NKF-that can of worms has already been opened!
-
make no cents why topic such as "Linkage to surpluses in ministers' bonuses like NKF?" was closed/locked
http://sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=142710
comon tell me where you from? PAP? ISD? you being paid peanuts as well to clean things in here? tidy?Originally posted by robertteh:I wonder if there has been the same belief among the ministers that their salaries or bonuses should be a percentage of our national revenues or budget surpluses as has been tacitly assumed by the NKF board that resulted in all the problems which finally led to their court expose by Davinder.
Do our ministers believe like the NKF that the reserve and surpluses are attributable to their abilities or talents. Apparently they have been using our monies as collected as measures of their talents? The private sector believes that only those who brought in business are entitled to super bonuses or million-dollar salaries.
Is the NKF case a copy of the original or the ministers' bonuses original to the NKF copy? -
What if I'm working in LTA? Ask the GOV, whether can I set up my own company selling things to LTA? Or whether can I be a contractor to tender for LTA's projects?Originally posted by cannynabbe:The funny thing is that if T.T Durai didn't sue SPH and its senior writer Ms Susan Long, these rotten beans wouldn't be spilled... and people would still be happily donating to NKF on Thursday's show. and the two persons who were earlier sued by T.T Durai under similar circumstances would still be misjudged...and Singaporeans will still live in ignorance and bliss.... and T.T Durai will continue to get his 12 months bonus and who knows... more taps in gold-platings... Well.. thats a very hypothetical IF... I digress..
Well, however I do agree that being a CEO of a VWO with the scale and means of NKF should be paid a decent wage... but bonus of 12 months for a few years running, especially with the economy in bad shape... its a hard pill to swallow. So what exactly are the KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) of NKF? What performance benchmarks were so well attained to warrant a 12 month bonus to NKF's CEO. Is NKF's KPIs the number of patients it treats, or the number of patients it turn away because they dun qualify..? or is it the amount of money that NKF raise during the charity shows. The effectiveness of NKF should be measured by the number of patients it treats...regardless of race, religion, social status.... and not by the dollars and cents raised during charity events... nor the number of cars that donors won....nor by the amount of publicity the public saw....
NKF's policy of determining who it should serve must be changed.
If NKF doesn't have such a huge reserve, one can understand why they refuse to help middle-class patients... but it seems that with all the money on offer for lucky draws and cars... not to mention the CEO's pay packages and expensive bathroom fittings... one cannot help but wonder why there are kidney patients who were refused help by NKF.
Lastly, while Mr T.T Durai has not done anything against the law... except maybe for his non-disclosure of directorship in another company which counts NKF as one of its main customers. I am wondering if there are any breaches in commercial law here... is there any corruption involved?
The absence of integrity here... is sadly..omni-present
Or if I'm a doctor of SGH? Can I set up a drugs & medical equipment company and supply drugs and mediical equipment to SGH? -
I agree with Joshua1975 that Linkage to surpluses in ministers' bonuses like NKF" is a new topic like Commission of Inquiry and issues discussed will not be on NFK's wrong doings but the solutions of problems.Originally posted by Joshua1975:make no cents why topic such as "Linkage to surpluses in ministers' bonuses like NKF?" was closed/locked
http://sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=142710comon tell me where you from? PAP? ISD? you being paid peanuts as well to clean things in here? tidy? -
yada yada yada.............. still the same
-
Have the leaders practised transparent recruitment policies in the first place being more open and willing to accept candidates of practical experiences in filling up of high positions in civil or public organizations.
It seems that the only people deemed to be talented are always restricted by narrower interpretations either based on academic qualification alone or elites' own narrow circle of connections or past associations.
The often-talked about Meritocracy exists only in name as filling of high positions is very much based on self-created restricted criteria of all kinds.
Arising from the NKF incident it is now clearly established that it is not true that we do not have talents or are we having too much problem in getting right people to fill the top posts in public service.
There are many more people who are experienced or capable as Gerald Ee many of whom are more dedicated and transparent than those produced so far. It is again a matter of transparency in recruitments policy that is at fault not our people's talents.
Beside Gerald Ee or Tan Kin Lian I am sure we have the following larger pool of talents who are cheaper to employ and more capable than many of the government's connections such as the following categories:-
(1) The large number of qualified and experienced professionals with track records in their respective previous positions who will accept much less that the S$600,000 paid to Durai or the likes.
(2) We have many retiring well-proven people who have proven themselves in practical works but not spotted or given half a chance in our meritocracy-restricted society which only looks good from the outside.
The real issue behind all the often-talked about shortage of talents is the government policies and practices. If these policies and practices are narrowly defined to restrict our choices to their own kinds we will never have any talents. -
i second you 100%Originally posted by robertteh:Have the leaders practised transparent recruitment policies in the first place being more open and willing to accept candidates of practical experiences in filling up of high positions in civil or public organizations.
It seems that the only people deemed to be talented are always restricted by narrower interpretations either based on academic qualification alone or elites' own narrow circle of connections or past associations.
The often-talked about Meritocracy exists only in name as filling of high positions is very much based on self-created restricted criteria of all kinds.
Arising from the NKF incident it is now clearly established that it is not true that we do not have talents or are we having too much problem in getting right people to fill the top posts in public service.
There are many more people who are experienced or capable as Gerald Ee many of whom are more dedicated and transparent than those produced so far. It is again a matter of transparency in recruitments policy that is at fault not our people's talents.
Beside Gerald Ee or Tan Kin Lian I am sure we have the following larger pool of talents who are cheaper to employ and more capable than many of the government's connections such as the following categories:-
(1) The large number of qualified and experienced professionals with track records in their respective previous positions who will accept much less that the S$600,000 paid to Durai or the likes.
(2) We have many retiring well-proven people who have proven themselves in practical works but not spotted or given half a chance in our meritocracy-restricted society which only looks good from the outside.
The real issue behind all the often-talked about shortage of talents is the government policies and practices. If these policies and practices are narrowly defined to restrict our choices to their own kinds we will never have any talents. -
I thought I read in the papers last week that several MPs, including some very vocal ones, were to ask questions on the NKF saga in Parliament this week, starting Monday.
Did i miss anything or indeed the issue was not raised at all ?
Only a minister statement from MOH tomolo.
Comments anybody ? -
the script still not ready... craking heads on what to say, words to avoid are peanuts, good man who done good jobs, words like toilet tap are to be avoid at all cost.
BODs are not... repeat... BOD are not to be bring out as ppl will ask how much are they paid? what did they do in the 1st place? did they used any of the 8 cars.
when talk about the centre, dun talk about the fish tank. ppl working there are they happy with the ROLEX?
phew... it not easy to come out with such script know...
me think they will say let move on and all 4get, nothing will happen to watrai, BODs etc etc... move on to the 2nd rai who may install a gold shower head with another group of BOD and new patron who may used flake for 600k.
hope they dun disappoint me... me want to see how good the cover up work is. -
yes, you are right as it is difficult to write that scripts(scrpipts of the century) and rehearse them! He ca'nt hurt those who earn $500/month and donate $0.25 per week, neither he should hurt those on the same boat and those who kept praising NKF for his job well done!For all you know he will try not to open up another few (beautiful) cans of worms!
-
A friend found this gem in a blog - singaporeangle.blogspot - and emailed me:
Charity or helping the poor and needy
Rather, I want to tell a story--and this time, it's a real life present day story--about the Aravind Eye Care System, based in Madurai, India (hat tip to this book; scroll down).
In brief, Aravind is a profit making institution providing healthcare--specifically, for the eye; and very specifically, the cataract eye surgery. The equipment and service is world class. The quality of care compares favorablely with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK, so much that British patients have been travelling to India to get their surgery done there in recent years. (A resident from Harvard Medical School who was there at one point also remarked that he was getting more clinical experience than any of his classmates in Harvard, as he got to see many instances of rare eye diseases that back in Harvard, you only get to read about.)
At this point, one might think: must be expensive to go to Araind. And that's where the shocker lies: 60% of the patients are nonpaying patients while the remaining 40% pay about US$50 to $300 for cataract surgery. (It cost about US$3000 for the equivalent surgery in the US.) Even allowing the differences in cost of labor, the contrast is out of this world, considering the quality of care that Aravind provides. Furthermore, Aravind is not only debt free, runs a surplus, but has been financially self-sustaining from day one. No government grants, no donations, never asked for them either. How is this even possible?
The founder, Dr. Venkataswamy ("Dr. V") says he was inspired by McDonald's. Nothing mysterious, merely the observation that an "In-depth attention to inputs and process steps guarantees high-quality outputs":
Dr. V has developed and standardized the Aravind process, in which the first step is more than 1,500 eye camps where the poor are tested for vision problems and those needing help are admitted. They are then transported to hospitals. This is different from the more popular on-site eye camps in villages and small towns in India. The conditions of sanitation and medical care in such camps cannot be controlled as well as they can be in specially designed hospitals developed for this purpose. In the Aravind process, technicians, often young women drawn from the local areas and trained in eye care only, supplement the work of doctors. Patient preparation and postoperative work are done by these technicians. Doctors perform only surgeries. The process flow allows a doctor and two technician teams to perform more than 50 surgeries per day. Because the process is so well developed, technicians and doctors are so carefully trained, inputs are fully controlled, and the system and values are rigidly enforced, Aravind boasts of an outcome rate that is among the best in the world. (Prahalad, 37; emphasis mine)
In other words, process innovation drives the costs way down, thus enabling very low prices, thus allowing Aravind to serve "Bottom of the Pyramid" customers--the poor and needy.
A thought (slightly revised July 16, 1100 -0400)
I do wonder if in the NKF uproar and the subsequent soul searching over how charity organisations should conduct themselves, an alternative has been overlooked.
"Charity organisation"--of the scale of an NKF anyway--did not, does not, could not survive on charity alone. It has to be thoroughly professional and business-like in efficiency--in translating the charity of the donors, on the one hand, into actual relief for the patients under its care, on the other hand. And there is no better way to guarantee this professionalism than by paying good money for the best brains that money can buy--and I am not talking about unnecessary toilet fixtures or shenanigans with the travel perk (after all, it is possible to overpay a CEO even in the profit making world).
There is thus an important sense in which the "charity organisation" is a misnomer: the small time donors putting in his $10 from a take home pay of $1000, the volunteers putting in time and effort, and the staff on half pay because he or she is there for the cause--that's where the charity resides. But the organisation--it cannot run on charity alone precisely if it wants to be the best steward for the charitable contributions of its supporters.
It is undeniable that Dr. V has deep compassion for the poor and needy--remember that 60% of the patients do not pay--that the very foundation of Aravind is inspired by his desire to do his bit to help the lot of fellow men. But what he runs is not a "charity organisation" of the kind that we might be familiar with, i.e., one that asks for and is sustained by our charity. And because it does not do that, the issues that plague us about how "charity organisations" ought to be run simply do not arise for Aravind.
Perhaps what we need to rethink is not how "charity organisations" should be run, but the more basic question of how the poor and needy could be helped. And it is not obvious that they are always best served by the charity of donors, that is, it is not obvious that that they could not be even better served by other means.
Something to think about for the aspiring social-entrepreneur.
Some more background on Aravind: Aravind started in 1976 with a 11-bed private clinic (in Dr. V's brother's house, no less). The mission: to eradicate all needless blindness in Tamil Nadu, if not in the entire nation of India. Today, the System consists of five hospitals, manufacturing centers for lenses, sutures and eye care related pharmaceuticals, training institute, international eye bank, a woman and child care center, a postgraduate institute of ophthalmology (awarding MS and fellowships, and a center for community outreach programs. The 1,500 bed hospital at Madurai alone performs some 95,000 eye surgeries every year. The five hospitals (Madurai, Tirunelveli, Coimbatore, Theni and Pondicherry) together perform 190,000 surgeries every year, 45% of all eye surgeries in the state of Tamil Nadu, 5% in the whole of India (Prahalad, 265-266). -
This real-life success story will not be believed by our leaders. Their emphasis to this day, is their own abilities.Originally posted by pearlie27:A friend found this gem in a blog - singaporeangle.blogspot - and emailed me:
Charity or helping the poor and needy
Rather, I want to tell a story--and this time, it's a real life present day story--about the Aravind Eye Care System, based in Madurai, India (hat tip to this book; scroll down).
In brief, Aravind is a profit making institution providing healthcare--specifically, for the eye; and very specifically, the cataract eye surgery. The equipment and service is world class. The quality of care compares favorablely with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK, so much that British patients have been travelling to India to get their surgery done there in recent years. (A resident from Harvard Medical School who was there at one point also remarked that he was getting more clinical experience than any of his classmates in Harvard, as he got to see many instances of rare eye diseases that back in Harvard, you only get to read about.)
At this point, one might think: must be expensive to go to Araind. And that's where the shocker lies: 60% of the patients are nonpaying patients while the remaining 40% pay about US$50 to $300 for cataract surgery. (It cost about US$3000 for the equivalent surgery in the US.) Even allowing the differences in cost of labor, the contrast is out of this world, considering the quality of care that Aravind provides. Furthermore, Aravind is not only debt free, runs a surplus, but has been financially self-sustaining from day one. No government grants, no donations, never asked for them either. How is this even possible?
The founder, Dr. Venkataswamy ("Dr. V") says he was inspired by McDonald's. Nothing mysterious, merely the observation that an "In-depth attention to inputs and process steps guarantees high-quality outputs":
Dr. V has developed and standardized the Aravind process, in which the first step is more than 1,500 eye camps where the poor are tested for vision problems and those needing help are admitted. They are then transported to hospitals. This is different from the more popular on-site eye camps in villages and small towns in India. The conditions of sanitation and medical care in such camps cannot be controlled as well as they can be in specially designed hospitals developed for this purpose. In the Aravind process, technicians, often young women drawn from the local areas and trained in eye care only, supplement the work of doctors. Patient preparation and postoperative work are done by these technicians. Doctors perform only surgeries. The process flow allows a doctor and two technician teams to perform more than 50 surgeries per day. Because the process is so well developed, technicians and doctors are so carefully trained, inputs are fully controlled, and the system and values are rigidly enforced, Aravind boasts of an outcome rate that is among the best in the world. (Prahalad, 37; emphasis mine)
In other words, process innovation drives the costs way down, thus enabling very low prices, thus allowing Aravind to serve "Bottom of the Pyramid" customers--the poor and needy.
A thought (slightly revised July 16, 1100 -0400)
I do wonder if in the NKF uproar and the subsequent soul searching over how charity organisations should conduct themselves, an alternative has been overlooked.
"Charity organisation"--of the scale of an NKF anyway--did not, does not, could not survive on charity alone. It has to be thoroughly professional and business-like in efficiency--in translating the charity of the donors, on the one hand, into actual relief for the patients under its care, on the other hand. And there is no better way to guarantee this professionalism than by paying good money for the best brains that money can buy--and I am not talking about unnecessary toilet fixtures or shenanigans with the travel perk (after all, it is possible to overpay a CEO even in the profit making world).
There is thus an important sense in which the "charity organisation" is a misnomer: the small time donors putting in his $10 from a take home pay of $1000, the volunteers putting in time and effort, and the staff on half pay because he or she is there for the cause--that's where the charity resides. But the organisation--it cannot run on charity alone precisely if it wants to be the best steward for the charitable contributions of its supporters.
It is undeniable that Dr. V has deep compassion for the poor and needy--remember that 60% of the patients do not pay--that the very foundation of Aravind is inspired by his desire to do his bit to help the lot of fellow men. But what he runs is not a "charity organisation" of the kind that we might be familiar with, i.e., one that asks for and is sustained by our charity. And because it does not do that, the issues that plague us about how "charity organisations" ought to be run simply do not arise for Aravind.
Perhaps what we need to rethink is not how "charity organisations" should be run, but the more basic question of how the poor and needy could be helped. And it is not obvious that they are always best served by the charity of donors, that is, it is not obvious that that they could not be even better served by other means.
Something to think about for the aspiring social-entrepreneur.
Some more background on Aravind: Aravind started in 1976 with a 11-bed private clinic (in Dr. V's brother's house, no less). The mission: to eradicate all needless blindness in Tamil Nadu, if not in the entire nation of India. Today, the System consists of five hospitals, manufacturing centers for lenses, sutures and eye care related pharmaceuticals, training institute, international eye bank, a woman and child care center, a postgraduate institute of ophthalmology (awarding MS and fellowships, and a center for community outreach programs. The 1,500 bed hospital at Madurai alone performs some 95,000 eye surgeries every year. The five hospitals (Madurai, Tirunelveli, Coimbatore, Theni and Pondicherry) together perform 190,000 surgeries every year, 45% of all eye surgeries in the state of Tamil Nadu, 5% in the whole of India (Prahalad, 265-266).
Their own beliefs consist of meritocracy, leaderships and tax-and-recover pragmaticism. They will never go the reverse - 60% non-paying patients, process improvements through lowering costs. As we have seen ministry after ministry they will rather keep increasing costs rather be more competitive. They were on record emphasising that Singapore cannot depend on efficiency to become competitive, meaning the success will depend on their leaderships.
Their success model typically would be equated to success of meritocracy of leadership abilities and payments to the leaders of the highest salaries undreamt of in any developed country.
Unfortunately, while the above-stated self-promoted leadership approach might not be wrong in theory, in practice it has not been well proven in Singapore since the 1970s that their leaderships have worked as costs go to the roof to pay for all the high salaries without achieving the value-adding jobs or a technologically advanced economy.
Despite the obvious lack of progress in leading by talents and leaderships and neglecting the process management excellence like Aravind, they are not admitting their shortcomings or failures.
If someone has a good management system locally the leaders will not be too interested to try using it. They will want themselves to be successful based on their own concepts of talents, leaderships and their own proven forumula. To them putting another scholar somewhere to be in charge of a eye or cancer institute is much safer bet than to promote internal progressive improvements the way Aravind has done. Non-leaders and non-talents in Singapore will have to fend for themselves and it will be only when they have done it that the leaders will turn and have a look at lower-rung process solutions. -
Nothing mentioned in Parliament today about Committe of Inquiry?
Any leagl experts here to comment if Durai had breached the trust S'poreans put on him? Isn't it a crime to cheat by giving false information to get donations?
-
Other than the so call 6 point, should also investigate how many were sentence to death due to the rejection by NKF and also the complaint that those who could not pay for dyalisis were terminated.
-
Legally, it can be considered a case of public deception.Originally posted by Archirodon:Nothing mentioned in Parliament today about Committe of Inquiry?
Any leagl experts here to comment if Durai had breached the trust S'poreans put on him? Isn't it a crime to cheat by giving false information to get donations?
I'm more incensed by the arguments of this writer to ST Forum yesterday who wrote from Jakarta that $600,000 is nothing when you divide it by the 37 years Durai has spent at NKF.
Whoa...what a f@#$ing specious argument. No wonder this joker is hiding in Jakarta where the joke goes that they give you a receipt when you bribe the officials.
So the longer the time you spend in a company, the more bonus you should get.
Of course it doesn't matter whether you work in a private company or an organisation subsisting mainly on public funds!!!
Amazing Singaporeans can be such idiots putting forth such illogical and crappy reasoning. I wonder what schools have been teaching them. No wonder there are people who say that Singaporeans' brains are fed with "pig swill", however untrue that may be. -
When a tiny KDF and several foreign kidney dialysis center compare their costs with our national NKF, it really makes our "star-studded" CEO, Patron and Board look financially silly and wasteful.
-
I think the below would give us a better perspective of the "charitability" of our NKF.
Coffee Shop Talk - Comparing SG NKF with US NKF Subscribe
From: Magnum 11:14
To: ALL 1 of 1
77417.1
I did some surfing. Thought it would be a good idea to do some bloody
comparisons between Singapore's NKF with the one in US.
This is Singapore's NKF 2003 financial figures which have also been
reported widely in the media:
(in $M)
[INCOME]
Donations: 68.2
Dialysis fees collected from patients: 22.9
Other income: 1.5
TOTAL INCOME = 92.7
[EXPENSES]
Fund raising cost: 16.6
Public relations & Education: 10.1
Patients' dialysis and transplantation: 31.6
Adminstration: 10.8
TOTAL EXPENSES = 69.1
[RESERVES]
EXCESS INCOME GOING TO RESERVES = 23.6
---------------------------------------
NKF Subsidy = 31.6-(22.9+1.5) = 7.2 (also reported in the media)
Therefore, for every dollar of donation collected:
10.5% for NKF Subsidies for dialysis and transplantation
24.3% for Fund Raising
14.8% for PR & Educations
15.8% for Administration
34.6% for Reserves
Now, for comparisons, let's look at the National Kidney Foundation in
the US: www.kidney.org. Under the About Us section, there is a PDF
document which briefly describes their expenses in FY2002:
29% for Patient Services
13% for Community Services
9% for Fund Raising
14% for Professional Education
17% for Public Health Education
9% for Management and General
9% for Research
So, we can immediately bloody see here, our NKF Admin overhead is
bloody overblown (I think Durai's salary should be classified in
here). SG NKF admin cost is 15.8% while the equivalent for US's NKF
is only 9%. Ours is almost 2X of US's.
Next, let's look at fund raising. Bloody hell, SG NKF is 24.3% and US
is 9%. It's almost 3X that of US's. All I can say is Durai and his
gang are bloody inefficient in raising fund.
The US NKF classifies these 2 items as non-program directed
expenditure (ie, they are overheads) and adding them up only
constitutes 18% (9%+9%). And ours? A bloody 40.1%!
Now coming to subsidies, we all now know that Durai and gang only
give 10.5% of the donated dollar to patients. For the US's NKF, it's
29%! And if you throw in expenditure for the community services (13%)
which constitutes support programs for patient's family members for
US NKF, that is 42% of benefits back to patients and family members -
4X more than ours!!!
From these comparisons, one can conclude that Durai and gang are more
interested in raising funds to benefit themselves more than our
patients!!! -
Agree. It is high time we started to think outside the box and looked for alternatives in helping the poor and needy.Originally posted by pearlie27:I do wonder if in the NKF uproar and the subsequent soul searching over how charity organisations should conduct themselves, an alternative has been overlooked. -
Looks at how many celebrities have prised NKF for its good work to relieve the pains of the its patients, at the main time profit some from their suffering, this NKF saga is going to be just another"oversight" or "honest mistake"! But many donors just wonder, at the end will the leopards ever change its spots?
-
well well well well well well Well Done Bro! I salute you!Originally posted by lotus999:I think the below would give us a better perspective of the "charitability" of our NKF.
Coffee Shop Talk - Comparing SG NKF with US NKF Subscribe
From: Magnum 11:14
To: ALL 1 of 1
77417.1
I did some surfing. Thought it would be a good idea to do some bloody
comparisons between Singapore's NKF with the one in US.
This is Singapore's NKF 2003 financial figures which have also been
reported widely in the media:
(in $M)
[INCOME]
Donations: 68.2
Dialysis fees collected from patients: 22.9
Other income: 1.5
TOTAL INCOME = 92.7
[EXPENSES]
Fund raising cost: 16.6
Public relations & Education: 10.1
Patients' dialysis and transplantation: 31.6
Adminstration: 10.8
TOTAL EXPENSES = 69.1
[RESERVES]
EXCESS INCOME GOING TO RESERVES = 23.6
---------------------------------------
NKF Subsidy = 31.6-(22.9+1.5) = 7.2 (also reported in the media)
Therefore, for every dollar of donation collected:
10.5% for NKF Subsidies for dialysis and transplantation
24.3% for Fund Raising
14.8% for PR & Educations
15.8% for Administration
34.6% for Reserves
Now, for comparisons, let's look at the National Kidney Foundation in
the US: www.kidney.org. Under the About Us section, there is a PDF
document which briefly describes their expenses in FY2002:
29% for Patient Services
13% for Community Services
9% for Fund Raising
14% for Professional Education
17% for Public Health Education
9% for Management and General
9% for Research
So, we can immediately bloody see here, our NKF Admin overhead is
bloody overblown (I think Durai's salary should be classified in
here). SG NKF admin cost is 15.8% while the equivalent for US's NKF
is only 9%. Ours is almost 2X of US's.
Next, let's look at fund raising. Bloody hell, SG NKF is 24.3% and US
is 9%. It's almost 3X that of US's. All I can say is Durai and his
gang are bloody inefficient in raising fund.
The US NKF classifies these 2 items as non-program directed
expenditure (ie, they are overheads) and adding them up only
constitutes 18% (9%+9%). And ours? A bloody 40.1%!
Now coming to subsidies, we all now know that Durai and gang only
give 10.5% of the donated dollar to patients. For the US's NKF, it's
29%! And if you throw in expenditure for the community services (13%)
which constitutes support programs for patient's family members for
US NKF, that is 42% of benefits back to patients and family members -
4X more than ours!!!
From these comparisons, one can conclude that Durai and gang are more
interested in raising funds to benefit themselves more than our
patients!!!
If these are the concrete evidence. Singapore NKF will be dreadfully wrong plus all those high rankings officers whom were siding T2 Durain were disgusting , inhumane, selfish, dirty, stupid, cold blooded. I just cannot believe that our gov still praising the idiot durain for doing pricky good job.
I think I'm going to faint.
I was shocking to learn one of from my 1st Guard Company mate age 42 enlisted in 1981 that was just awarded to Changi Hosiptal recently. My other camp mates visited him. He had his two Kidneys just remove due to failure; initially, he fainted few times; but when the last time he fainted two to three months ago. Doctor told him that he must go for dialysis, but he did not. He has been unemployed too. Although, he knew he could get subsidy from the charity organisations. Unfortunately, he chosen not to go and due to financially instable and still got to fork out quite large sum of $$$ on every visit for dialysis.
Please sayl how you guys know from here! -
well well well well well well Well Done Bro! I salute you!Originally posted by lotus999:I think the below would give us a better perspective of the "charitability" of our NKF.
Coffee Shop Talk - Comparing SG NKF with US NKF Subscribe
From: Magnum 11:14
To: ALL 1 of 1
77417.1
I did some surfing. Thought it would be a good idea to do some bloody
comparisons between Singapore's NKF with the one in US.
This is Singapore's NKF 2003 financial figures which have also been
reported widely in the media:
(in $M)
[INCOME]
Donations: 68.2
Dialysis fees collected from patients: 22.9
Other income: 1.5
TOTAL INCOME = 92.7
[EXPENSES]
Fund raising cost: 16.6
Public relations & Education: 10.1
Patients' dialysis and transplantation: 31.6
Adminstration: 10.8
TOTAL EXPENSES = 69.1
[RESERVES]
EXCESS INCOME GOING TO RESERVES = 23.6
---------------------------------------
NKF Subsidy = 31.6-(22.9+1.5) = 7.2 (also reported in the media)
Therefore, for every dollar of donation collected:
10.5% for NKF Subsidies for dialysis and transplantation
24.3% for Fund Raising
14.8% for PR & Educations
15.8% for Administration
34.6% for Reserves
Now, for comparisons, let's look at the National Kidney Foundation in
the US: www.kidney.org. Under the About Us section, there is a PDF
document which briefly describes their expenses in FY2002:
29% for Patient Services
13% for Community Services
9% for Fund Raising
14% for Professional Education
17% for Public Health Education
9% for Management and General
9% for Research
So, we can immediately bloody see here, our NKF Admin overhead is
bloody overblown (I think Durai's salary should be classified in
here). SG NKF admin cost is 15.8% while the equivalent for US's NKF
is only 9%. Ours is almost 2X of US's.
Next, let's look at fund raising. Bloody hell, SG NKF is 24.3% and US
is 9%. It's almost 3X that of US's. All I can say is Durai and his
gang are bloody inefficient in raising fund.
The US NKF classifies these 2 items as non-program directed
expenditure (ie, they are overheads) and adding them up only
constitutes 18% (9%+9%). And ours? A bloody 40.1%!
Now coming to subsidies, we all now know that Durai and gang only
give 10.5% of the donated dollar to patients. For the US's NKF, it's
29%! And if you throw in expenditure for the community services (13%)
which constitutes support programs for patient's family members for
US NKF, that is 42% of benefits back to patients and family members -
4X more than ours!!!
From these comparisons, one can conclude that Durai and gang are more
interested in raising funds to benefit themselves more than our
patients!!!
If these are the concrete evidence. Singapore NKF will be dreadfully wrong plus all those high rankings officers whom were siding T2 Durain were disgusting , inhumane, selfish, dirty, stupid, cold blooded. I just cannot believe that our gov still praising the idiot durain for doing pricky good job.
I think I'm going to faint.
I was shocking to learn one of from my 1st Guard Company mate age 42 enlisted in 1981 that was just awarded to Changi Hosiptal recently. My other camp mates visited him. He had his two Kidneys just remove due to failure; initially, he fainted few times; but when the last time he fainted two to three months ago. Doctor told him that he must go for dialysis, but he did not. He has been unemployed too. Although, he knew he could get subsidy from the charity organisations. Unfortunately, he chosen not to go and due to financially instable and still got to fork out quite large sum of $$$ on every visit for dialysis.
Please say how you guys know from here! -
It was reported that Durai's daughter who is in a top JC here wrote to Lee H L and asked him to clear Durai's name if no wrongdoing was uncovered during the inquiry. There appeared to be a tone of "we are the victims" when she said that Durai sacrificed family time for the patients and spent very little time with his children...
Well, well, understandable feelings from a daughter but let me ask her:
1. How did it feel travelling around in a Mercedes the maintenance of which was paid for by the public?
2. How fat was your deepavali red packet considering your father took 12 months' bonus even during the SARs period?
3. Did your father's parading of those poor kidney patients on TV a la elephant man tug at your heartstrings too and made you question: Dad, how come you are drawing so much money FROM NKF?
4. Can we check your wardrobe to see what designer wear you have? -
Solid retort. you should email her your post.Originally posted by Profounder:It was reported that Durai's daughter who is in a top JC here wrote to Lee H L and asked him to clear Durai's name if no wrongdoing was uncovered during the inquiry. There appeared to be a tone of "we are the victims" when she said that Durai sacrificed family time for the patients and spent very little time with his children...
Well, well, understandable feelings from a daughter but let me ask her:
1. How did it feel travelling around in a Mercedes the maintenance of which was paid for by the public?
2. How fat was your deepavali red packet considering your father took 12 months' bonus even during the SARs period?
3. Did your father's parading of those poor kidney patients on TV a la elephant man tug at your heartstrings too and made you question: Dad, how come you are drawing so much money FROM NKF?
4. Can we check your wardrobe to see what designer wear you have?
-
ppl on their side have daughter / son, but if you are on the other side... wat letter you talking here? the son or daughter write 10 time will never be shown at all....
we will see what law the ppl here in SG have or just like what i think it was.... law was are not on the poor side. -
As someone in this subforum once said, there are different sets of laws for different socio-economic groups.Originally posted by Joshua1975:ppl on their side have daughter / son, but if you are on the other side... wat letter you talking here? the son or daughter write 10 time will never be shown at all....
we will see what law the ppl here in SG have or just like what i think it was.... law was are not on the poor side. -
With that kind of argument Durai's daughter is giving , im kind of doubting how can she manage to go into JC in the first placeOriginally posted by Profounder:It was reported that Durai's daughter who is in a top JC here wrote to Lee H L and asked him to clear Durai's name if no wrongdoing was uncovered during the inquiry. There appeared to be a tone of "we are the victims" when she said that Durai sacrificed family time for the patients and spent very little time with his children...
Well, well, understandable feelings from a daughter but let me ask her:
1. How did it feel travelling around in a Mercedes the maintenance of which was paid for by the public?
2. How fat was your deepavali red packet considering your father took 12 months' bonus even during the SARs period?
3. Did your father's parading of those poor kidney patients on TV a la elephant man tug at your heartstrings too and made you question: Dad, how come you are drawing so much money FROM NKF?
4. Can we check your wardrobe to see what designer wear you have?