bullshit

Bullshit

For some strange reason, the NKF thinks of the public as a psychic entity, equipped with a supernatural depth of common-sense that should, by its accord, provide a keen self-aware insight to the cog works of the organisation. They must believe that we can discern their kindly intentions, hidden as it were in an opaque maze of nondisclosure, simply by going to bed at night and mewing to ourselves softly,"I don't know where my money went..but I'm sure its somewhere helpful..loh." It is almost heartbreaking to learn that the top executive of an established charity deigned it unnecessary to justify or make known their actions to the public, from (and for) whom the very existence of their organisation is based upon.

For example: the amount of patients serviced by the program was inflated and published in error, but the man decided that it was, I quote, "no major importance" and took no steps to correct it because, he felt that the public was giving money for various reasons (20chances to win a condo loh!) and for the NKF "brand" (and not because of patient numbers....duh). He assumed that the working man is fundamentally aware of the benefits invested with a position such as one he is holding, along with golden taps and frequent flyer miles, and thus felt justified in maintaining his principal of non-disclosure.

What is even more interesting is his adamant stance on how: 1) the public need not know, 2) he is faultless, 3) his responsibilities have been fulfilled.

Infact, it is not so much his salary figures, but his stonewalling of efforts to make transparent his legitimacy, that is the bigger issue. So maybe he is paid a mammoth salary to manage a traditionally thankless job, maybe he truly deserves it for his outstanding managerial skills, but surely the bonuses were overly extravagant when juxtaposed with the fact that it is all, infact, donors' money spent towards helping the needy. The needy, and not towards the building of a single board's personal pool of wealth. I am sure that those sitting on the board aint drawing shabby numbers afterall. Why then, the secrecy? Does it stand to reason that perhaps, they possessed of an inner humility that tells them (like a little angel on your shoulder) that the public might be displeased to learn of the interesting numbers? If they knew that the people would be unhappy, doesn't it mean that they were doing something against public interests? (like gay concerts woh) If so, their strict practice of non-disclosure can only mean that they knew that they were doing something the people would not like, but wanted to keep doing it. Thus, how is this different from decieving the people? At least, that will be how it looks like to the public.

In their defense, I do not understand the attacks made on the reserves: having a huge safety net to fall back upon is the whole point, isn't it? Irregardless of how many years it'd serve the current pool of patients, any estimation on the lifespan of the reserves is moot, because we simply cannot foresee the future. Please do not tell me that the number of patients will stagnant at 2000 ad infinitum. And mis-management aside, the organisation has done much good over the years and should still be given the benefit of a doubt, if but for their contributions.

And so the greatest irony is this: The tearing of facades began as a lawsuit against the SPH, but culminated in a withdrawal and a not-so-subtle reversal of roles on the stand. In their infinite wisdom, the NKF decided that a(nother) lawsuit was the best alternative (instead of blatant denials or forthright disclosures), for what could justify their innocence better than the bearing of fangs and claws? (As with several previous litigations) To show the public: the incensed righteousness of the maligned, the NKF must fight to protect their reputation via the judicial pipe, naturally, against our hegemony of a journalistic sector no less. But did they not anticipate the drudging of dirt out from beneath their corporate carpets, or the already disillusioned opinions of the vox populi. Were they expecting Mrs Goh to continue backing their misadventures now that the changing of blood has taken place? All in all, I thought that their actions were all rather, bizarre and showed a lack of foresight (to their credit, of course). Would not a gentlemanly recourse be the wiser alternative? Why must they seek redress through the most aggressive and counter-intuitive method available? Against the national paper that controls the dissemination of popular information. Humility and acceptance would have saved them from this media circus of their own doing.

Anyways, if the information are to be believed, a consolidated boycott against the organisation would be a gratifying slap in their face. Although, I still believe that if we start boycotting the 3rd, in as many weeks, instalment of the "NKF Cancer Charity Funds" (do we really need them managing another charity's funds?), we are depriving those in true dire needs of help, just to make a point (which isn't fair to the patients). As an alternative to extend your charity, LydiaMei directed me to this organisation: The KDF. Purportedly, a more respectable cousin of the NKF.

If I were Mr Durai though, I'll probably be wanting to make sure that the latest charity show actually hits the donation target: I'll liquidate my assets, cancel flights (but the cavier..ohhh..and the leg space...), melt some gold, hire stand-in phone number smashers, just to foster the image that the NKF is still very much with the hearts of the people. I mean, really. I'm sure he could, if he wanted to; all the donations he will make must flow back into his coffers anyways. A Win-Win for him. But why the incremental amount of charity weekend events? Maybe he is saving up to buy a gold plated jacuzzi, along with gold trimmed toilet paper.

This has also illustrated another point: Singaporean's gullibility. If you look sad and pitiful on national TV, people will kaypo and want to help regardless of facts. Like my mum going, "Adoi. So poor thing. My heart pain pain, must call more (so no pain)." Any issue capitalising on this quasi-altruistic tendency seemed to have had resounding success. Whether this is a good or bad thing is entirely subjective and left to another rant.

"Maybe a new golden showerhead will wash away the bad luck"