A few thoughts about this whole thing about donations, charity integrities, NCSS etc.....
1) The "old" NKF was found to only use $0.10 of every $1 to fund patients' medical services. So how much of every $1 is the "New" NKF using for the patients? NKF has an immediate obligation to inform its current remaining donors. Is it still 10%? 20%? 30%?
2) The NKF seems to be a pretty big employer in Singapore. If NKF closes down, many jobs would be lost. Perhaps that is a major consideration for the government too. But I don't think this should be an issue. Sometimes when organizations get too big, you end up having a lot of unecessary fat. A good example I think is the health care clusters Singhealth and NHG. There should be a report on how much of health care expenditure is spent on non-medical (ie administrators, managers, etc) manpower costs vs on medical ( ie doctors and nurses) manpower costs. The figure might or might not shock you.
3) NCSS is useless. If they could not monitor the BIGGEST charity. It is fair to assume that there are many hundreds more smaller charities that are getting away with creative accounting too.
4) The report says that authorities could have acted 4 years ago, meaning this problem was suspected 4 years ago. Did the Straits Times know about it 4 years ago. I bet they did. So why only after NKF wanted to sue SPH, did the press report and expose NKF? A case of "you scratch my back, I scratch your back"? I smell a rotten fish at many levels here. Perhaps this problem of unaccountabbility goes deeper than just the NKF?
5) TT Durai looks like a total idiot in what has happened. I doubt that he is that stupid. I suspectt TT Durai had some confidence that he would win in his lawsuit against SPH. Perhaps he felt that NKF was essential to MOH's plans? Perhaps he had inside information on other "problems" in our society, which he thought he could use as his bargaining chips? I believe there is a lot more than meets the eye.
6) 10 years ago, my grandfather developed kidney failure and needed dialysis. NKF turned down his application for subsidies based on our family's income status. This was despite most of us being regular NKF donors. It was explained to us was that we as donors would not be able to receive help because we were deemed "too rich". The donations were meant for the "poor". Today we know that only 10% of our money was given to the "poor" (God knows whether these "poor" actually exist). The other 90% was used for salaries and to make "rich" people richer! Where is the justice?
7) People are blaming TT Durai as being a tyrant, dictator, and despot. People say power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is TT Durai the only person in Singapore with the same degree of power and control?
8) We have seen many letters of support written by very prominent and important people in our society, some of who control very very important parts of our resources. These letters were written to vouch for the integrity of NKF and that they had been providing good service to the needy. With the new revelations, especially the one that only 10% of donations was used for the needy, shouldn't these people step out to retract their statements? Can we trust these people with our important resources? Are their powers of observation, research, and judgment up to the mark for the important responsibilities their roles require? Are they too easily fooled and cheated? Or were there personal reasons for supporting the NKF?
9) All the excuses given by NCSS that they have to pay market value to good people in order to manage and run organizations that can raise funds properly is NOT what people want to hear. The bottom line is this. Either you put in place regulations that will protect the donations received or you will have no charities or donors. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The government promoting "social entrepreneurship" also should be stopped. It spreads the wrong message to people.
10) What other conspiracies and hidden truths are out there which we the public should know about? It is time the Straits Times fulfills its intended role. Judging from this incident of "delayed reporting" by 4 years, the Straits Times' 140th ranking in the "free press" list is clearly not a mistake.