Originally posted by Salman:
Frankly, I didn't give shit abt Dr.Lee or what she said and neither
do I know of anyone who did. The only people who give her the
credit are those who are anti govt and try to somehow twist what
she said to attack the Lee family.
Thats how cheap you people are, and you play it out so openly for
all to see.
In effect, you are using the unfortunate NKF saga to push your
personal agenda. You don't help one bit.
Typical Salman's "no brainer"
piece of whining art - can we expect more even if pass the
"one-liners" ?
Conveniently - "I didn't give shit abt Dr.Lee or what she said and
neither do I know of anyone who did."
Not so smart to talk about PAPa's daughter like that - not giving
her a shit . 
We certainly can believe the paucity of your knowledge about anyone
who actually gave Dr.Lee some due credit for her piece of work -
considering that your opinions towards the World Muslim population
is based on TWENTY FRIENDS from all over the World . .
Was Dr.Lee now pinning the blame on Singaporeans for being
gullible and naive in responding with our Hearts and our Wallets -
and deflect the blame on Government a.k.a PAPa ?
Is it not surprising that the following piece was not published in
the Straits Times :
Government cannot claim it was "misled" in NKF
scandal"
Some extracts taken :
First, here was the list of abuses
and misuse of donations that was revealed in the KPMG audit:
· Durais annual salary and bonuses: $600,000 a year.
· Durai given backdated salary increments; in 1997 given increment
39% backdated by 11 months.
· He was paid $187,000 for "overtime" between 1997 and 2003.
· In 1999 his leave was raised from 21 to 31 days per annum which
was then backdated to 1992. He cashed the unused leave for $423,000
between 1995 and 2003 when NKF employees were not permitted to do
so.
· He charged an average of $32,952 a month to his corporate credit
card in 2004.
· Durai received numerous salary increments.
· He flew first class as did other Board directors and senior
volunteers.
· Matilda Chua, a former employee, was given a backdated raise when
she resigned.
· She received an additional 6 months' bonus of $75,000 and an
ex-gratia payment of another $75,000 on her departure.
· She also cashed in her unused leave for $79,195.
· She then came back as a member of the Board.
· NKF signed 2 contracts worth $7.5 million with companies owned by
Durai's personal friend.
· Matilda Chua had an interest in one of the companies.
· Durai and others went on a study tour of Las Vegas in 2004 for
$70,000.
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 expose.
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:
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: NKF's 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.
