Pub Date: 14/07/2005 Pub: ST Page: 22
Headline: Explain the maths to win back donors' trust
By: Bertha Henson, Supervising Editor (Home)
Page Heading: Review
Picture Caption: BIG DIFFERENCE : The NKF, a laudable institution, has not breached any regulatory rules but it has breached the public trust.
Corporation: National Kidney Foundation, NKF

NKF SUIT - THE AFTERMATH

A STUNNED silence descended on the courtroom on Tuesday when National Kidney
Foundation (NKF) chief T.T. Durai finally said 'yes' after being asked if he
was dropping his suit against The Straits Times.
More than a year in the making, the NKF case crumbled in only two days.
On the face of it, the defamation suit turned simply on a question of
whether the NKF had misused donors' funds by splurging on expensive toilet
fittings.
The NKF, arguably the most successful charity in Singapore, probably didn't
reckon that the expensive taps at issue would open a Pandora's box.
But when it was prised opened, by legal force and at cost to both sides, the
contents were not pretty.
Judging by the hundreds of e-mail messages, letters and phone calls that
have flooded The Straits Times since Monday, donors are upset by the size of Mr
Durai's salary and bonuses and his travel perks.
It took several attempts by SPH lawyers to get these details revealed. Once
the truth was out, the irony escaped very few people that the NKF had sued
individuals in the past for implying that donors' funds had been used to pay
for Mr Durai's first-class air tickets.
Mr Durai's argument that he wanted to protect his privacy cut no ice with
shocked donors, most of whom earn nowhere near the $25,000 a month he makes.
Nor have they taken kindly to his oft-repeated defence that his salary,
performance bonuses of up to 12 months' salary, travel and car perks were his
'entitlements', approved by the NKF board.
It did not help that he portrayed himself as the CEO of a successful company
and, as such, entitled to such perks.
What many ordinary people know of the NKF are its heart-rending fliers, the
plaintive pleas by its telemarketers and watching sick children on television.
They remember digging into their pockets to give.
Now they're asking: Giving to whom?
What is clear from the expressions of outrage is this message to the NKF:
Our generosity is for your patients. It is not a key performance indicator to
determine the amount of bonuses your CEO deserves.
The public also recognises the NKF as a slick, efficient and professional
fund-raising machine that enters homes, schools, companies and the media in
search of charity dollars - thanks in no small part to having a sizeable budget
for this. In 2003, for example, it spent $16.5 million on fund-raising
activities and another $10 million on public relations and education expenses.
But donors would prefer that a charity display some humility as well, rather
than counter legitimate queries with comments like: 'All you need to know is
that we are saving lives.'
What is most astounding, however, is that according to Mr Durai's testimony
in court, the NKF Board seems to have let him do pretty much as he pleases,
from his business dealings to his use of a semi-personal car.
Quite a few have pointed out that it was inconceivable that a
money-conscious board would have allowed him to use his travel 'entitlement' to
fly first class, so long as it didn't cost more than a business class ticket on
Singapore Airlines - which is pretty expensive to begin with.
The NKF makes it clear that it has done nothing to breach regulatory rules.
That is correct.
But what has been breached is the public trust.
The NKF inflated the number of patients it served. It inflated its need for
funds, saying that its reserves would last only three years, when Mr Durai has
now confirmed they could stretch 30 years or more.
These erroneous messages beg the question: Are regulatory standards
stringent enough?
The NKF says it has complied with the new guidelines on governance of
charities. Are they enough? Who, really, is watching over them?
More importantly, how should Singaporeans who feel cheated react to the
recent developments?
As an institution, the NKF is a laudable one. Many have worked long and hard
for it. Perhaps some have worked for it for so long they have forgotten its
humbler roots.
So, rather than express outrage by breaking the law and taking it out on the
NKF's building, or withdrawing donations, donors might want to step back and
consider what impact their actions might have on the patients in true need of
help.
Even more importantly, the NKF should heed the expressions of outrage from
many who up to now have responded to its calls for donations.
It should leave no room for ambiguity.
The NKF has to explain clearly, in no uncertain terms, how it rewards its
staff and the perks they get.
It should make clear the maths determining the subsidy levels for patients
and explain why the patient's portion of the bill has been going up in recent
years.
It should set fund-raising targets in advance, and justify them, before
going out with the begging bowl.
And it should do so convincingly enough to win back the trust of the people
who matter: The two out of three Singaporeans who donate to it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for Mrs Goh's "peanuts" comment...

Pub Date: 13/07/2005 Pub: NP Page: 9
Headline: Will the show go on? - Patron : It must
By: Karen Wong
Page Heading: News

SINGAPORE

What now for NKF?

THE CAUSE: PICKING UP THE PIECES

karen@sph.com.sg

SHE'S the patron of the NKF.
So for Mrs Goh Chok Tong (above), this whole episode has been sad and
disappointing.
But despite the resulting bad publicity, she will not be abandoning it.
In fact, after Mr Durai's dramatic withdrawal of his defamation lawsuit, she
came out defending him and the NKF.
She asked: 'What's SPH to gain out of this?'
'NKF is doing a very good job helping the sick.
'Who benefits (from this lawsuit)? What's the purpose of it?'
Mrs Goh made these remarks yesterday afternoon, when The New Paper asked for
her comments on the case.
She said that all the NKF had sought was a retraction of the alleged
defamatory paragraphs, as it gave the wrong impression to the public.
But, she said: 'You have expanded the case and extended it to NKF's
transparency.'
Mrs Goh, dressed in a tan-coloured suit and leopard-print shirt yesterday,
had been present for most of the court proceedings over the two days it was
before the High Court.
When asked if she thought Mr Durai's $600,000-a-year pay was excessive, she
replied: 'For a person who runs a big million-dollar charitable organisation,
with a few hundred million in reserves, $600,000 a year is peanuts.'
Asked if she would continue her patronage of the foundation, she said: 'Yes,
I'll continue as a patron of the foundation. Yes, why not?
'I have complete faith in the NKF and in T T Durai. I believe he's doing a
very good job.'