nkf annual income $108.7 million

the straits times published that nkf had an income of $108.7 million last year. and yesterday it was reported that it raised $75 mil in 2004. there is thus an additional income of $33.7 mil. earlier in several discussions in the media it was reported that nkf's annual expenses was $19.6 mil and was receiving a pledged donation of $20.4 mil. and it was asking the govt for a grant of $4 mil. all these prompted a public to write in the straits times forum that there is an additional income of $7.8 mil from interest not taken into account. and nkf has announced that it is going on a fund raising campaign again. and it gave the same reasons that it needs to build more reserves. all the figures published gave a very distorted picture of the financial health of nkf. how much does it cost to run nkf, how much is its income and reserves? is it running on a surplus or a deficit? any journalist think it is his or her duty to do a proper investigation and report to the public on the true picture? the public needs to be well informed before they start pouring money into nkf again, new or old. it will be preferable for the new nkf to lay bare its financial status and start from a clean slate of transparency. all the figures are creating more doubts and it is no good to the new nkf.

chicken...egg...chicken

can the management of a company shortlist and select their own board of directors. then the directors approved everything that the management wants. pay the ceo and whoever anyhow, pay employees 3 or 4 increments in a year, suka suka pay bonuses, any amount to anyone, approved management expenses, even all charges to corporate credit cards to a tune more than their monthly pays? and ceo said everything is approved by board of directors. and no one is at fault and nothing can be recovered? ceo is free, board of directors just walked away. nothing can be done. no crimes, no intent to deceive or cheat. just bad management decision by very able professionals?

corporate governance: a christmas wish

companies appointed people to their board of directors for various reasons. public listed companies have to as provided by the companies act. given a choice, companies would want to appoint all their fathers, mothers, grandpas and grandmas and uncles and aunties as directors. better to pay themselves than outsiders. some people were invited to join the board as a reward, some for the connections they can bring along, some to lend credibility and prestige, some to curry favours, and some to share expertise. no one is invited as a watchdog. no watchdog is welcome in the board of directors. whoever try to be a smart alec and want to be a watchdog will soon be shown the door. how then can the system caters for this important function when it is a non starter in the first place? my christmas wish is for the mas to make it compulsory for public listed companies to appoint 2 to 3 directors from an independent approved institution. preferably this institution be the sias which represented several hundred thousand investors. they have a genuine and vested interest to want to make sure that public listed companies are managed in a way that do not compromise the interests of public shareholders. sias can then work out their own procedures to provide a list of qualified directors for public listed companies. and one of the main role of these directors, in fact the most important role, is to be watchdog. of course the companies will not be too happy with this. but if corporate governance is to work, this is it. the companies can still appoint all the other directors they want. but the independent directors must sit in the audit and remuneration committees to keep an eye on things. their tenure of directorship will be decided by the independent institution ie sias. not the management. as for private companies or vwos, they can also tap their directors from this same institution or from another govt appointed institution. perhaps ncss could be tasked to perform the same function as sias. then we will have a really independent watchdog body of independent directors to ensure things are done in a more transparent way. not that this is the cure all formula. but it will help in many ways. the current procedure is flawed as independent directors are not independent.

i had a wonderful dream

i dreamt that i was the head of a big charity organisation. and me and my senior executives were flown to a little island retreat to scheme our plans for the future of the organisation. we were all told to make ambitious plans. the bigger the better. and we decided to build 5 big hospitals, bigger than the govt hospitals, located north, south, east, west and centre. and the objective is to help people with all kinds of major illnesses. no need to worry about money. there are plenty of opms. other people's money. and with such a big mission, we will have the support from everyone. helping people in trouble will always be supported by the people and even the authorities. we worked out that we will need $2.5 billion. estimate $500 mil for each hospital. operating cost can come later. now we know how much to raise for the next 15 years, projected to build one hospital every 3 years. wow, we will be kept busy for the next 15 years and more as we will need to raise more money for the operating cost. when we retire we will all leave a legacy behind us. 5 big hospitals. our names will be carved in gold, or on gold plated boards hanging everywhere. they might even name the hospitals after the top executives. and we earn all these, good names, and a handsome income, all from public money. create jobs and recognition for ourselves. and that is only the small part of the goodies. imagine how many people will be grateful to us? the patients and their families and the public. and those whom we pay them very well with public money to make them beholden to us for life. and of course they better know how to take care of us with the money we throw at them. at the end to the day i woke up in cold sweat.

nkf: concern and respect for public money

one of the major sore points in the nkf saga is the reckless disregard of public money. money was splashed and splurged everywhere, given to people excessively as if they fell from the sky. it gave the impression that all the donation money is there for people to spend anyhow they like. ah kong's money. no need to account for it. no one seems to appreciate that a lot of these monies are skimmed from the savings and little incomes of uncles and aunties and the pocket monies of school boys and girls. a dollar at a time. the old nkf is unforgiveable for the way they squandered away the money. if the new nkf does not make any effort to recover these monies, would it give the same impression that they are treating all these public donations lightly? lost, carelessly given away, cheated, stolen, misappropriated, all does not matter. never mind. it is public money. not enough, just ask some more. if this is the attitude, then people will think twice to surrender their monies voluntarily to the charity. the people responsible must show that they will handle the money with care, that they will guard them carefully and account for every cent they have. and if taken away by wrongful means, it is their duty to tenaciously fight to recover them. i think the public would want to see this happening. so far it seems that what was taken illegitimately was seen as water under the bridge. forget them, go and ask the public for more money. that is much easier to do. this lackadaisical attitude will not go down well with the donors and the general public.