NKF article
- Thread starter repulse87
- Start date
seriously.. my blood boils after reading all the shit.. those who stood neutral and still donates.. u should read more posts in hwz forum... about how a family with out fridge, tv.. poor.. still have to cough up 850 a month to for the the treatment.. lawyers letter were sent if they cant pay 850.
and its bloody stupid.. u have to cough up 850????
man.. seriously.. if this is not singapore.. i would have spat on that asshole and shot him right in the head with a bloody shot gun.....
and its bloody stupid.. u have to cough up 850????
man.. seriously.. if this is not singapore.. i would have spat on that asshole and shot him right in the head with a bloody shot gun.....
DoubleBlade
New member
repulse87 said:
If i wasen't mistaken , I saw this post on the news regarding the NKF backlash
fibredrive
New member
just read a HILARIOUS blog...a bit vulgar but its really funny this guy...dunno who oso, friend recommend one..hehe
http://rockson.blogspot.com/
http://rockson.blogspot.com/
stillwater
New member
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
its ficking funny man!!!
its ficking funny man!!!
plainsman
New member
greetings softies,
read this thread with interest, would like to add some of my personal observations:
- i have no doubts which side's legal team were more well-prepared to fight the case. interestingly though, i thought the other team (and the prosecution at that!) should have prepared more statistics - such as showing how the size & the expenditure of the charity's events help it to raise the amount of money it has in its reserves today.
Put it this way - if you have a smaller show, low on star appeal, you may not be able to raise proportionately less the sum of money. ie. if your show budget was 500k and u managed to raise 1 million, you cannot say for certain that a 50k show budget can raise 100k.
this is why large companies grow market share at the cost of profits, they reap hugely once they become the no.1 or no.2
and if you have enough reserves to say, last for 10 years on a low-scale fund raising program, you cannot say for certain during the last 1-2 years, you can quickly assemble a team that has the capabilities of the current NKF fund-raising team.
- NKF is wildly successful because it is able to run like a huge events organisation, always planning ahead of schedule, attacking at you from all angles, radio, television, using stars as public faces for its appeals, footage of well-filmed, tear-inducing accounts of patients - its success of running shows and raising funds is unparalled in history of local charities.
however, this huge fracas may serve as a reminder that, despite its success, too many sensivities which should have been looked at, and managed carefully should not have been ignored.
for example, if the CEO of a company was going to be rewarded with a 12-month bonus, the board/company had better prepare well in advance to explain WHY he was paid that amount as performance bonus, even right down to the minute details. no matter how - the general populace will view people earning at the top rung with resentment because of the huge income disparity.
the taps thing was a huge PR disaster from the start. As a charity, they should know that instead of installing a $990 tap, they should instead install the same taps building-wide, and then invite the press to come visit CEO's office and proudly proclaim their CEO uses ordinary taps just like everyone else (and what a PR coup at that!)
I'm rather surprised that the CEO only drives a mercedes 200 though. Pretty sure that if he had been driving an SLK or a 280, it would have probably been reported in bullet-points and in larger fonts.
- it is extremely regrettable that mrs. goh was quoted (and photographed wearing leopard prints at that) i really feel that the statement appears to be taken out of context. given that top income earners (based on income tax returns) in singapore range around $10 million or so, the 600k (or 0.6mil) salary of NKF CEO given his performance is not wildly unjustified. how much, and how little, is something everybody should assess with an inquiring state of mind, rather than relying on simple theory and stating the obvious (600k is alot more than man-in-the-street income)
- the fact that most people are simply talking about 600k and peanuts, and without it even being mentioned in the appropriate context, shows the power & reach of local print media, as well as the capability of the defence's legal team.
warm regards and good day
alfe
read this thread with interest, would like to add some of my personal observations:
- i have no doubts which side's legal team were more well-prepared to fight the case. interestingly though, i thought the other team (and the prosecution at that!) should have prepared more statistics - such as showing how the size & the expenditure of the charity's events help it to raise the amount of money it has in its reserves today.
Put it this way - if you have a smaller show, low on star appeal, you may not be able to raise proportionately less the sum of money. ie. if your show budget was 500k and u managed to raise 1 million, you cannot say for certain that a 50k show budget can raise 100k.
this is why large companies grow market share at the cost of profits, they reap hugely once they become the no.1 or no.2
and if you have enough reserves to say, last for 10 years on a low-scale fund raising program, you cannot say for certain during the last 1-2 years, you can quickly assemble a team that has the capabilities of the current NKF fund-raising team.
- NKF is wildly successful because it is able to run like a huge events organisation, always planning ahead of schedule, attacking at you from all angles, radio, television, using stars as public faces for its appeals, footage of well-filmed, tear-inducing accounts of patients - its success of running shows and raising funds is unparalled in history of local charities.
however, this huge fracas may serve as a reminder that, despite its success, too many sensivities which should have been looked at, and managed carefully should not have been ignored.
for example, if the CEO of a company was going to be rewarded with a 12-month bonus, the board/company had better prepare well in advance to explain WHY he was paid that amount as performance bonus, even right down to the minute details. no matter how - the general populace will view people earning at the top rung with resentment because of the huge income disparity.
the taps thing was a huge PR disaster from the start. As a charity, they should know that instead of installing a $990 tap, they should instead install the same taps building-wide, and then invite the press to come visit CEO's office and proudly proclaim their CEO uses ordinary taps just like everyone else (and what a PR coup at that!)
I'm rather surprised that the CEO only drives a mercedes 200 though. Pretty sure that if he had been driving an SLK or a 280, it would have probably been reported in bullet-points and in larger fonts.
- it is extremely regrettable that mrs. goh was quoted (and photographed wearing leopard prints at that) i really feel that the statement appears to be taken out of context. given that top income earners (based on income tax returns) in singapore range around $10 million or so, the 600k (or 0.6mil) salary of NKF CEO given his performance is not wildly unjustified. how much, and how little, is something everybody should assess with an inquiring state of mind, rather than relying on simple theory and stating the obvious (600k is alot more than man-in-the-street income)
- the fact that most people are simply talking about 600k and peanuts, and without it even being mentioned in the appropriate context, shows the power & reach of local print media, as well as the capability of the defence's legal team.
warm regards and good day
alfe
plainsman
New member
hey gordonzz 
it certainly wasn't meant to be naggy at all haha! guess my thoughts tend to be way too wordy (and i was trying to summarise somemore!!!)
i wish we could all view things simply, but there is really no alternative sometimes for example, i donated to charity, but is the money actually going to the needy?
cheers
it certainly wasn't meant to be naggy at all haha! guess my thoughts tend to be way too wordy (and i was trying to summarise somemore!!!)
i wish we could all view things simply, but there is really no alternative sometimes for example, i donated to charity, but is the money actually going to the needy?
cheers
SENIOR Counsel Davinder Singh spent some time probing chief executive officer T.T. Durai on the NKF's reluctance
since 1999 to disclose the salaries of its senior people.
Mr Durai confirmed that the issue never went away, and that the organisation's position was that it would not disclose.
He said salaries are a very personal thing, and as a private person he did not want his disclosed.
Also, revealing top officers' pay would have made it difficult to recruit people.
He also saw no legal requirement to disclose his pay.
Mr Singh pointed out that even though there was no legal requirement to release all the information included in the NKF's investment report to the donors, that had been done.
Counsel said that the absence of legal obligations was therefore not an obstacle.
Mr Durai replied: 'It is a personal matter.'
Counsel remarked: 'I do understand some of that because that is why people travel first class and have a lavish suite for their privacy.'
He then asked Mr Durai if he thought the public ought to be told if a charity decided to pay its chief executive $25 million a year - funded by donations.
Mr Durai said at first that he could not comment.
But asked repeatedly, he said it would be up to the board of directors.
He also said he would go along with the decision not to disclose even if the $25 million was, as Mr Singh put it, 'grossly, grossly exorbitant'.
'I report to the board,' Mr Durai said.
Counsel then moved on to the issue of Mr Durai's pay.
Davinder Singh: In your affidavit, you liken yourself to CEOs of companies and ministers in government, right? Would you agree with me that like ministers in the government, you are being paid out of people's money? Would you agree with me that ministers' salaries are transparent?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: Would you agree with me that CEOs of listed companies have their salaries published in the newspapers?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: And you have likened yourself to CEOs of public companies. Why are you not publishing your own information?
T.T. Durai: I like my salary to remain private. My board members know that. My senior colleagues know that.
Davinder Singh: We all like our salaries to be private. But if it's funded by the public, which takes precedence? The right of the public to know how much of their money goes to you, or your preference for privacy?
T.T. Durai: I think it is for the board to decide. The public doesn't control the organisation.
Davinder Singh: Exactly. Exactly. You see, Mr Durai, the public does not control, it doesn't have access to information. So doesn't that place on you a responsibility?
T.T. Durai: We comply with all the regulatory requirements. If the regulatory authorities imposed a condition that we have to disclose salaries, we would.
Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, can you tell this court what your salary and bonuses were for 2002?
T.T. Durai: I was earning a monthly salary of $25,000.
Davinder Singh: And your bonus?
T.T. Durai: Performance bonus was 10 months.
Davinder Singh: Ten months' bonus! $250,000 bonus. This is for 2002.
T.T. Durai: I cannot recall the exact figure.
Davinder Singh: So, if it is $25,000 a month, multiply that by 12, your total package was $550,000 in 2002.
T.T. Durai: I believe so.
Davinder Singh: 2003, please?
T.T. Durai: You have the numbers. I don't have the numbers offhand.
Davinder Singh: Tell us, please, so that we don't waste time.
T.T. Durai: About the same I think. I cannot tell you offhand now.
Davinder Singh: About the same, meaning $550,000 or slightly higher?
T.T. Durai: About that.
Davinder Singh: How many months' bonus did you get in 2003?
T.T. Durai: Twelve months.
Davinder Singh: In 2004, what was the bonus?
T.T. Durai: Same bonus.
Davinder Singh: Twelve months at $25,000 a month.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: So for the past three years you have earned about $1.8 million from the NKF.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: And the man who earns $1,000 a month who takes out $50 of his pay packet every month thinking that it is going to save lives, should he not know that that is the kind of money you earn?
T.T. Durai: There is nothing wrong with the money I earn.
Davinder Singh: $1.8 million, I wonder what is wrong. $1.8 million. Should the man who takes $50 out of his pay packet of $1,000, leaving $950 for him, his wife and his children, with no savings, should he not know that some of that money is going or has gone into a $500,000 to $600,000 pay package for you?
T.T. Durai: Surely he knows.
Davinder Singh: Tell me, how does he know?
T.T. Durai: Let me explain. People donate money to the NKF to run a dialysis programme that saves lives. We have built a dialysis programme. We run...
Judge: Please answer the question.
Davinder Singh: You said: 'Surely he knows.'
T.T. Durai: No, I am saying a person who contributes to the foundation knows that there are people working in the institution.
Judge: No. The question is, should that person know that you are earning $500,000, $600,000 a year? It is a simple question.
T.T. Durai: No, your honour, I do not see a need for him to know.
Davinder Singh: Thank you. It has nothing to do with privacy. It is about embarrassment, is it not?
T.T. Durai: No.
Davinder Singh: You would lose all authority, all moral authority to look at him in his eyes, isn't that right?
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
Davinder Singh: If he knew that you were flying first class on his money, you could not look him in his eyes, isn't that true?
T.T. Durai: It is not true.
Davinder Singh: If he knew that his salary couldn't even buy the bathroom fittings in your private office suite, you couldn't look him in his eyes.
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
Davinder Singh: We now understand why you say the $990 tap is not expensive. Well, coming from you at $600,000 a year, we now know why you say it is not expensive. But tell us, for that man with $1,000/$2,000, is it expensive?
T.T. Durai: Yes, he may consider it expensive.
Davinder Singh: He may, or is it? Tell us the truth.
T.T. Durai: I cannot speak for him. It depends on the type of building, the use of the item.
Davinder Singh: The man in his HDB one-room, two-room, three-room flat, earning a salary of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 - would he find that tap at $990 plus 10 per cent discount expensive?
T.T. Durai: He may consider it expensive, yes.
Davinder Singh: He may, or will he?
T.T. Durai: If he is an educated person, if he knows the use of the particular office, for what purpose, he may probably think it is something reasonable.
since 1999 to disclose the salaries of its senior people.
Mr Durai confirmed that the issue never went away, and that the organisation's position was that it would not disclose.
He said salaries are a very personal thing, and as a private person he did not want his disclosed.
Also, revealing top officers' pay would have made it difficult to recruit people.
He also saw no legal requirement to disclose his pay.
Mr Singh pointed out that even though there was no legal requirement to release all the information included in the NKF's investment report to the donors, that had been done.
Counsel said that the absence of legal obligations was therefore not an obstacle.
Mr Durai replied: 'It is a personal matter.'
Counsel remarked: 'I do understand some of that because that is why people travel first class and have a lavish suite for their privacy.'
He then asked Mr Durai if he thought the public ought to be told if a charity decided to pay its chief executive $25 million a year - funded by donations.
Mr Durai said at first that he could not comment.
But asked repeatedly, he said it would be up to the board of directors.
He also said he would go along with the decision not to disclose even if the $25 million was, as Mr Singh put it, 'grossly, grossly exorbitant'.
'I report to the board,' Mr Durai said.
Counsel then moved on to the issue of Mr Durai's pay.
Davinder Singh: In your affidavit, you liken yourself to CEOs of companies and ministers in government, right? Would you agree with me that like ministers in the government, you are being paid out of people's money? Would you agree with me that ministers' salaries are transparent?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: Would you agree with me that CEOs of listed companies have their salaries published in the newspapers?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: And you have likened yourself to CEOs of public companies. Why are you not publishing your own information?
T.T. Durai: I like my salary to remain private. My board members know that. My senior colleagues know that.
Davinder Singh: We all like our salaries to be private. But if it's funded by the public, which takes precedence? The right of the public to know how much of their money goes to you, or your preference for privacy?
T.T. Durai: I think it is for the board to decide. The public doesn't control the organisation.
Davinder Singh: Exactly. Exactly. You see, Mr Durai, the public does not control, it doesn't have access to information. So doesn't that place on you a responsibility?
T.T. Durai: We comply with all the regulatory requirements. If the regulatory authorities imposed a condition that we have to disclose salaries, we would.
Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, can you tell this court what your salary and bonuses were for 2002?
T.T. Durai: I was earning a monthly salary of $25,000.
Davinder Singh: And your bonus?
T.T. Durai: Performance bonus was 10 months.
Davinder Singh: Ten months' bonus! $250,000 bonus. This is for 2002.
T.T. Durai: I cannot recall the exact figure.
Davinder Singh: So, if it is $25,000 a month, multiply that by 12, your total package was $550,000 in 2002.
T.T. Durai: I believe so.
Davinder Singh: 2003, please?
T.T. Durai: You have the numbers. I don't have the numbers offhand.
Davinder Singh: Tell us, please, so that we don't waste time.
T.T. Durai: About the same I think. I cannot tell you offhand now.
Davinder Singh: About the same, meaning $550,000 or slightly higher?
T.T. Durai: About that.
Davinder Singh: How many months' bonus did you get in 2003?
T.T. Durai: Twelve months.
Davinder Singh: In 2004, what was the bonus?
T.T. Durai: Same bonus.
Davinder Singh: Twelve months at $25,000 a month.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: So for the past three years you have earned about $1.8 million from the NKF.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
Davinder Singh: And the man who earns $1,000 a month who takes out $50 of his pay packet every month thinking that it is going to save lives, should he not know that that is the kind of money you earn?
T.T. Durai: There is nothing wrong with the money I earn.
Davinder Singh: $1.8 million, I wonder what is wrong. $1.8 million. Should the man who takes $50 out of his pay packet of $1,000, leaving $950 for him, his wife and his children, with no savings, should he not know that some of that money is going or has gone into a $500,000 to $600,000 pay package for you?
T.T. Durai: Surely he knows.
Davinder Singh: Tell me, how does he know?
T.T. Durai: Let me explain. People donate money to the NKF to run a dialysis programme that saves lives. We have built a dialysis programme. We run...
Judge: Please answer the question.
Davinder Singh: You said: 'Surely he knows.'
T.T. Durai: No, I am saying a person who contributes to the foundation knows that there are people working in the institution.
Judge: No. The question is, should that person know that you are earning $500,000, $600,000 a year? It is a simple question.
T.T. Durai: No, your honour, I do not see a need for him to know.
Davinder Singh: Thank you. It has nothing to do with privacy. It is about embarrassment, is it not?
T.T. Durai: No.
Davinder Singh: You would lose all authority, all moral authority to look at him in his eyes, isn't that right?
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
Davinder Singh: If he knew that you were flying first class on his money, you could not look him in his eyes, isn't that true?
T.T. Durai: It is not true.
Davinder Singh: If he knew that his salary couldn't even buy the bathroom fittings in your private office suite, you couldn't look him in his eyes.
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
Davinder Singh: We now understand why you say the $990 tap is not expensive. Well, coming from you at $600,000 a year, we now know why you say it is not expensive. But tell us, for that man with $1,000/$2,000, is it expensive?
T.T. Durai: Yes, he may consider it expensive.
Davinder Singh: He may, or is it? Tell us the truth.
T.T. Durai: I cannot speak for him. It depends on the type of building, the use of the item.
Davinder Singh: The man in his HDB one-room, two-room, three-room flat, earning a salary of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 - would he find that tap at $990 plus 10 per cent discount expensive?
T.T. Durai: He may consider it expensive, yes.
Davinder Singh: He may, or will he?
T.T. Durai: If he is an educated person, if he knows the use of the particular office, for what purpose, he may probably think it is something reasonable.
HeartRockSingapore
New member
Hey gordonzz, that's the right spirit.
