In 2010 CDAC paid $4.3 million out of $10.8 million CPF
collected to 71 staff
I was glad to read of our self help group Chinese Development
Assistance Council’s (CDAC) pledge to extend more assistance to the
needy as we brace ourselves for a looming global financial crisis
(Sunday Times 4 Dec).
I have worked for a short stint as their job placement officer
there during 2007 and was most impressed with their extensive
tuition programmes offered to our needy kids.
Hundreds of volunteer tutors – paid hourly, take care of the
thousands of lessons conducted throughout the country benefiting
tens of thousands of kids yearly.
They also have solid programmes to help out those who are jobless
and need financial welfare assistance. Their skills upgrading
programmes for the low-income are also impressive and most eligible
upgraders pay less than 10% of the total course fees
chargeable.
In fact, many who could not get any assistance from our Community
Development Councils (CDC) would apply at CDAC who is seen to be
less stringent in their procedures and are more compassionate in
their approach.
Each month, all working Chinese citizens and permanent residents
contribute $0.50 to the fund if they earn $2000 and below. They
contribute $1.00 if they earn $2000 and above. The same CPF
deduction rule applies to other races.
You can opt out of the contribution by going to the CDAC website
and download an opt-out form.
Do not discount the small amount that is being contributed monthly
as CDAC takes in $10.8 million from such CPF deductible
contribution for the year 2010.
However, I always feel that our self help groups – CDAC, Mendaki,
Eurasian and Sinda, can do more to reach out to the different
communities besides carrying out current programmes for the
needy.
They did all the good stuff which CDCs have being doing all along –
job matching, skills upgrading, social welfare among others and one
wonders if our self help groups have out-live their original
mission.
Formed in 1992 by Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (SCCCI) and the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan
Associations (SFCCA)., its mission is “to nurture and develop the
potential of the Chinese community in contributing to the success
of a multiracial Singapore”.
Moreover, with the recent spate of racial discrimination incidents,
our self help groups can do more to actively reach out to the
different communities instead of duplicating what CDCS have being
doing successfully all along.
It had also splashed out quite alot of money on useless programmes
e.g. the social outreach attempt using a community bus.
I remembered following the big outreach bus weekly to remote parts
of Singapore hoping that someone out there would stop by our bus
and look through our programmes while we were parked at some
forsaken place due to the car park problem.
We had less than five enquiries in a month from the public and
every week, three bus rides would be made in an attempt to promote
our services to the public.
The monthly price tag for the driver and maintenance of the bus:
$8000 a month. The project was thankfully scrapped after a year –
wasting almost $100, 000 in the process.
I could go on but that would mean I am bad mouthing my previous
employer.
High Staff Cost
Though I am no accounting expert, I was alarmed at the high staff
cost entailed in running a 71-strong flagship with 311 part-time
volunteers probably paid on a hourly basis.
$4.3 million was paid out as staffing cost for the year 2010 and
this worked out to each full time staff costing an astronomical
$55, 000 per year! The financial figures could be found here.
.
The council may have over paid it’s staff – its shocking to pay
$4.3 million in staffing cost out of the $10.8 million received
from the CPF contribution in year 2010.
The total income for the council for 2010 was $20 million which
included our CPF check-in contribution, grants and subsidies from
government agencies, investment return and fees it collected from
some of its’ programmes.
Staff cost alone worked out to almost 22% of the total operating
expenses of $19 million for 2010.
A year before in 2009, it also paid out another astronomical $3.6
million in staff cost alone for 59 full time staff and 260
volunteers – even though it was 19% lesser than the 2010 figure,
the staff strength was also lesser by the same correponding
figure.
I am all for adequately paying staff who works for an organisation
but when 40% (S4.3m) was paid out of what was been taken in as
charitable donation ($10.8m) from a cluless contributing public –
something is wrong somewhere even though I am no accounting expert
here.
There was also no proper break down on how much the full time staff
and volunteers’ cost were and even the Executive Director (ED) pay
package was not disclosed.
Huge $55 million In Reserve Holding
Another financial item that stood out was the huge amount of
reserve it holds – $55 million as of 31 Dec 2010.
Most of it – $48 million - was held in a fund management investment
scheme and one hopes that it is not all held in speculative risky
instruments.
$16.6m was held in quoted equities securities, $13m in quoted debt
securities and another $7m in unquoted debt securities – all were
used for trading purposes.
Out of the $48 million investment fund, $10 million is in cash form
– probably for easy transfer if there is a need.
For a charity organization meant to help the public using CPF
monthly deductible contribution, I thought that the reserve held
was too excessive.
$10 million in reserve holding will be sufficient for the council
as it is almost guaranteed an annual income of $10 million each
year from the CPF check-in contribution besides whatever top-up the
government will provide to the council.
Holding too much reserve means that the council has being
ineffective in using whatever money it has received all along and
the council’s committee can perhaps think out of the box to better
use the extra fund for community outreach purposes.
While working in CDAC, I attended meetings and there were always
pleas for the deparments to use up all it’s money allocated as if
not their reserves will grow too large.
Besides the $10 million CPF funds it received annually on average,
the government also pumped in $4.1 million in 2010 through various
grants and subsidies.
Should CDAC now re-channel any surplus funds that it will receive
in future to benefit other charitable organisations which are badly
in need of funds?
I also remembered how when a job placement officer helped our
jobless client found a job, each placement would bring in an extra
$1000 funding from the Work Development Agency (WDA).
Each job placement officer has a target of 10 placements a month
and we have two placement officers working then.
It looks like the government funds are meant for those
organisations which carry the same agenda as theirs.
Political Agenda?
The Chariman of the council’s committee is Mr Lim Swee Say – a PAP
MP and also the current NTUC labour chief.
There are also a few other MPs sitting on the board e.g. Baey Yam
Keng, Grace Fu Hai Yien, Sam Tan Ching Siong (ex-ED of CDAC and now
senior Perm Sec with MCYS), Ong Ye Kung (NTUC) among others.
The directors in office are as follows:
(For the term 25 June 2010 to AGM in 2012)
Mr Lim Swee Say (Chairman)
Mr Baey Yam Keng
Mr Philip Eng Heng Nee
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien
Mr Gan Kim Yong
Mr James Kuah Geok Lin
Mr Lau Tai San
Ms Lim Sau Hoong
Mr Ng Siew Quan
Mr Ong Ye Kung
Mr Adrian Peh Nam Chuan
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong
Mr Tan Eng Lai
Mr Tang Kian Meng
Mr Tay Khiam Back
Mr Teo Chiang Long
Mr Alex Yam Ziming
Source: CDAC
One wonders how politically-neutral and objective the council can
be if it has a minister chairing the board with other like-minded
MPs from the ruling party deciding on the activities for the
council.
I believe that the self help groups can function better with a
board that is politically neutral.
Our community development councils already have almost all
politicians sitting on the mayor seat and its’ agenda is mostly
political – even though most of its’ funds come from our tax payer
money.
Moreover, self help groups, deriving most of its’ funds from the
public’s CPF contribution must strive to be apolitical so that the
needy can be assisted without any political gain from the
mostly-PAP board.
Conclusion
Some may have speculated that I have a hidden agenda when I wrote
this article.
I must confessed that I did not enjoyed my short work stint with
the council as it is a very closed-up protective environment which
always favoured those that belonged to the inner circle.
The usual workplace bullying took place there and the superior
would close an eye when a fresh face took in some verbal battering.
I was also shouted at by a influential senior staff in front of
others and no one lifted an eyelid.
Another junior staff was loaded with too much work while the rest
took it easy. Most of the senior staff would pretend to work late
to prove to the managers that they are hard working when in fact
they were loafing off during the day.
Though the council has enjoyed a family-themed work environment
within the smaller inner circle, it has suffered from being too
inward looking and almost tried too hard to reach out to the
community with its’ over-stuffed coffers.
It is perhaps timely for the council to break away from focusing on
its past glory of using tuition programmes to reach out to the
needy and try to think of new ways to prepare for a looming global
financial crisis ahead.
The council also needs to get rid of all the politicians on its
board so that it’s mission can be strictly community-focused and
apolitical.
If not, many Singaporeans will always remember the self help groups
as another political tool – used by the ruling party at the people
expenses.
from hardwarezone