NKF saga
Changing the future
May impact on politics. Singaporeans resent being cheated or exploited; difference is they have the means to rally quickly.By Seah Chiang Nee
Jul 17, 2005
Comments from readers

The final chapter is not yet written, but what has happened at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) has already made history in Singapore.

Score one: For the first time, mass public action has resulted in the ouster of a strong elite - its powerful CEO T.T Durai. The Chairman and the entire Board also stepped down.

Rarely have Singaporeans showed such unanimous purpose in demanding change and it worked, an undeniable plus for democracy. They deserve the biggest credit.

Explanation? A generation of Singaporeans has been raised by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew into believing in honesty and transparency.

Theirs is a powerful message to all politicians that despite their apparent meekness, they will not tolerate it if their trust and generosity is abused. Two out of three had contributed to NKF.

Secondly, the power of The Internet (hitherto ridiculed as 'all talk no action') in bringing change in society was evident. It successfully rallied the masses within two days and helped convince the government that speedy action was crucial.

Bravo, ST and Mr. Khaw

The first credit, however, should go to The Straits Times (in particular reporter Susan Long) for standing up to an all-too common defamation threat by an influential entity. It couldn't have asked for a better 160th birthday present.

If the newspaper (frequently accused of being too obedient) had lost its nerve, the warts in the National Kidney Foundation would have remained hidden, possibly leading to a bigger blow-up later on.

And a big pat on the back, too, for Health Minister, Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, who acted with incredible speed and pressed all the right buttons to nudge out the old and ring in the new. In fact, the whole government machinery moved decisively.

Immediate impacts

Firstly, the controversial corporate culture that has crept into Singapore's biggest charity body, including its chief executive's large pay and perks, has come to an end.

It is unlikely that people will accept a high spending culture to take hold of charity again.

Secondly, the rejection of paying mega-wages to charity executives has moved into politics and the civil service, with the same arguments.

Charity and government are about service to people; Singapore is too small and its economy is still weak.

Thirdly, Some smarter charities and GPO's will start looking at their own operations, including salaries and perks of their directors or CEOs - just in case.

Fourthly, people in public service will probably be reminded again to watch their action and words and avoid overly lavish spending. Actually Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong recently appealed to the ruling elite against arrogance, one of the charges levelled on Mr. Durai. There are othrs like him.

Nowadays, more Singaporeans are openly complaining about elites living lavish lifestyle when the income gap between the rich and poor is widening.

History in other countries has showed how such developments have ended.

The NKF dam broke after Mr. Durai was forced to admit that his annual remuneration was $600,000 (including 12 months bonus) or S1.8m in three years.

In addition his office had luxurious toilet fittings, a gold-plated tap and he had traveled first-class all on money collected for needy kidney patients.

At the press conference, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan said the new Board and CEO would review the Foundation's practices and map a new future. "If it reveals anything illegal, we will take action."

The impact was felt throughout the whole charity scene that may take time to heal. Even after the change, a Channel News Asia survey revealed that 84% of 1,600 Singaporeans declared they had lost confidence in donating to charities.

On his plus side, the hard-working, entrepreneurial Durai had compiled an extraordinary horde of S$260m, enough for 30 years of current subsidies for patients.

His staff describes him as a passionate man with a mission who works 12-14 hours a day, seven days a week. In 37 years he had engineered a good money-raising machine that has saved many lives.

Durai evidently believed that the end justified the means and that his success entitled him to corporate-size rewards, irrespective of the charity objective.

All this has also led to calls for similar reviews on non-government and even government agencies to ensure no NKF-type diseases lurk.

He also lied or misled the public into believing that the Foundation had reserves for only three years (instead of 30-40) and was handling 3,000 patients when it had only fewer than 2,000.

Unknown to NKF directors, Durai held several directorships, which paid him S$25,000 a year. He also had commercial ties with a company that had a contract with the NKF.

The controversy threatened to involve the government, when its patron Mrs. Goh Chok Tong announced her "complete trust in NKF and its CEO."

Adding fuel to fire, she had described Durai's $600,000 pay as "peanuts" for someone who ran a multi-million dollar charity.

Mr. Goh has since said that his wife has regretted making the remarks. This, however, came a day after another online petition (3,100 signatures) had started asking her to apologise.

Critics accused her of being out of touch with the people. With the average Singaporeans jobless or under-employed or suffered salary cuts, her remarks stirred deep resentment.

Although she was speaking in her personal capacity, some PAP supporters fear it would damage the party or her husband's image.

On a wider picture, the government's major concern lies on the decline of the public's participation in charity.

This is worrying because in the face of rising health costs, it is relying more and more on private organisations like the National Kidney Foundation to look after the poor and sick.

In fact, the NKF has just extended its operation to include cancer patients and help children of patients.

Singapore has always rejected welfarism, considering it best for families and the society, not taxpayers, to take care of the needy.

If the NKF's fund-raising abilities are scarred or if public generosity does not recover, the country's aged and sick will be affected. With the promise of reforms, a few donors say they are ready to refocus on the Foundation's viability.

Kidney failure is on the rise here and dialysis treatment costs at least S$2,000 a month.

NKF subsidises only 20 per cent of this, which pales in comparison to the high administrative budget. It will likely come under review.

With the success of this mass movement in creatively bringing about changes in society, it has become clear that politics will no longer be the same.

Lawrence Tan, a 20-year-old national serviceman, played a landmark role when his online website petitioning for Mr. Durai's resignation or ouster, received some 40,000 signatures.

Internet petition is, of course, not new; it had been used recently to oppose lifting the ban on casinos and the hike in cinema prices. But his is the first success.

Will this 'people power' work in other areas? Not unless agitators have a just, popular cause.

The Singaporean masses will probably react only to a major provocation - and the NKF case has provided some benchmarks what it can be.
Seah Chiang Nee