiff in defamation suits - at least three times. In 1999, for instance, it sued Madam Tan Kiat Noi for sending out an e-mail message accusing it of paying ridiculously high bonuses to its staff. An estimated 100,000 people received it. The case was settled after she apologised publicly, and paid $50,000 in damages, as well as NKF's legal costs. Whither the NKF from here? Although it continues to bid the public judge it by its works and its effectiveness, detractors will continue to be fixated by the shroud over its numbers. Like it or not, rumblings are likely to persist until there is more publicly-transparent accounting. The Straits Times 19 Apr 2004 |
| Return to top |
|
Defamation Suit, Day 1 LAST April, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) made headlines in The Straits Times' (ST) on several occasions: First, for its corporate tie-up with insurance company Aviva, then for its $189-million reserves and again on April 19 - a day after an NKF fund-raising charity show - in a report that mentioned a "gold-plated tap" that cost "at least $1,000" at its Kim Keat Road headquarters. The non-profit organisation is now making headlines again as it commences, along with its chief executive T T Durai, 57, a libel suit against the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Ms Susan Long, 32, ST senior writer and author of the April 19 report, "The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?". In the first six paragraphs of the report, Ms Long set out that her source - "a retired contractor … known only as Mr Tan" - told her of a "gold-plated tap" costing "at least $1,000", as well as a glass-panelled shower and a "pricey German toilet bowl", that he had to install on the "12th floor of the $21-million building". She recounted how the contractor had "scream(ed) his head off" on learning of the assignment at the NKF's "new headquarters at Kim Keat Road in 1995", but was told to "just do" his job. According to the report, the taps he eventually installed were "scaled down" to an "upmarket chrome-plated model". These allegations implied that the NKF had - under Mr Durai's management - misused public funds, said the NKF in the Supreme Court yesterday. It is arguing that the newspaper had an agenda against it. Following the report, the NKF had sought an apology and retraction of this allegation from SPH. But as none was forthcoming, the case will be heard out in court over the next nine days. The NKF statement cited that in 1995, it was not yet housed in its current 12-storey premises, but instead, in a two-storey block on site. The statement also said that there was no "gold-plated tap" nor any tap which "alone cost at least $1,000" in that building. During his full-day cross-examination session by SPH's Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, Mr Durai stated that in 1994, a shower mixer and basin mixer had been installed in his absence. He "gave instructions for that to be removed" upon his return from an overseas trip. Mr Durai did not want the office interior to appear luxurious. But, according to the NKF, Ms Long's report had implied that the alleged "gold-plated taps" were "scaled down" only because of the contractor's protestations. Mr Singh said this incident supported his argument that the report was factual and that the "expensive bathroom fittings" were, in fact, installed and then removed. Mr Singh also said that SPH had a duty to comment on the NKF's financial affairs in the interest of the public and questioned Mr Durai on his salary package and whether he had flown first class on NKF funds collected from the public. Mr Durai, who initially told the court he preferred to keep his salary private, said he earned an average of about $550,000 a year, including bonuses varying from 10 months to a year's salary. Over the last three years, he earned a total of around $1.8 million. Two years ago, when Mr Durai earned nearly $600,000, the NKF had an annual turnover of $100 million. Mr Durai explained that his pay package and bonus was a decision made by the foundation's board and that the board had also pegged the flight entitlement for senior staff at Singapore Airlines business class prices. Mr Durai said that he had flown all classes before and only started travelling first-class in the past two years. He said he would pay the difference for any first class upgrades and that sometimes, it was cheaper for him to fly first class than on business class. In the public gallery was Mrs Goh Chok Tong, patron of the foundation, and SPH chief executive Alan Chan. TodayOnline 12 Jul 2005 Defamation Suit, Day 1 The National Kidney Foundation's (NKF) defamation suit against the Singapore Press Holdings has opened in the High Court. The case centres around an article in the Straits Times published on 19 April 2004 entitled "The NKF Controversially ahead of its time". And first to take the stand was the NKF's CEO, TT Durai who made some startling revelations during cross examination by SPH's Senior Counsel Davinder Singh. The article in question was written by SPH's journalist Susan Long, whom NKF is also suing. It had an account of a contractor who had been hired to install some bathroom fittings for its new headquarters in 1995. NKF says the article had many falsehoods and half truths. But Monday's hearing was more than just about toilet fittings. It was a public scrutiny of how the NKF is administered and run, the travel patterns of its senior executives and the chief executive officer, and what salaries were paid to the CEO in the last three years. The court heard that CEO Durai got a twelve month bonus last year. And between 2002 and 2004, he would have earned close to S$1.8 million. From the outset, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh who is acting for SPH, emphasized the importance of transparency and public accountability on NKF's part as every cent which NKF spent came from public donations. Several senior officials from NKF were in court to follow the proceedings, including its patron Mrs Goh Chok Tong. ChannelNewsAsia 11 Jul 2005 Defamation Suit, Day 1 A CLOSELY-GUARDED secret of the National Kidney Foundation was finally made public on Monday: the salary of its chief executive Mr T.T. Durai. On Day 1 of NKF's defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings, it was revealed that on top of his S$25,000 a month salary, Mr Durai also received 10 to 12 months in yearly bonuses. That makes his annual salary between S$550,000 and S$600,000, or S$1.8 million in total, over the past three years. The NKF, which is entirely dependent on public funds, offers dialysis treatment to kidney patients. It is taking issue with an article published in The Straits Times by senior correspondent Susan Long on April 19 last year headlined 'The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?'. The NKF and Mr Durai contend that the words in the article had damaged their reputation by implying that donors' funds were being misused. The article stated that a gold-plated tap had been installed and later replaced in the private bathroom in Mr Durai's office suite. During the hearing before Justice Tan Lee Meng, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, acting for SPH, sought to show that the NKF was neither honest nor transparent about the way it uses donors' funds. He told the court he had to ask the NKF three times, including twice through the courts, to have the salary of its CEO made public. Mr Durai, represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, argued that he was not required by law to tell the public what he earned. Also, he wanted to protect his personal privacy, he said. Under questioning on Monday, he also admitted that he had flown First Class on some airlines, even though the NKF had maintained consistently that none of its executives flew First Class and had threatened to sue people who said Mr Durai did so. His explanation: The NKF Board allowed this as long as he did not bust the Singapore Airlines Business Class rate. Mr Singh countered: 'Isn't it your duty as a trustee of people's monies to make sure that you get best value on a business class seat instead of deploying this clever device... using it for First Class on another plane?' Mr Durai replied: 'This is a decision made by the board. I used the entitlement.' The Straits Times 11 Jul 2005 Defamation Suit, Day 1 A CLOSELY guarded secret of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) was finally made public yesterday the salary of its chief executive T.T. Durai. Gasps could be heard in the courtroom when it was revealed that on top of his $25,000 a month salary, he also received 10 to 12 months in yearly bonuses. That makes his annual salary between $550,000 and $600,000, or $1.8 million in total over the past three years. This fact, and the disclosure that he had flown first class on NKF's funds, emerged on Day 1 of NKF's defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). The NKF, which is entirely dependent on public funds, offers dialysis treatment to kidney patients. Two out of every three Singaporeans contribute to it. It is taking issue with a Straits Times article by senior correspondent Susan Long published on April 19 last year, which stated that a gold-plated tap had been installed and later replaced in the private bathroom in Mr Durai's office suite. The NKF and Mr Durai contend that this was not the case and that the words in the article, 'The NKF Controversially ahead of its time', had damaged their reputation by implying that donors' funds were being misused. The hearing yesterday was delayed by the NKF's application for special damages of $3.24 million, which it claimed was what it lost in donations following the publication of the article. Justice Tan Lee Meng threw out the application and ordered the NKF to pay SPH's legal cost for its last-minute move. At the hearing, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, acting for SPH, noted that the tap in question cost $990, expensive by his standards although Mr Durai did not agree. The lawyer sought to show that the NKF was neither honest nor transparent about the way it uses donors' funds. He told the court he had to ask the NKF three times, twice through the courts, to have the salary of its CEO made public. Mr Durai, represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, was the only witness who took the stand yesterday. Among those in the gallery was NKF patron, Mrs Goh Chok Tong, wife of the Senior Minister, who left midway through the hearing. Mr Durai argued that he was not required by law to tell the public what he earned, even though he conceded that they paid his salary. Also, he wanted to protect his personal privacy. Mr Singh asked 'The man who earns $1,000 a month who donates $50... every month thinking that it is going to save lives, should they not know that that is the kind of money you earn' Replied Mr Durai 'I don't see the need for him to know.' He denied Mr Singh's charge that he refused to disclose his salary as he knew he would lose moral authority with donors. Mr Durai's travel perks also came under scrutiny. Not only had the NKF maintained consistently - as recently as in the April 19 article - that none of its executives flew first class, it had threatened to sue people who said Mr Durai did so. At least two people have had to apologise publicly and pay damages and costs for saying they had seen Mr Durai travel first class, as the NKF said this implied he was wasting donors' funds. Under questioning, he admitted he had flown first class on some airlines. His explanation The NKF board allowed this as long as he did not bust the Singapore Airlines business-class rate. Mr Singh countered 'Isn't it your duty as a trustee of people's monies to make sure that you get best value on a business-class seat instead of deploying this clever tactic... using it for first class on another plane' Mr Durai replied 'This is a decision made by the board. I used the entitlement.' The entitlement, he added, kicked in only in the past two years. Previously, when he flew first class, he had paid the difference out of his own pocket, he maintained. Mr Singh noted that although he now flew first class, Mr Durai did not correct his chairman Richard Yong's assertion in the April 19 article that 'there is no such thing as first-class travel'. 'The reason you hide the truth is because you know that that is the wrong thing to do, using people's money, and you know that is mismanagement of donations.' Mr Durai was asked if he should now 'do the right thing' by the two individuals who had paid him damages and costs for saying what he had now admitted in court. He said no, sticking to his claim that at that time, he did not travel first class using NKF funds and when he did so, he paid the difference himself. The Straits Times 12 Jul 2005 Defamation Suit, Day 1 Click here to toggle full text
NKF VS SPH: ST'S COURT TRANSCRIPT FOR JULY 11 - MORNING SESSION
MR KHOO: My name is Mr Michael Khoo. I appear for the plaintiffs, both the plaintiffs. With me are Ms Low and Mr Chiok, and we also have Mr Peter Gabriel; he is seated behind me, he is also with me. And on behalf of the defendants are my learned friends, Mr Davinder Singh and Mr Adrian Tan. MR SINGH: And Mr Peter Wadeley, your Honour.
MR KHOO: Mr Durai, we have here two bundles. Can you please look at the two bundles of documents? The first one is headed or entitled 'Affidavit of Evidence-in-chief of TT Durai'.
MR KHOO: There is a second volume to that affidavit which comprises exhibits.
MR KHOO: Your honour, may I just object? He is going into advice. MR SINGH: I am happy to rephrase that, to save time. MR KHOO: Because it is viewed as privileged. MR SINGH: You believed that the article carried the four meanings which are described at paragraph 4?
MR KHOO: Your Honour, may I object to this question? "Has not come clean'' … is that the same as "non-transparency''? Transparency and controversy have somehow been translated into "has not come clean''. It is something different. MR SINGH: I wish to avoid controversy between my learned friend and me, and I will be as transparent as possible with the witness, so I will rephase the question. MR KHOO: Thank you. MR SINGH: You are aware, are you not, that it is the defendants' case that NKF, under your management, has been less than transparent about its financial affairs? You are aware?
MR KHOO: Your Honour, my learned friend insists on peppering his questions with words "after great difficulty''. These documents were disclosed by us voluntarily in the course of discovery. To put it to this witness that he had obtained these documents after great difficulty is a misstatement, to say the least. MR SINGH: I stand by what I say. I will demonstrate, your Honour, that the invoice in relation to this or what I would think is a very expensive tap, was not disclosed at all in the original list of documents filed by the NKF, although that is the central issue according to the plaintiffs in this claim. We then had to write a letter to ask for further discovery, and when we asked for that further discovery, NKF then came up with this invoice. But I will also show your Honour in due course that when we applied for further and better particulars of the installation in that bathroom, the further and better particulars were of the replaced fittings and not the original ones. We will come to that. Mr Durai, the reason you changed your position, I think I said for the fourth time, is this. You originally thought that there is no way that SPH would produce the evidence. When you saw that SPH actually had the evidence, and that in any event, there is an invoice of the value of the taps for that bathroom of yours, you decided to change the meaning and now emphasise the $21 million building and the 12th floor, is that not right?
MR KHOO: I hope my learned friend, I do not like to interrupt, but are we talking of the same thing? There were two installations. The article refers to a wash basin tap, a mixer, which does not cost $990, but $660, subject to a 10 per cent discount. MR SINGH: Thank you, Mr Khoo. I am glad my learned friend talks about the article saying wash basin mixer. But on the plaintiffs' own case, as far as meaning goes, it does not matter whether it was a wash basin, shower or any other mixer, meaning is a gold-plated tap that cost at least $1,000. MR KHOO: Sorry, there are two installations. Is he referring to the correct one which the article refers to or is he referring to something else? If it is something else, then that is not a wash basin tap. It is a mixer, shower mixer with a shower bar. That totally costs $990, subject to a 10 per cent discount. MR SINGH: Right. Your Honour, I am just flummoxed that we are into this detail. I would have thought that if I was going to buy a tap, or wherever, based on public donation from people who earn $1,000 a month, it would not matter whether it was $600 or $900. I would be very careful with how I spent that money. But Mr Durai, the reason I put to you again is that you have now changed your meaning in paragraph 3 to shift the focus to the $21 million building and the 12th floor because you know you have problems on the value of the fittings.
COURT: Yes. MR SINGH: This is dated 27th April, about eight days after the article appeared; right?
MR KHOO: Again, forgive me for interrupting, your Honour. When Mr Singh asks this question, he must make reference to the question being asked. The question being asked at that time was: "Of paragraph 18(b) of the defence, in respect of paragraph (b)(ii) is it admitted that fittings were installed in the said private bathroom but the plaintiffs deny that the fittings were "expensive'.'' If you look at 18(b)(ii), the original pleading they referred to what was installed, and then they amended that to add in a new (iii), the removal of expensive fittings. MR SINGH: Your Honour, Mr Michael Khoo can try as much as he wants to help the witness, but I would invite the court, now that he had done me a favour, to also look at the defence. Can I ask your Honour to go to tab 2? We appear to be in two different cases. Under the original defence, paragraph 18, page 33, the present 22, it comes after the word "Justification''; in other words, we are going to justify the article. It says: "The words were true in substance and in fact. Particulars of justification. (b) The plaintiffs have used funds donated to the 1st plaintiff on: (1) the construction and/or renovation of a private office suite with an attached bathroom for the use of the 2nd plaintiff in the 1st plaintiff's offices in the two-storey block in Kim Keat Road; (2) installation of expensive fittings in the said private bathroom.'' So the question was asked in relation to (2), your Honour. There was a reply to 18(2), and if your Honour can go to the reply at tab 3, page 8, this is the relevant reply in relation to which particulars were sought. It reads: "In respect of paragraph 22(b)(ii) it is admitted that fittings were installed in the said private bathroom but the plaintiffs deny that the fittings can properly or fairly be described as "expensive'. In any event, the plaintiffs deny that any fittings installed in the private bathroom were of the description stated in the words complained of and contained in the article written and published by the defendants.'' I respectfully submit that nobody can be in any doubt at that stage as to what these pleadings are about, and which fittings are being talked about. Then at tab 5, the question at page 12 is asked about these fittings. Mr Durai and the NKF were asked to identify each and every fitting that was installed, identify the cost of each and every fitting that was installed, and is it not correct, Mr Durai, that you deliberately suppressed the information in that answer?
COURT: Please answer the question.
MR SINGH: Thank you. Mr Durai, it it your case that SPH and Ms Long have an agenda against you and NKF?
MR KHOO: Your Honour, they are two different things. "I cannot say'' is different from "no''. "No'' is a "no'' to the issue of she does not have an agend MR SINGH: My question is: is it your case … and if the answer is "I cannot say'', it means it is "no''.
MR KHOO: Your Honour...
MR SINGH: Please, malice is a question of law, your Honour. MR SINGH: Malice is as well a question of law, but arises from whether there are any facts to come to that conclusion. MR KHOO: Of course, but when he asks him if this is malice, was he asking him in relation to malice in a legal sense, in a defamation suit where you have to prove suit, where malice has to be proven to rebut fair comment? MR SINGH: Mr Durai, you are aware that, in this case, you have relied on malice.
MR SINGH: Would this be a convenient point, your Honour? I am going on to a new are MR SINGH: Mr Durai, the defendants say...and I know you do not agree...that the article means that NKF is controversial and that there is a lack of transparency. I would like to talk to you about controversy for a moment if I may. Would you agree with me that there is and has for some time now been controversy surrounding NKF?
MR SINGH: Can I just have a few minutes, your Honour? COURT: Certainly. (A short adjournment) MR SINGH: Thank you, your Honour. Mr Durai, coming now to the events leading up to the article. You had agreed with me before the break that SPH had a duty to write the article and that the public had an interest in reading about it. Would you agree with me that in the course of writing that article, or for the purposes of the article, Ms Susan Long, the 2nd defendant, did interview NKF's officers?
MR SINGH: That is it for today.
|
|
|
| Return to top |
|
Defamation Suit - Day Two The National Kidney Foundation's (NKF) defamation suits against the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) came to abrupt end on Tuesday at the High Court. This, after its CEO TT Durai admitted during intense cross examination that some of the fittings in its headquarters, which were highlighted in a Straits Times article, were indeed extravagant for a public charity. The article spoke of a glass panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold plated tap. Mr Durai finally withdrew both his and the NKF's case against the SPH and its journalist Susan Long. NKF's CEO was in the witness box for the second day and he was to be the only one. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh's cross examination focused on several areas. First, the business relationships Mr Durai had with NKF board member Ms Matilda Chua. These were through two companies - Proton Web Solutions, a call centre operations based in India, which NKF had contracted its tele-marketing work to - and Global Net, in which Mr Durai himself had a stake. Mr Durai also said he had held several directorships in addition to his work as CEO of the NKF. Asked if he had informed the NKF Board of these appointments, he replied that it was not consequential and the Board gave him the liberty to do so. The court also heard the NKF had a fleet of eight cars and drivers, which Mr Durai and its visiting guests and VIPs could use. NKF also paid for the road tax, repair and maintenance for Mr Durai's personal Mercedes Benz. On NKF's reserves, the court was told it stood at $262 million as of July 2005. Mr Singh argued that if the NKF stopped all fundraising activities and concentrated on treating kidney patients, it would still have enough money to see through its operations for 30 years, based on its expenses scheduled for 2003. For that year, the NKF received $24.4 million for patient fees for dialysis but spent some $31 million for these operations. So even if it was out of pocket of $7 million to $8 million per year, NKF's current reserves were sufficient for at least 30 years. But Mr Singh says the organisation has been telling Singaporeans its reserves won't last more than three years, according to statements made by its officials. Another issue that arose during the cross examination was that of patient numbers. Mr Singh argued that NKF had overstated its patient numbers and this would have given the impression to the public that more funds were needed to run its operations. The final straw came when Mr Singh began to zoom in on the issues of contention - the expensive fittings which the Straits Times article had highlighted. Mr Durai agreed they were expensive and extravagant for a public charity and withdrew his and the NKF's cases. The trial which was to have lasted for ten days ended in two days. Speaking to the media afterwards, Mr Durai told reporters that litigation is always fought with difficulty. On public reaction to the revelations in court, he said the NKF is quite aware of what may happen but its track record spoke for itself. He said the NKF has struggled to be perfect and he himself has tried his best for 37 years. He maintained that the NKF did not hide the truth in any way. And there's no running away from the fact that NKF has discharged its obligation to the people of Singapore with a world class kidney programme. In a separate statement, the NKF Board says it has discontinued its proceedings against Singapore Press Holdings and its senior writer Ms Susan Long. And the decision to withdraw was a considered decision made in the best interests of the NKF, its supporters, donors and patients. The Board also reiterated its whole-hearted support for Mr Durai as its CEO and looked forward to carrying on all its life-saving activities with full vigour and strength, and to continue to serve the public to the best of its ability. Mrs Goh Chok Tong, an NKF patron who was present in the public gallery, told TODAY: "All NKF asked for was a retraction, because what was stated was not true. Instead they have expanded the case into other matters. I have no question on the NKF's transparency, and have complete faith in the NKF and Mr Durai." ChannelNewsAsia 12 Jul 05 Defamation Suit - Day Two Click here to toggle full text
NKF VS SPH: ST'S COURT TRANSCRIPT FOR JULY 12
MR KHOO: Before my learned friend recommences his cross-examination of the 2nd plaintiff, if your Honour recalls, a lot of the cross-examination yesterday, a large part, and very serious cross-examination, was on the statement made by Mr Richard Yong, chairman of NKF, in the reported portion of the article, if your Honour remembers, where he said there was no such thing as first-class travel. Your Honour must bear in mind that the witness here, Mr Durai, was not present during that interview. There was the suggestion and I would even put it higher than suggestion, that the NKF was misleading the public without telling them that actually there was first-class travel, only business-class. Before my learned friend continues, perhaps he should -- I am just suggesting to him -- check with the 2nd defendant, Ms Susan Long, who conducted the interview, for this reason. If I may refer your Honour to Ms Long's affidavit of evidence-in-chief at page 213. COURT: Please proceed. MR KHOO: This represents a typewritten transcript of her interview of Mr Richard Yong on 13th April 2004 on the question of business-class travel. Somewhere in the middle of that page of the affidavit you will see at page 29, it reads as follows, according to her transcript: "Would you disclose yours. Salaries are confidential. 'Bonus' non-13 month co -- six months hearsay. 'Victim of our own success people always pick on us'. No such thing as first-class travel -- we go on business-class travel. If upgraded or pay the difference." This portion, whatever she may have meant, as an understanding of what Mr Richard Yong says, was not reported in the article. When Mr TT Durai gave his answers yesterday on whether Mr Yong was telling the truth and should be corrected, I think the best person to answer this as to what he actually told Ms Long should be Mr Yong himself, who will be coming as a witness. I just would like to point this out to your Honour because Mr Durai was not at the interview. That is only for the record, your Honour. I am much obliged. COURT: Thank you. MR SINGH: I am grateful for my learned friend drawing this court and my attention to the transcript of the interview. All that goes to demonstrate is two things. I say it with the deepest of respect. First is Mr Michael Khoo, my learned friend, does not appear to have followed my cross-examination yesterday. Secondly, it only confirms that what Mr Richard Yong is reported to have said in the newspapers is false. There is a critical difference between being upgraded from business class to first class, because you travel a great deal of business class, and you have the miles, for example, or if you pay the difference and therefore are upgraded on the one hand, and on the other, where you create a contrivance where on the face of it, it looks like your perk or entitlement is business-class fare, but you use that business-class fare based on a higher rate, which is published by one airline, and then use that same amount of money or less to get first class on another airline or that same air line flying out of a different destination. Therefore, when Mr Richard Yong said that there is no first class and I quote: "For the record, Mr Yong says, there is no such thing as 'first-class travel'. Senior executives, from directors up, including CEO Mr Durai, fly business class. The rest fly economy." That is as false as it can get. So my learned friend is right when he said I made a serious suggestion. It is very serious. It is a false statement that is made to the public. The fact that Mr Durai was not present at that interview is neither here nor there. First, he did come in and out of that interview, but even putting that aside, I asked him yesterday, "What steps did you take to correct the statement if it was not correct or not accurate?" First, he accepted that it was not accurate, and second, he also accepted that he did nothing to correct that statement. So we do not resile from anything that we have said. The evidence speaks for itself, and we stand by the position that we have taken. With your Honour's permission -- MR KHOO: With my learned friend's leave, I will make a slight response to that. It should not go unresponded to. These are the notes of the 2nd defendant. She conducted the interview. You will see that even from the interview notes, as recorded by her, assuming they are accurate, and of course she will be asked about the accuracy when she comes on the stand. For the record, they do not even appear in her notes, that is one thing. Secondly, we have asked for a tape-recorded transcript or rather the tape-recording of that interview in discovery, and it was told to us that it was lost or missing. That is a different matter altogether, but I would just like to say that even by her own recorded notes, Mr Yong did not say "for the record". As far as Mr Durai's ability to correct what Mr Yong had said is concerned, he was not at the interview. MR SINGH: Before I recommence my cross-examination, I will just close off on this point by making this contention, which I think seems to have eluded my learned friend. He says that he asked for the tape, and they take issue, perhaps, with the tape or the transcript. But if he remembers his own witness's statement yesterday, in evidence on oath, his witness said that the rest of the article is correct; to the extent that it is comment, it is fair.
Therefore, this witness has confirmed that what appears in the rest of the article is accurate, but later resiled from that when he accepted that that one portion on air travel is unfortunately -- I think his words were -- inaccurate; our suggestion is false. With that, can I resume my cross-examination.
MR KHOO: $20,000 or $12,000? MR SINGH: $20,000 because if it was enough, he would have accepted full-time employment. The reason you were not prepared to accept full-time employment at $20,000 was because you had a family of four to support and it was not enough?
MR KHOO: He wanted to say something else. "The car is also used ... " MR SINGH: Please answer.
COURT: Mr Durai, it will help if you answer the question.
MR SINGH: Why? Why are you not prepared to come clean? We already know that, to use your word, there was an "inaccuracy". Why are you not prepared to come clean?
This is people's money, you know.
MR KHOO: Your Honour, I think to be fair to the witness, one must look at the reply itself. The reply says: "... for only three years of support of the 1st plaintiff's dialysis and various healthcare programmes ..." So this reply does not only apply to dialysis. It applies to other programmes as well. MR SINGH: Mr Khoo may not have followed my cross-examination again. The rationale cited in the reply for the reserves was to ensure that those who are now being treated continue to live. On that basis, I asked: is it true that the statement that $189 million is only good for three years is true or false? And Mr Durai, without any assistance from counsel, admitted it is false. MR KHOO: If it is for dialysis, yes, it is not correct. But here it says "dialysis and other healthcare programmes". MR SINGH: Right. Let us take what Mr Michael Khoo says and given that he has asked me to review this issue, I am sorry, Mr Durai, I have to trouble you with the accounts again. Please go to the core bundle at page CB122, the accounts that we saw a moment ago.
In addition to dialysis, the NKF conducts public health education programmes; right?
MR KHOO: I am sorry. You cannot take 262, because that is on today's value. We are talking of these figures which relate to 2003. Thank you. MR SINGH: That is fine. MR KHOO: Because it is going to be misleading the witness. MR SINGH: In 2003, your reserves were, what, 220? MR KHOO: 189 -- sorry. MR SINGH: I think Mr Khoo should read the papers before he stands up. MR KHOO: Sorry. MR SINGH: In 2003 it was, what, 220?
COURT: Mr Singh, the court reporter has requested a short break. We will take a five-minute break. (A short adjournment) MR KHOO: Before my learned friend resumes, there is just one matter for clarification's sake. From the notes as recorded, if your Honour looks at CB260, my learned friend was reading from the dialysis number of patients as at December 1999 and as at November 2003, and I think the questions put to the witness was that for the NKF, as at December 1999, the figures were 1,414, and as at November 2003, it was 1,512. There was a drop in the percentage of total number of patients in Singapore on dialysis. That is not disagreed with. But the question as recorded by my learned friend, which is recorded at line 12: "Therefore, you accept, do you not that, over the years, despite the numbers or dollars that you are raising, the percentage of kidney patients which NKF cares for has decreased? Answer: No, not now. I mean, the numbers have gone up of late. Question: I am talking about 1999 to November 2003. Answer: Yes, the numbers went down. Question: Went down; right? But as these numbers went down, your reserves and fundraising went up?" And the answer was yes. Actually it should be percentage; the numbers went up, but it was a decrease in the percentage from 54 per cent to 44 per cent of the total. MR SINGH: That is what I said at line 14, the percentage has decreased. MR KHOO: But the last question to the witness: "But as these numbers went down, your reserves and fundraising went up?" MR SINGH: I think it was obvious that it was a reference to the percentage. In fact I said 54 and 44. MR KHOO: No, but that question itself. I think it should be corrected, your Honour. MR SINGH: There is nothing to correct. I stand by what I said. It is the percentage that went down. When I referred to the number, the number is the percentage which is 54 to 44. And the witness agreed. MR KHOO: In that sense, it is the percentage and not the number of patients. That is all I want to clarify. That is what Mr Singh meant, for the record. MR SINGH: Yes. I will now come to the number of patients. Mr Durai, would you agree with me that NKF has been less than careful, to be generous, about the way it has put out its numbers, i.e. the number of patients that NKF treats?
COURT: The question is a simple one. Where would you draw that line?
MR SINGH: Give us a number, please, because you told us what the perspective is, the man who earned $3,000 to $4,000.
MR SINGH: Your Honour, would this be a convenient time. COURT: Yes. (The luncheon adjournment) MR SINGH: Have you managed to get hold of the letters of appointment that you said you would produce after lunch?
MR KHOO: We have not got a copy of that letter yet, your Honour. MR SINGH: Can arrangements be made by your organisation to retrieve it this afternoon, because I would like to deal with that letter while Mr Durai is on the stand. While we wait for it, can you go to the article at 2DB, pages 335 and 336.
MR KHOO: Can you read the whole sentence. MR SINGH: '... that only a multi-billionaire like Bill Gates could afford to install.' Do you see that?
MR KHOO: Your Honour, without wanting to interrupt my learned friend again, I think he must ask the witness, because in the answer to interrogatory, a specific period was mentioned. Between 2002 to 2003. We do not know what period Mr Yong was referring to when he gave this interview. MR SINGH: That is why I very fairly took the witness to an earlier page of the answer where he said that in the year 2002 to 2003, there were directors, page 24, and it has been established that directors have been described as senior executives. And it has also been established that one said they do not fly business class, while another said something totally different.
Anyway Mr Durai has now confirmed that his answer on oath was wrong.
MR KHOO: Your Honour, I have to object to that. Because malice is at the time of publication and not what the contractor is prepared to swear one year later. At the time of the publication. MR SINGH: I think my learned friend misunderstands my point. The point Mr Durai is making is there was a reckless disregard for the truth. It cannot be a reckless disregard for the truth when in fact that is the position that the person who gave the information is willing to stand by. MR KHOO: But that is today. He is prepared to swear an affidavit today. The question which the witness has said is: was there proper investigation at that time before the rush to publication? And that would have been 17th or 18th April 2004. MR SINGH: Your Honour, let me put an example. Let us assume that a day before the article, Ms Long had asked Mr Durai whether it is true that he is receiving $600,000 in annual remuneration. Mr Durai says he needs time to consider before he replies, but Ms Long goes ahead the next day and publishes it anyway. It is proved that it is true. How can it be reckless disregard of the truth? It is logically impossible. MR KHOO: Only if it is proven to be true, but we have not proven the question of the gold tap to be true. The fact that the man has decided to swear an affidavit does not mean that it is true. That is the fallacy of the argument. MR SINGH: There is no fallacy because even if it is not proved to be true, if the man who gave that information is prepared to stand by that information, and is prepared to come to court and say on oath that what he said is true, and that he is maintaining it, that is a factor your Honour would have regard to, as to whether or not we acted recklessly. It would be or might be argued to be reckless if there was no such source and no one was produced. But I am fully entitled to ask this witness whether he would still say it is reckless if the source is prepared to come to court.
MR KHOO: No, I think you must be specific. After 3rd January and he specifically says the Monte Carlo toilet bowl was never removed. MR SINGH: That is fine. MR KHOO: But do not say 'any time' because it could have been done one year before that. There could have been a removal. We do not know. MR SINGH: Mr Khoo would know that one year before that there was no private suite. MR KHOO: No, but there was a toilet there. MR SINGH: Mr Durai, you say after 3rd January, the Monte Carlo toilet bowl costing $1,100 was not removed; correct?
MR KHOO: Can you please read the entire installation. MR SINGH: Certainly:
'... complete with Cobra sliding shower (white/gold) -- $990.
Hansa Star Ronda basin mixer complete with pop up (white/gold) -- $680 .
Total -- $3,150.
Less: Discount 10 per cent.
Taxable amount ...
Add: GST.
Total payable -- $2,920.'
Yes?
MR KHOO: Again, your Honour, 'Is not $990 pricey for a tap?' Which tap is he referring to? There are two taps. One is a shower mixer and one is a wash basin mixer. MR SINGH: All right. I will clarify. MR KHOO: And the $990 includes the shower head and the sliding bar. I think this has been made clear. It is in the invoice read by my learned friend. So perhaps if he could be more accurate. MR SINGH: Let me ask you again. If $1,100 is pricey for a toilet bowl, is $1,000 pricey for a tap, complete with shower, sliding?
COURT: What is your answer?
MR SINGH: Thank you. That is the message in the six paragraphs; right?
COURT: What are you saying?
MR SINGH: The reasonable reader would not think that the CEO was involved in the installation of taps?
MR KHOO: Your Honour, it was not the NKF who told him to do his job. That is not the evidence. MR SINGH: No, I am talking about the article and the reading that a reasonable reader would take from the article. It says here: 'After his outburst, he was told to 'just do' his job.' Right? MR KHOO: Yes. Not the NKF. MR SINGH: Thank you very much. So if it was not the NKF, then who was it? Your lawyer said it is not the NKF. Who was it?
MR KHOO: That is only assuming that this version is true, but certainly it was not the NKF who was involved. That is all I am pointing out. MR SINGH: You see, I am going to put to you, because we have spent a lot of time on this, that there is nothing in the article to suggest that the NKF decided to downgrade because of protests?
COURT: There has been a request from the court reporters for a break. MR SINGH: This might be a good time, yes. (A short adjournment) MR KHOO: On the request for the letter of appointment, we have not been able to trace it just yet, the letter of appointment which my learned friend seeks. Overnight we might just do it. If we get it, we will let him have it. MR SINGH: I am grateful. Mr Durai, the document I wanted you to look at is in volume 2 of the defendants' bundle of documents, page 356. This was the letter of demand you sent on 19th April after consultation with your lawyers?
MR KHOO: Your Honour, the witness has said he wants consultation on this aspect. It is not with regard to his evidence. He wants to give instructions on this aspect. MR SINGH: There is nothing to give instructions on, and any consultation will touch on his evidence, because by necessity, he will have to ask Mr Khoo whether as a result of his evidence, he should withdraw. And Mr Khoo will then be put in that difficult position of having todeal with the evidence, and I think it is not something he would want to do, but if he wants to, he takes a grave risk, and I do not think it is something that any lawyer would want. MR KHOO: Your Honour, if my client wants to consult me, not on his testimony, but as to the question of whether he should withdraw, he should have the right to counsel on that. MR SINGH: That misses the point. He cannot ask Mr Khoo about whether he should withdraw unless he also asks the corollary question, in view of my evidence, should I withdraw? Mr Khoo then is put in a position where he has to say, well, in view of this evidence, yes, or no, and therefore enter into a discussion of the evidence. MR KHOO: No, there will be -- MR SINGH: The witness is a trained lawyer, has been a lawyer for 10 years, has been instrumental in driving this action, has given us answers on all the meanings, and all I ask for is a straight answer to a straight question. MR KHOO: Your Honour, he is not in this court as a lawyer. He is not in this court as a lawyer; trained though he may be, he is entitled to legal counsel. COURT: Yes, Mr Singh. MR SINGH: He is not, your Honour, entitled to discuss hisevidence with his lawyer in the course of cross-examination, and if Mr Michael Khoo is prepared to say to this court that no part of the evidence will be discussed directly or indirectly, then he takes the risk, your Honour. But as I said, it is not a risk that any lawyer would want to take, given that this discussion cannot take place without an evaluation of the evidence and his answers. So I would ask your Honour, given the way this case has developed, that all I want is a straight answer from the witness as to whether in view of his evidence on all the meanings, he personally is prepared to do the honourable thing and withdraw the case. COURT: Yes, Mr Durai.
MR SINGH: Your colleagues have nothing to do with this case. You are the plaintiff. You have sued personally.
COURT: Take your time, take your time and think carefully before you answer this question. MR KHOO: Your Honour, I think there must be this ability -- that he should be given access before he decides on whether to withdraw and not as to whether his evidence should be discussed. It is a question of, should I withdraw, what are the consequences? Nothing to do with his evidence, your Honour. MR SINGH: I will be fair and I will tell the witness the consequences. Mr Durai -- MR KHOO: He is not giving advice to him. MR SINGH: I am not, but I am explaining to the witness so that he understands, and if Mr Khoo thinks that I am misleading or I am not complete, Mr Khoo can add to it. Mr Durai -- MR KHOO: Your Honour, I leave it to you whether you would want him to be able to take legal advice before he gives an answer to your Honour. COURT: Yes, carry on first. MR SINGH: Thank you. Mr Durai, I see that you are on record as saying I will withdraw? MR SINGH: Thank you very much. Can I also ask clarification -- MR KHOO: That is what the witness has said, your Honour. COURT: Do you have anything to say? MR KHOO: Nothing because it is a statement made by him in the witness box. There is nothing else I can say to what he has said in the witness box. MR SINGH: Thank you, your Honour. Would you also withdraw the claim by NKF?
MR SINGH: Thank you very much. Your Honour, can we submit on the issue of costs tomorrow or would you like it today? COURT: We will deal with the question of costs tomorrow. MR SINGH: Thank you very much.
|
|
|
| Return to top |
|
by AFP SINGAPORE, July 17 - In Singapore, where public protests are banned and the government has tamed the media, it took an unlikely golden tap in a luxurious office to turn on a rare outpouring of widespread community anger. Singapore's biggest charity, the National Kidney Foundation, was the focus of the outrage last week after an attempt to avoid scrutiny over its chief executive's lavish perks and 600,000-Singapore-dollar (350,000-US) salary spectacularly backfired. The saga began when the foundation and its chief executive, T.T. Durai, sued the Straits Times newspaper for defamation over an article published last year that raised questions about how donors' money was being spent. They claimed the article, which said a 1,000-dollar gold-plated tap had been installed in the private bathroom of Durai's office suite then removed after protests from the building contractor, had damaged the charity's reputation. In his libel suit, Durai, who had led the foundation since 1992, said the implication that donors' funds were being misused was "scandalous" and "ridiculous". However, Durai went to court apparently unaware the case would force him and the foundation to reveal a wide range of facts and practices that the Straits Times' legal counsel said the organisation had long tried to keep hidden. During a torrid two days of questioning in court by the newspaper's lawyer, Durai was forced to reveal his salary and that donors' money paid for his first-class flights overseas as well as the upkeep of his Mercedes Benz. Durai also reluctantly admitted the foundation had misled the public over how long its reserves of 260 million dollars would last if donors' money stopped pouring in, as well as how many patients it treated each year. After finally conceding the original article about the tap was indeed not defamatory, a defeated Durai on Tuesday withdrew the libel suit with his and the foundation's reputation in tatters. On Thursday, after more than 40,000 people had signed an on-line petition calling for Durai to quit and the government had expressed major concerns, he and the 15-member board resigned. Prominent lawyer Tan Choo Leng, the wife of former prime minister and current Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, also stepped down as patron of the foundation after initially publicly backing Durai's salary. It was an enormous come down for one of Singapore's highest-profile organisations, which was formed in 1969 and rose to become the self-proclaimed "largest not-for-profit (kidney) dialysis provider in the world". An estimated two thirds of Singapore's population have donated to the foundation, which employs an aggressive, commission-based marketing model and regularly holds television donation drives featuring celebrities. "This whole issue has been about transparency and accountability," 20-year-old national serviceman Lawrence Tan, who started the on-line petition after reading about the court proceedings, told AFP. "The public has showed them a lot of support for a long time, it's only right they should be held accountable by the public and that they should be more transparent." But government critics say the "golden tap scandal" has generated so many expressions of anger from the community because it was also a rare opportunity for ordinary citizens to vent their frustrations at figures of authority.
Aside from the online petition, there was also a blitz of letters to newspapers and complaints on radio talk shows, as well as the foundation's head office being vandalised with graffiti. "This is almost a surrogate situation. It's basically a reaction because they (the community) can not speak out against the government," prominent opposition politician Chee Soon Juan told AFP. "The government has basically got a lock on society." Chee said the National Kidney Foundation could not operate without having close government links. Yet he said the charity was not a direct government body and was thus seen by the public as a "safe" target for criticism. Chee said the issues of transparency, accountability and high salaries raised in the National Kidney Foundation affair were also matters of concern for the public in regards to the government. The People's Action Party, which has ruled since the nation's independence in 1965 and currently holds all but two seats in parliament, has ensured government ministers in Singapore are among the highest paid in the world, saying it keeps them from becoming corrupt. Another opposition group also said last week's charity saga raised broader questions about the use of public money by all government bodies. "The public has the right to ask, and the equivalent right to a satisfactory answer, from institutions charged with the handling of public money," National Solidarity Party president Yip Yew Weng said in a letter to the government. "These institutions include ... the nation's public offices." In pursuing defamation action, the National Kidney Foundation also attempted to use a tactic that senior Singapore government figures have successfully used over many years. The career of Singapore's most famous opposition politician, J.B. Jeyaratnam, was destroyed by defamation suits from the nation's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, among others. Fellow opposition politician Chee is also facing bankruptcy after losing a defamation suit to Lee and his successor, Goh Chok Tong. While Lee and Goh have insisted the defamation actions are necessary and legitimate actions to defend their reputations, Chee and others maintain the libel laws have been used to silence government critics. In the National Kidney Foundation's case, the charity successfully won damages and apologies from two people in 1998 who said Durai and other senior figures in the organisation had flown internationally on first class. But in court last week, the defamation tactic ended up destroying Durai's career and the NKF's reputation after he admitted that he indeed flew first-class on foundation money. - AFP AFP 17 Jul 05 |
| Return to top |
|
SINGAPORE : The National Kidney Foundation and its CEO TT Durai was the talk of town on Wednesday. This comes after they withdrew their defamation suits against Singapore Press Holdings, following a two-day hearing where the court heard about Mr Durai's pay and job perks. Some 3,800 donors have cancelled their contributions to the organisation. At the same time, some 15,000 people signed an online petition calling for Mr Durai to step down. But NKF staff have rallied behind their boss. The public spoke out swiftly - in the wee hours of the morning, vandals defaced a signboard outside the NKF building at Kim Keat Road. Painters were quick to repaint the graffiti but the damage had already been done. In cyberspace, signatures came pouring in at an online petition website for Mr Durai to step down. Even at Channelnewsasia.com's online forum, public disappointment was clear. Many donors said they would cut their donations to the charity after the revelations in court. This has now put the organisation and its spending under intense public scrutiny.
Besides this call for greater accountability, the majority of those who spoke to Channel NewsAsia said they will not stop donations to the NKF.
Despite the backlash, many staff members and patients at the National Kidney Foundation have rallied behind its chief Mr Durai, and they have also called on donors to take a more measured response to the revelations over the past few days. Dialysis patient Chan Poh Choo, 58, visits a dialysis centre three times a week for treatment. She made a plea to donors not to write off the NKF because of what has happened. Ms Chan said: "As a patient, I know the NKF has done a lot for kidney, cancer patients or else we can't afford expensive dialysis and with medical so costly now, the NKF has done a lot and I hope it will carry on with the good work they have done, as we need the funds for survival." For Job Loei, he is not just a patient but has been working closely with patients there. Mr Loei said: "Whatever money we raised goes back to the public. Mr Durai has worked very hard, I have seen him over the past four years. He is very passionate about the cause and no matter what, he has done a good job and I will stand by him." Mr Durai is seen as the engine of the organisation, not only for the 1,800 patients at the 21 dialysis centres islandwide, but also among his 900-strong staff. Ms Michelle Ang, Deputy Communications Director of NKF, said: "He addressed staff to explain the decision on withdrawing the case, and they gave him a standing ovation. "As we all know how hard he has worked, his whole life has been about the NKF, the patients especially, as he knows them by name, he sees everyone of them so we all know what TT Durai stands for and he is a great boss." That is the general consensus among many staff members of the man who has played a key role in building the NKF over the years. ChannelNewsAsia 13 Jul 2005 |
| Return to top |
|
THE National Kidney Foundation (NKF) is fast becoming a fortress under siege - with thousands of supporters deserting it, abusive red graffiti being painted on its headquarters and pressure mounting on its CEO to step down. For now, the NKF board is standing by the man it sees as an asset. The foundation insisted that Mr T T Durai (picture) was not given the chance to tell his side of the story in court - even though it was his decision to abruptly drop the defamation case against SPH. But, anger against the NKF is brewing. The first sign of trouble came at 6am yesterday, when the front wall of the NKF's headquarters at Kim Keat Road was vandalised with red graffiti screaming "Liar". While this was later covered up, more drama followed. As its board of directors scrambled to contain the damage, about 3,800 donors want to cancel their monthly donation to the NKF. An outraged public also voiced their displeasure online - more than 15,700 people have asked for the man at the centre of the storm - the CEO, Mr Durai - to quit over the uproar he ironically created himself. All this, after a two-day trial had focused on his $25,000 monthly pay and 12-month bonuses, on undisclosed business dealings, expensive toilet fittings and first-class travels. Said reader Richard Lam: "I think it is time for Mr Durai to bow out gracefully..." Fervent supporters, however, prefer to separate the man from the organisation. "Does the NKF not run its programmes well? Have patients not been given dialysis? Why are we attacking the organisation?" said a volunteer. Amid rumours that Mr Durai had unsuccessfully tendered his resignation, NKF chairman Richard Yong again pledged his support for the CEO. "He's still very much an asset to us. Mr Durai has done nothing wrong," he told Today. The board is also understood to be discussing ways to clarify certain doubts that have arisen from the trial. Said NKF's spokeswoman Michelle Ang: "To a lot of the questions put forth in court, Mr Durai was only able to answer yes or no. We feel that a lot of information that came out is only part of the story. It's not the whole story." For instance, she said although the chairman of its Children's Medical Fund board, Dr Gerard Chuah, had wrongly claimed that the NKF had 3,000 patients, NKF's chairman Mr Yong had, in fact, used the correct figure of 1,800 patients in a letter that appeared on the same page. But she admitted that NKF is "still assessing the damage". What about public calls to revamp the board? Said Mr Yong, who has been on the NKF board for 18 years: "All the board members are professionals, doctors and lawyers and accountants. They receive nothing in directorship fees. They are all volunteers." Inevitably, the whole NKF episode has also cast a pall over the charity movement in Singapore. The National Council of Social Service said it has received several calls from donors who have concerns about how charities manage donations. Meanwhile, some NKF donors have called to switch their allegiance to the Kidney Dialysis Foundation (KDF), instead. Said its CEO Dr Gordon Ku: "It is sad for the NKF episode to have taken place. For the charity scene, there is now a dent in public confidence. But it's positive in that people have suddenly woken up and want to know where their donations are going." Meanwhile, the show will go on in NKF, which is holding its final fund-raising event tonight (Thursday) to raise money for its cancer patients. For the first two shows over the past two weekends, it raised a total of $10.43 million. But Mr Yong said he hopes the public won't take it out on the patients. Asked if this was the worst crisis NKF has faced, he said: "I would say so. In 1986 and 87, when we had no money, that was also a crisis, but we built it up. This is one crisis which we have to ride through. Patients have to continue their treatment. Everything must go on." TodayOnline 14 Jul 2005 THE National Kidney Foundation began its day yesterday with graffiti splashed on its walls - and by 5.30pm, more than 3,800 of its regular donors had stopped their contributions. Calls for NKF chief T. T. Durai´s resignation took concrete form in an online petition started by full-time national serviceman Lawrence Tan, garnering over 18,000 signatures as at midnight. Public outrage reached an unprecedented scale, with The Straits Times newsroom inundated with hundreds of e-mail messages and dozens of calls to its hotline. Readers were angry at the size of chief executive officer Durai´s salary and his perks, as well as how the NKF had misled the public on the number of years its reserves will last and the number of patients it treats. But even as vitriol was poured on Singapore´s biggest charity, calmer voices pointed out that there were kidney patients in need of donations - and that the episode should not diminish contributions to charity. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan told The Straits Times yesterday the NKF must provide more information and explain its actions to regain the public´s confidence. ´The key to gaining confidence is full transparency.´ But he made it clear he will continue donating to charity, whether it is to the NKF, ComChest or others ´because there are people out there who can benefit from it´. In court this week, the NKF admitted to having $260 million in reserves, enough to subsidise dialysis treatment for 30 years at the current subsidy rates - not the three years it has consistently maintained. Mr Khaw, who had spoken in support of the NKF when it maintained that three years was how long its reserves would last, had this advice for the NKF yesterday ´If there was bad judgment, then acknowledge it and move on.´ Politicians like MP Chong Weng Chiew echoed Mr Khaw´s call for greater transparency, in particular, its expenditure ´on publicity, manpower, administration and patients´. He also wants to know how the NKF assesses patients for subsidies, as he had been approached many times by kidney-failure patients who had been rejected by the NKF. The issue of transparency was a key plank in The Straits Times´ defence against the defamation suit brought on by NKF and Mr Durai. Among other things, SPH´s lawyer, Mr Davinder Singh, spoke of the difficulty of getting the NKF to disclose that Mr Durai earned more than half a million dollars a year and how, contrary to its oft-stated position, he had travelled first class. The NKF withdrew its suit against Singapore Press Holdings and journalist Susan Long on Tuesday. Lawyers for the two parties met again at a hearing in Justice Tan Lee Meng´s chambers to address the issue of costs yesterday. The matter has been adjourned to Monday. It was Ms Long´s article published on April 19 last year that was the subject of contention, particularly its opening paragraphs which reported lavish toilet fittings in the bathroom of the CEO´s private office. Before withdrawing the suit on Tuesday, Mr Durai admitted in court that the article was fair and accurate and told reporters after the hearing that he would not resign ´unless the people want him to´. Non-constituency MP Steve Chia said yesterday Mr Durai should resign as ´he has lost his moral authority to ask for money´. NKF staff, however, are standing by their chief. Ms Michelle Ang, NKF´s deputy director of corporate communications, said ´They are still solidly behind him and know the high degree of his commitment to NKF.´ The Straits Times 14 Jul 05 |
| Return to top |
|
Interim chairman expected by weekend and a new board to be constituted quickly THEIR faces grim, National Kidney Foundation chief T.T. Durai and board chairman Richard Yong emerged from the Health Ministry building at 3.30pm yesterday. They were hustled into cars, declining to say what had transpired during their meeting earlier with Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan. This was what happened. They had gone to consult Mr Khaw on what they should do in the wake of public outrage over the way the NKF rewarded its chief and misled people into thinking it needed more money. They were told 'the status quo would not do'. They asked if the board should make way for new leaders. Mr Khaw's reply: 'That would certainly be very helpful.' That phrase marked the end of a 37-year association between Mr Durai and Singapore's largest charity. At 6.30pm, Mr Khaw announced the resignation of Mr Durai and the entire NKF board at a press conference attended by Mr Durai, Mr Yong and NKF board vice-chairman Alwyn Lim. Asked about his future, the NKF CEO of 13 years told reporters that his 'paramount interest' now was to help Mr Khaw in the transition stage. Businessman Piragasam Singaravelu, 45, whom the NKF sued for libel in December 1998, described the en masse resignation last night as the 'best news for Singaporeans, especially those who donated to NKF'. Right up to yesterday morning, it had looked as though Mr Durai, 57, intended to ride out the controversy that began with NKF's lawsuit against The Straits Times over expensive toilet fittings - and ended with disclosures it had paid its CEO $1.8 million over three years, allowed him first class air travel and maintained his private car. Calls for Mr Durai's resignation escalated with close to 40,000 signatures put on an online petition, and more than 6,800 donors cancelling their monthly contributions to the charity in two days. The NKF Cancer Show on Channel U last night made no attempt to solicit donations from the viewing public, in line with the suspension of canvassing activities. Mr Khaw hopes to find an interim chairman by the weekend and get a board constituted quickly to review NKF's practices, serve kidney patients and restore public confidence in the institution. Among the board's tasks: To determine if the NKF reserves, now standing at $260 million, would last 40 years as in the 'rosy picture' painted in the media, or the NKF's 'tragic' three years. Despite the 'unfortunate turn of events', Mr Khaw issued the reminder that the NKF had done much good over the years, with Singapore's dialysis care among the best in the world. The NKF had transformed itself into such an effective fund-raiser that it was he who had asked Mr Durai to branch into serving cancer patients as well, he disclosed. Although some might argue that 'some of the techniques may be a little bit outside OB markers', he said he was in favour of more 'NKFs' with professionals running their fund-raising operations. With one big caveat. Because the 'stakeholders' are donors, they need to know as much as possible about the finances and practices of those out for the charity dollar. 'As I always maintain, donation is voluntary. So it is self-regulating in that sense because if you are so opaque, secretive or whatever, who would donate to you? But the more transparent you are, I think you win greater public trust,' he said. The larger issue, however, is whether Singaporeans are ready for charities to be run like corporations with key performance indicators and employment contracts. He asked: 'Should VWOs be uncontroversial and remain amateurish, old-style, collect little... or is there not a place in Singapore for a different kind of VWO?' But what was clear: he himself would continue donating to the NKF because patients would benefit. The question of whether too much money had been collected could always be settled by channelling the money to other causes. He made a plea to the public not to delve into 'history', but to restore the NKF by building on its strengths. 'I am determined to help... NKF... emerge from this incident even stronger so that patients continue to be served.' Last night's announcement of an interim committee replacing the current board was welcomed all round. Those contacted want the committee to go through NKF books with 'a fine-tooth comb', as insurance adviser Robert Young, 53, put it. Said Mr Brandon Lee, 33, a businessman: 'We also want the Government to put in measures to make sure such things don't happen again.' Mr Johari Marzuki, 46, father of four and an NKF patient for 15 years has only one item on his wish list: 'I hope people don't react emotionally and cancel their donations. There are so many lives that depend on it.' The Straits Times 15 Jul 2005 Two days of outrage force Durai, board to quit IN A dramatic end to his 37-year career, a defeated T T Durai finally succumbed to public pressure yesterday, quitting the chief executive officer hotseat at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), along with its entire board of directors. The resignations - which came in the afternoon - were accepted by Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, who admitted that the Government had "no legal rights" to intervene in a private charity. The fact that it still did so spoke volumes of the impact of the public outcry Singaporeans have raised over transparency issues at the country's best-known charity. At a hastily-arranged press briefing yesterday, Mr Khaw said the NKF had approached him for "advice" on how to respond to the public anger that has seen thousands calling for Mr Durai's head. Two priorities emerged - not disrupting dialysis services for NKF's patients, and restoring public confidence in the charity, which has been shattered. Said Mr Khaw: "On public confidence, my advice was that the status quo will not do. They asked if they should step down so that a new board and CEO could be appointed. I told them this would certainly be very helpful." Meanwhile, active fundraising in NKF will be suspended while the Government scouts for replacements and reviews NKF's accounting practices, funding needs, pricing and subsidy policies, said Mr Khaw. The review - as well as the resignations - have ironically come in the wake of a defamation suit that Mr Durai and NKF had filed over a newspaper report that mentioned the air of luxury at the foundation. The case ended, instead, with revelations about Mr Durai's annual earnings of $600,000, the cars at his disposal and suggestions of half-truths in NKF's public pronouncements. The Government now needs to look at some of these issues of extravagance and transparency - including the unresolved question of just how long NKF's reserves can last. "Is it as rosy as what has been painted in the media - that (the reserves) can last 40-odd years - or is it as tragic as the three years that has been presented (by the NKF)? The truth is that it could be somewhere in the middle," said Mr Khaw. He also said that if investigations reveal criminal activities, the law will take over. "If funds collected suddenly disappear into Swiss funds, then of course that's criminal. If that is so, we have to find out who is responsible," he said. However, reviews may show there's nothing wrong with NKF, he said. "I hope Singaporeans will also acknowledge that if these accusations were exaggerated and unfair to individuals, they should also come upfront and say so. I'm sure the individuals want to have a proper scrutiny and endorsement. Am I a crook, criminal or what?" he said. Yesterday, the NKF representatives - consisting of Mr Durai, chairman Richard Yong, and vice-chairman Alwyn Lim - were mostly silent during the press conference. Gone were their repeated insistence that "they have done no wrong" in creating a public relations nightmare. Although Mr Durai abruptly withdrew his suit on Tuesday, the damage had already been done. By Wednesday, red graffiti defaced NKF's headquarters as 6,800 donors pulled out and thousands more petitioned for Mr Durai to quit. As the chorus of voices grew louder, government leaders also gave their take on the fiasco. Yesterday morning, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said at an industry event that while the government cannot force any decisions on the NKF, it will "watch very closely" and "nudge people in the right direction". By evening, the nudge had become and invitation to leave _ though Mr Durai would not say if the government's stand pushed his hand. Speaking to reporters, a drained and solemn Mr Durai said: "I think it's time for a new leadership to take over. Having brought the organisation to a level like this, it's preferable for a new leadership to take it to another level. Thirty-seven years is a very long time." But he will not leave alone. NKF patron, Mrs Goh Chok Tong, who has thrown her support behind Mr Durai throughout the controversy, has also decided to relinquish her position. In a statement, she said: "This has been a sad and unfortunate episode. But I hope that Singaporeans will continue to support the NKF's efforts to help kidney failure patients and their families." The board that had backed Mr Durai has resigned too. Over the next few days, Mr Khaw will be busy finding a new chairman for NKF. The new board, however, may consist of existing NKF directors, for "continuity" reasons. Despite the public flak, the NKF's model of professional fund-raising was praised for its efficiency. "It would be a loss for Singapore if we go back to the old days, if we collect a few dollars here, a few cents there," he said. In fact, after the review, NKF reserves may be diversified into other causes, he revealed. But bigger implications may result from the NKF fiasco. For instance, there may be closer scrutiny on other charities, and if need be, the government may tighten regulatory controls, said Mr Khaw. Vowing to help NKF "get back to basics", Mr Khaw said: "I'm against destroying in order to rebuild. This is stupid, silly and a waste of time. Unless it's so rotten, then it's a different story. I don't think it's rotten. Good work has been done, and let us build on that strength." TodayOnline 15 Jul 2005 Click here to toggle full text Chairman and Members of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Board, together with its CEO, approached the Minister for Health this afternoon for advice on how to respond to public reactions to the ongoing court case between the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the Singapore Press Holdings. The Minister stressed two immediate priorities. First, care for NKF's dialysis patients should not be disrupted in any way. Second, shattered public confidence must be restored. The NKF Board members and the CEO shared this view. On restoring public confidence, the NKF Board and the CEO sought the Minister's intervention and offered to resign in order to give him a free hand in this. In particular, they requested Minister's assistance to reconstitute a new Board and appoint a new CEO. NKF is an independent non-Governmental Voluntary Welfare Organisation. However, in the interest of the dialysis patients and the NKF, the Minister agreed to help in this effort. Over the next few days, the Government will appoint an interim board to ensure continuous operation of NKF's various Dialysis Centres, as well as to work on medium-term tasks, including forming a new Board, appointing a new CEO, reviewing accounting practices, funding needs, and pricing and subsidy policies. Pending completion of these reviews, NKF will suspend active fund-raising activities. The Minister acknowledged that the NKF has been a key partner in providing care for kidney patients. There will continue to be many patients needing such help and the cause for charity should not be diminished by this episode.
|
|
|
| Return to top |
|
20 Jul 2005 THE NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION (Statement by the Minister for Health) Mr Khaw Boon Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the revelations in the High Court on 11th and 12th July by Mr T T Durai, then-CEO of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), gripped the attention of Singaporeans and sparked widespread outrage. They eventually led to his resignation and the resignation of the entire Board of Directors. The intensity of the public reaction is understandable. Many Singaporeans have donated to the NKF with good intentions of supporting the less fortunate who suffer from kidney, cancer and other diseases. The donors are naturally upset by the disclosures which seemed to suggest overly-generous staff compensation, improper spending, weak Board governance and misleading statements on fund reserves. They feel misled, betrayed and deceived. While such emotions are understandable, we need, at the same time, to remain objective and not lose sight of the bigger picture. The NKF cause is a worthy one. There are real patients out there who have benefited from the work of the NKF and who continue to require care. I have visited the NKF dialysis centres before, and so have many Members of this House. We have spoken to the patients. They were sincerely grateful and happy with the work of the NKF in giving them a new lease of life. I believe that Singaporeans know this and support the NKF's fundamental cause. That is why the NKF enjoys such widespread support, with more than half a million Singaporeans making donations to the NKF last year. Continued patient care Therefore, while it is important that we look into the issues which the court case has thrown up, we must not allow them to distract attention from the NKF's patients in need. Our top priority must be to ensure that patient care and existing clinical services are not disrupted. The NKF runs 21 dialysis centres, serving 1,800 patients regularly. Professional standards and services must remain intact. Patients must continue to receive their medical treatments. They must continue to have access to their doctors and nurses, dialysis machines, medication and medical advice. Equally important, we must not forget the staff of the NKF: the doctors, nurses, administrative and support staff. Their morale has taken a beating. They are a dedicated group, serving a cause which they believe in. They need the assurance that their work is appreciated, and that they can carry on delivering patient care without distraction or worries about their future. Despite a difficult week, they have rallied together to ensure that the work still gets done. They need our moral support. Regaining public confidence But NKF must acknowledge that public confidence has been shattered. For the NKF to continue its work, it must address this comprehensively. Putting a new, strong Board in place The immediate task is to put in place a new, strong Board to stabilise the situation. A few people have questioned my involvement, and by extension, the Government's involvement in this matter. They are concerned about the Government's intervention in the affairs of a voluntary organisation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the NKF is indeed a private non-Governmental Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWO). It was founded in 1969 and registered in 1984 under the Charities Act. It is not a Government-linked entity, nor is it run by the Government. It has its own governance framework to manage its organisational issues. However, as public pressure built up last week, the NKF Board of Directors and its CEO came to see me on Thursday, 14th July. They asked for advice on how to respond to the crisis. They sought my help, presumably because patients' welfare was at stake, and their Institution of Public Character (IPC) status, which allows them to collect tax-exempt donations, was issued by my Ministry. I told them candidly that they had lost the public trust. The NKF was built up by public donations. Without public support, the NKF could not continue. For the NKF to survive, its top priority was to regain public confidence. They agreed with my assessment and asked me if I could help shepherd the NKF through this crisis. I told them bluntly that the status quo would not do. I added that a new Board and a new CEO would offer the best chance of winning back public confidence. They took in the message and offered to resign en-bloc to give me a free hand to reconstitute a new Board and to appoint a new CEO. That was how I got involved in this assignment. This was Friday, 14th July. In my view, the key to preserving public confidence and sustaining a vibrant voluntary sector is full accountability and transparency of all charities and IPCs. This should be achieved, first and foremost, through the efforts of the voluntary organisations themselves - their ethos, culture and policies - as determined by their Boards of Directors. This is why my first urgent task was to find a suitable Chairman for the NKF. After pondering a few possibilities, I approached Mr Gerard Ee. I am glad he is in the Chamber today. He is in the Public Gallery. I felt he was the best person to lead in this healing process. He is synonymous with charity and compassion, and is a well-known public figure. On 15th July, I got his agreement to chair the new Board. Gerard and I quickly got on to the next task of forming the rest of the Board. To regain public confidence, the Board needed Directors with high standing in their professions and in the community, with reputations for integrity and high ethical standards. Today, I am pleased to report that a new NKF Board of Directors has been appointed. In fact, they have already held their first Board Meeting. The new Board comprises: (a) Mr Gerard Ee, as Chairman; (b) Mr Koh Cher Siang, a retired Permanent Secretary and a former Commissioner of Charities, as Deputy Chairman; The other Board Members are: (a) Mr Gan Seow Aan, Executive Vice-President of Singapore Exchange Ltd; (b) Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, a Senior Counsel and current President of the Singapore Law Society; (c) Mr Ng Boon Yew, Chairman of Raffles Campus and a member of the Council that drew up the new Code of Governance of IPCs; (d) Mr Peter Seah, Member of the Temasek Advisory Board and Chairman of both SembCorp Industries and ST Engineering; (e) Mr Ernest Wong, Group CEO of MediaCorp. He is also a Director of the UOB Board and chairs Nanyang Technological University's Endowment Fund Investment Committee; and (f) Prof. Woo Keng Thye, Senior Consultant Nephrologist at Singapore General Hospital. These are competent and senior individuals, with vast experience and diverse skill sets, covering accounting, banking, business, corporate governance, legal and medical expertise. Together with Gerard Ee, they form a very strong Board with sound values and good community instincts. I know most of them personally, and I believe most are known to Members of this House too. They have good hearts and good heads. And this job requires a good balance of the heart and the head. I was not at their first Board Meeting, because I have no business to be there, but I was told that the mood was cheerful and determined. I think the obvious competence of these Directors helped everyone feel comfortable. And Gerard Ee was, as usual, organised, confident and calm, calm without daily meditation. I am optimistic that the new leadership will enable the NKF to start afresh, on a sound footing. Their first task is to appoint a new CEO. Choosing a good CEO is the single most important responsibility of any Board of Directors. They will need to take their time on this assignment. Being new to NKF, they would first need to be clear of the organisation, its mission and objectives, before they can decide on the skill sets that a CEO needs. They should not rush through this. That said, there is much work to be done, with daily operations to run and reviews to address the various issues which have been raised. Hence, I suggested to the Board that, in the meantime, I ask a hospital cluster to second a senior hospital administrator to be the interim CEO. An experienced hospital administrator who is familiar with managing healthcare facilities will be most appropriate at this time of need. I have such a candidate in mind but the person has to be acceptable to the new Board. We hope to settle this and announce it within the next few days. Meanwhile, the Board has to identify and prioritise the many issues confronting the NKF. As I see it, six crucial areas require their early attention. First, is the continuation of patient care and the restoration of staff morale, which I touched on earlier. Second, they must fully address the public unease and disquiet over allegations of questionable practices and inappropriate spending of charity funds. Let me note here that the NKF's accounts have been audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) since 1999. Based on the Ministry of Health records, no major findings were raised, at least post-2001 when NKF's IPC came under the Ministry of Health. The new Board will no doubt want to discuss further with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, to get their insights on the NKF based on their past audit experience. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for the Board to commission a fresh, detailed review of financial controls within the organisation. They need to specifically ask the questions which Singaporeans have been asking: Have donations been wasted on inappropriate things? Were charitable funds used lavishly or improperly? Have there been lapses in judgment? Were any funds misappropriated? If so, could these lapses have been detected earlier? The new Board has moved very quickly and appointed KPMG to conduct this review. The Terms of Reference of the review are being discussed. I will advise the Board to make public the findings in due course. Third, the Board should review the adequacy of the reserves built up for dialysis patients. Is it three years, as presented by the NKF, or 30 years, as argued by the Singapore Press Holdings in the High Court? This will help the Board determine its immediate fund-raising needs. Meanwhile, I am glad that the NKF has taken my advice not to embark on new fund-raising activities until the Board has deliberated and determined what the funding needs of the NKF are. Fourth, they should review corporate governance. A Board of Directors has fiduciary responsibility for overall good governance. Did the NKF Board maintain sufficient independence from the management, to provide the necessary oversight and checks on management? How was CEO's compensation determined? What was the basis of his bonus payment? Court disclosures suggest that the organisation's system of checks and balances was inadequate. Was this the case? If so, what safeguards should the Board put in place to prevent a recurrence?
A second component of restoring public confidence is putting in place a robust regulatory framework for charities and IPCs. Arising from the NKF incident, Singaporeans are asking if the Government had adequate safeguards against abuses and malpractices by charities and IPCs, and whether a tighter regulatory framework could have prevented the sad turn of events for the NKF.
Charities and IPCs are governed by two pieces of legislation, through which the Government sets the basic requirements for governance and transparency. The framework is basically sound, and the legislation has served us well.
Notwithstanding the current regulatory framework, one may ask if we need more and tighter rules for charities and IPCs to prevent future mishaps. The answer is not straightforward.
From a small local VWO, the NKF is today recognised as one of the leading dialysis providers in the world, with very good clinical results. The NKF has a vision to become a pace-setter on the international stage. It organises international medical conferences on nephrology and transplants, in conjunction with world-renowned nursing institutions.
In fact, just an hour before coming to Parliament this morning, I happened to receive a letter from the Samoa Health Minister. I just received it although it was dated and sent quite sometime ago. I suppose postal service takes some time. Unfortunately, the font size is very small. But the gist is that Singapore's NKF seconded a few staff, paid for by Samoa, led by one Dr Prabhakar. He is a renal physician, and together with two other NKF staff, helped to supervise and run this centre. They were so pleased with this arrangement and the whole service that is being provided that the Prime Minister of Samoa has decided to bestow a High Chief title called muagututiÄ to Dr Prabhakar. The award has already been given and the letter was to inform me that they have decided on this and partly also to thank me for the match-making role. Incidentally, Dr Prabhakar is my constituent in Moulmein. Just three days ago, on Sunday, when I was doing my house-to-house visit, the wife was there when I knocked at the unit. I cannot recognise her but she can recognise me. She said that her husband is right now in Samoa. We talked a little bit about NKF. So I have not neglected my constituency duties.
I know many find such developments jarring. They are used to the traditional model of charity. Yesterday, Dr Robert Loh wrote to the Straits Times to suggest that the NKF should return to this traditional model. Bob Loh is another person synonymous with charity and compassion. He is a former President of the National Council of Social Services. He personifies kindness and decency, a most wonderful man. He even finds time to help me in my Moulmein Constituency as a grassroots leader. Volunteers like him, Gerard Ee and Jennie Chua spend much of their time, energy, expertise and resources contributing to charity work without any compensation. They teach us and spread the message of philanthropy. Singapore is a much stronger society because of such individuals. But I believe that our charity landscape can accommodate a diversity of models. There is nothing wrong with a large charity outfit run by professionals instead of volunteers, provided it is properly governed and managed. As one commentator pointed out, it is not wrong to combine "the passion of a social mission with an image of business-like discipline, innovation, and determination". We should not lose sight of the possibility that there can some day be a Singapore Oxfam or the equivalent of an International Red Cross but based in Singapore. Running such a large charity outfit will require full-time professionals. To recruit and retain such talent, the charity outfit has to pay a competitive wage. It is the responsibility of the Board to determine what this wage is and to defend their decision, if necessary. To avoid abuses and criticisms, the Board will need a robust human resource management system to design an appropriate compensation scheme, a sensible incentive bonus programme and proper checks-and-balances which ensure independence between the Board and the CEO. Unfortunately, the former NKF Board appears to have fallen short in this regard. It will also be necessary for such an outfit to be transparent in its disclosure, so that donors can be satisfied that their money is being put to good use. There is a dilemma here - if the charity declares every detail of its senior staff's remuneration, many capable people may not want to work there, but if it does not do so, donors may be unsatisfied, and may take their donations elsewhere. This is a real problem which many organisations face. There is no ideal solution to be found in governance rules or disclosure standards, though these are necessary. In the end, we must depend on putting people of integrity in charge, and earning the trust of the public that honourable men are doing their best for a good cause. Conclusion
I am confident that, together, we can turn this unhappy saga into a fruitful learning experience with a positive outcome. The cause for charity should not be diminished by this episode. If we learn the right lessons, and are skilful in managing the growth of our charities and IPCs, our charity landscape and our society will emerge stronger, to the benefit of all Singaporeans. While the process of change takes place, I appeal to Singaporeans to remain objective, patient and generous. Meanwhile, Singaporeans with the passion, expertise and knowledge should continue to step forward and help our many charities. They can offer to serve on Boards to help improve governance, or serve as volunteers to help charities provide better services at lower cost. Indeed, many Singaporeans are making a difference to the community every day. Let us not allow one sad episode to discourage us from doing good. Instead, let us pick ourselves up and do even more to help our fellows in need.
Mr Speaker, Sir, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44, I beg to move, That the Ministerial Statement on the National Kidney Foundation be considered by Parliament. Question proposed. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I w |