It will be too much of an irony
for you to be left in the dark since you are so far off the scene
of local action.
With CSJ being bankrupted more than once, he seems more fearless
than the empty vessel of the Resident Doctor in speaking the TRUTH.
We shall let CSJ provide a ''memory recall'' :
:
Extract from ''Govt canot claim it was ''misled'' in NKF scandal :
Chee'' - 17 January 2006
In 2004, however, the Government was still defending NKF. Ministers
Khaw Boon Wan and Lim Hng Kiang were still singing the praises of
an organization and its staff when the rot had already set in. Mr
Khaw lauded NKFs operations and wanted the organization to remain
transparent. He said: I take my hat off to the NKF. Mr Lim
assured everyone that NKF was on quite a sound record.
I highlight these statements made by the Ministers not to show how
silly they now in retrospect because Mr Khaw Boon Wan has admitted
as much. Words like duped, misled, naïve, and oversight
were used liberally in the aftermath of the KPMG exposē.
Parliamentary statements in 2004, however, indicate
otherwise.
For example, in Parliament on 19 April 2004, NMP Braema Mathi had
raised the concern of NKFs computation of the amount of donated
money going to the beneficiary. Second Minister for Finance Lim Hng
Kiang brushed off the matter and concluded that NKF was on quite a
sound record. The following was the exchange:
[b]Braema Mathi:
NKF, in the public domain, has made two
announcements of 52 cents coming back to the beneficiary, as well
as 56 cents
What I am raising here with this incident is that
different definitions do go into making up what comes back to the
beneficiary in terms of a precise dollar value. There needs to be
greater consistency in the factors that go into such
computation.
Lim Hng Kiang:
[NKF] put up the press release
and explained the differences between 52% and 56% go to the
beneficiaries. I recall also that they indicated in the press
release that about 26% goes to the reserves. So, actually, if you
add up the two numbers, nearly 80% goes to the beneficiaries. I
think that puts NKF on quite a sound record.
The NMP also brought up the question of transparency and suggested
that NKF reveal the salary of its CEO. Mr Lim left it to the NKF to
decide whether it wanted to tell the public (remember, this was in
spite of the misgivings many quarters had over NKF). He said:
this is a decision by NKF whether to disclose the salaries of the
CEOs. Here, I have some sympathy for their dilemma. If they do not
disclose, then there will be critics who say they are not
transparent. If they disclose, there will also be critics who will
say that whatever they pay are too high. So I think they are caught
between a rock and a hard place. I think it is their decision not
to disclose.
If there was ever any doubt that concern was brought to the direct
attention of the Government, it was removed by this statement from
Ms Braema Mathi: NKFs reserves
[are] in dire need of better
governance.
To put the publics unease over the NKFs compliance with
regulations, Mr Lim Hng Kiang told Parliament in
2004:
Lim: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important to have
clear guidelines on the raising and utilisation of funds to
maintain public confidence in our non-profit organisations and
their programmes. There are essentially three questions the public
is most interested in. First, what methods are used to raise the
money? Second, how much of the charity dollar is used to raise
funds? And, finally, how is the money spent or saved?
Of the three questions, the third is the most relevant to the issue
today: Was NKF in compliance with regulations over how the money
spent or saved?
PAP MP Charles Chong asked Minister Lim
point-blank: Sir, could the Minister tell us whether the
National Kidney Foundation is in full compliance with all the
current guidelines that he mentioned just now in the collection and
utilisation of the funds that it receives from the public?
Mr Lim did not mince words: Mr Speaker, Sir, the
NKF is in full compliance with the regulations. (emphasis
added)
From the above parliamentary exchanges, it can be seen that the
Government was alerted to questionable practices in the NKF. Not
only did Mr Lim ignore these warnings he categorically told
Parliament that he had full confidence that NKF had complied with
regulations.
Then there was the matter of the National Council of Social
Services (NCSS). On Dec 31, 2001, the NCSS revoked the IPC status
of NKF. The NCSS took action because it saw the problems within the
NKF. And yet, within a month the Ministry of Health reinstated the
NKFs IPC status.
Now read what Mr Lim told Parliament in 2004:
[The Ministry of Finance] has certain criteria by which [it]
evaluates applicants who want IPC status, and these criteria are
set by IRAS, and we make sure that people who apply have to qualify
before they are given this IPC status. (emphasis added)
In other words we are given to believe that there was an active
search for answers from the NKF before NKF was given clearance to
reclaim its IPC status.
continue
below
