Categories: Do You Know?
Get ready for a 61 seconds minute. Yes that's right. One minute with sixty-one seconds.
Scientists are delaying the start of 2006 by the first "leap second" in seven years, a timing tweak meant to make up for changes in the Earth's rotation.
A leap second is added to keep uniform timekeeping within 0.9 second of the Earth's rotational time, which can speed up or slow down because of many factors, including ocean tides. The first leap second was added on June 30, 1972, according to NIST, an arm of the U.S. Commerce Department.
Deciding when to introduce a leap second is the responsibility of the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service, a standards-setting body. Under an international pact, the preference for leap seconds is Dec 31 or June 30.
Now I wonder how the New Year countdown will be like.
....9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, minus one.... Happy New Year!?
[Link1][Link2][Link3]
Saturday, December 31, 2005
The sixty-one second minute ...
NKF saga - more questions than answers
Categories: Singapore
The new NKF clarified how every donated dollar was spent by the old management on Dec 29. This comes about after the damning KPMG report which said that only 10 cents goes to the patient. Since then, there were numerous queries about what happened to the other 90 cents.
The new management explained it as follows
(Table lifted from Today newspaper Dec 30, 2005)
Looking at expenditure in 2006, it is reassuring to know that patient subsidies increased from 10 cents to 38 cents and the hefty fund-raising expenses decreased from 22 cents to 9 cents. But what happened to expenditure for health screening/prevention and especially overheads? Both have been increased - 3 cents for screening/prevention but a hefty 10 cents for overheads!
My question is this - when Mr Gerard Ee said that NKF will go back to basics, I will assume this means providing dialysis for renal patients as envisaged by Prof Khoo, founder of NKF. Granted that health screening and prevention are both part and parcel of the general management of kidney disease, why would this have increased when if this was not part of the basics? If the old NKF could manage to carry out fairly successful health screening/prevention at a lower cost, then shouldn't the new NKF management learn from them and improve further if possible?
The other more alarming expenditure is overheads. I assume this includes staff pay. I have no grouse as to how much the CEO gets paid as long as there is no abuse. If he is worth $25k, so be it. However after the KPMG reported the excesses and wastage of monies by the old management, we know that overhead can be further minimised. In 2003, the overhead portion is 14 cents. After the NKF had been cleansed and tidied, the overheads increased to 24 cents out of every dollar! Come on, how do you justified the increase in overhead expenditure with the new (prudent, and lean) NKF management, when even with previous ridiculous excesses in expenditure, the overhead for the old NKF was less. And we were told for a fact that now there were fewer staff compared to that in 2003.
If indeed 41 cents went to the reserves in previous NKF, despite the excesses reported in KPMG, then I think previous CEO did not do too badly. Maybe his focused was shifted from patient-centric to reserve-centric. Even after being 'renumerated' with such high bonuses, he even manage to keep overheads down. Maybe he did deserve his $25k pay after all!
I hope the new NKF will review the figures so that the main portion of the charity dollar goes to the patients. After all, the reason why NKF was started was to help renal patients pay for their dialysis treatment. Any other expenditure should be secondary to this priority.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
A plan that will surely backfire ...
Categories: Malaysia
The Malaysian Deputy Human Resources Minister, Datuk Abdul Rahman Bakar, announced yesterday that all workers in the public and private sectors will have to undergo psychiatric tests at least once a year. They will also be subjected to blood and urine tests. He was quoted as saying, "From blood and urine tests, we will know the number of workers suffering from mental disorders, HIV/ AIDS, drug and alcohol addiction, and other ailments."
Currently not much details had been issued. This news seems to have caught the country's workers union puzzled as they were not consulted and not aware of the plan. Even officials at his ministry were unsure when the plan would be implemented.
What is the rationale behind such plan? According to the Deputy Minister, once the result is out, the employer will be able to decide which employee will need help and where to refer them. Isn't this wishful thinking? The idea behind it is noble, but in reality how many employees are lucky enough to have a caring employer let alone one who will look after them?
Is such a plan necessary or even realistic? Currently, a pre-employment medical check-up is a pre-requisite for most of vacancies. Although this is not an annual affair, it is usually adequate to monitor the health of the worker. Since the work force generally hails from the younger age group, one should expect these workers to be healthy in the majority of cases. As it is, the pick-up rate for the 'diseased' is minimal. If all 11 million workers were to be subjected to annual check-ups, the cost will be exorbitant. However, the pick-up rate for the 'diseased' should differ much as Malaysia's populations are generally healthy. Therefore, this idea doesn't seem necessary.
Malaysia's health service is already plagued by shortages in doctors and nurses. If this plan is to be implemented, this would further burden the health case system. Imagine adding another 11 million 'patients' to the current system. Would it burst the seams of the already strained healthcare?
By making such a check-up compulsory, how will it affect the workforce? Currently Malaysia is already having a five-day work week. If workers are compelled to go for check-up, wouldn't this further reduce the 'work week'? This will erode the competitive edge.
A big question will be that of cost. The price tag for such an exercise is exorbitant. Imagine paying RM20 per person for a check-up. This will amount to RM220 million per year! To make such a check-up yearly will certainly drained the country's resources for something of questionable value.
Another cost-related question is who will foot the bill? Should it be the employee, the employer or the government? It is unlikely that the government will foot the cost for all the 11 million workers given the exorbitant price tag. Employers will find such expenses rather unnecessary as they are only concern with the bottom line and not the health of the employee. Compelling employer to foot the bill will also drive up the operating cost and therefore the competitiveness of companies here. If employees were made to pay, this will create a lot of unhappiness especially those in the lower income group and the daily-rated.
Having addressed the necessity of the plan, we much look at the implications next. If an employee failed a medical check-up, what is the implication?
Ideally, the company should refer them for treatment - as what was mentioned by the Deputy Minister. But as mentioned before, this is an ideal. More likely, the worker will face difficulties if he fails the check-up.
In reality, if a worker were found to have psychiatric disease or HIV/AIDS, the first thing the employer will do is to terminate his services. This is just being realistic. How many employer is willing to pay for medical care of the employee? Nowadays, we are seeing more and more Managed Health Care (MHC) scheme. Under this scheme, a employer will pay a certain amount of money to a MHC company. This MHC company will then pay the medical expenses of the employee. This sound noble enough until one realised that MHCs are for profit company. This means that they will try to reduce healthcare 'cost' by limiting the payment made on behalf of the employee by several means. Altruistic ideals certainly does not feature in such schemes. Therefore to cut cost, the most likely outcome is termination.
A worker who had failed such check-ups will face a bleak future. Not only will he lose his current job, he will have trouble finding a new one. In this time of job scarcity, certainly job prospect will be further weakened.
The worker's misfortune will not end there. Now he will have problem buying insurance! Any person who had bought insurance before will know that once you have a disease or very likely to get a certain disease, you are not covered for the said condition. If you are lucky, they will insure you but at a higher premium. Imagine if the report says that you are likely to have a mental disease where are you going to buy any insurance? I am saying 'likely' because diagnosis of a psychiatric condition is never absolute.
Given so many negative consequences of the plan, it is hoped that the Deputy Minister gives it a thorough thought before implementing it. It would be a shame if this plan brings more problem than what it tried to solve. Equally shameful will be when it will have to be terminated after its implementation due to impracticality. Therefore I strongly urge the Deputy Minister to reconsider before the employees are further victimise by an unnecessary and impractical scheme.
[Reference]
Monday, December 26, 2005
Indian Ocean Tsunami - looking back ....
Categories: Others
How fast time has past. It has been one year since the tsunami struck last year. I remember myself having glued to the news for the few days after the disaster. I can remember my sorrow when I saw the news clips being shown.
Initially it was just my curiosity to see how extensive and where the disaster has struck. News came in quick. Firstly, the main focus was on Aceh, Sumatra and Phuket in Thailand. As the day progress, more news came in with reports of damages in India and Sri Lanka. A day or two later, it was reported that ripples of the disaster was felt as far away as the east coast of Africa.
News bulletin were mainly focused on the tsunami disaster. The initial report of tens of thousands of victim were later proven to be grossly an under-estimate. As hours passed, it became clear that the number of casualties stretched to at least a hundred thousands.
The next few days, came clips of the tsunami itself. Amateur video clips which were obtained by the broadcasters were shown. It showed how the tsunami struck and its destructive powers. Although the clips looked threatening, the destructive power were already much diminished. One can only wonders at the destructive power when it is at its peak.
The most disturbing news broadcast came in later. This was when the number of body bags were shown. I remember a news report on CNN about the number of dead in Banda Aceh. Accompanying the report were clips where body bags were placed on a section of the road. This seen was a very sad one and almost brought tears to my eyes. Although I worked in the hospital, were death is a everyday occurence, the sheer number of body bags still brings about much sorrow. Till this day whenever I remembered that particular scene, my eyes will be filled with tears.
With disasters, comes the good side of human nature. Over the next few weeks after the tsunami, there were reports of how people helped each other. There were firstly a lot of money in the form of donations being poured to the various charitable organisations which sends aids to the stricken area. There were also numerous reports of locals - people who survived the disaster - helping each other either with the grim task of recovering the dead bodies or helping with the task of locating lost persons. There were those who helped out in local hospitals. People from elsewhere flew into the affected area just to help out in whatever way they can.
When the true picture finally came to light, the extend of disaster was astonishing. The origin of the tsunami was due to an earthquake with its epicentre just to the north of Sumatra. The magnitude 9 earthquake triggered off the tsunami. Its destructive powers struck countries bordering the Indian Ocean the hardest. Sumatra (in Indonesia), Penang (in Malaysia), Phuket (in Thailand), Burma, Andaman Islands, Tamil Nadu (both in India), east coast of Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and even Somalia, Kenya and Mozambique were affected. Elsewhere there were recording showing an increase in the tides as far east as the South China Sea. There were 200000 people dead or unaccounted for. The cost of destruction were estimated to be in the billions.
After one year, the rehabilitation and rebuilding of lives is still going on. Much still have to be done to rebuild the lives of the victims. Although material things are slowly being acquired, who knows how long the survivors will harbour the loss of their loved ones.
Once again, Nature had shown us who really ruled the world. Maybe its a reminder to the human race that we are basically one - no matter the language, colour, race or religion. If Nature strike no single people is affected as amply shown by the tsunami incident. Nature also shown us that we are all basically good at heart. Whenever a disaster strike, there are always reports on selfless people who come to help - again irrespective of language, colour, race or religion.
If anything 'good' had come out of this disaster is the end of insurgency in Aceh, Sumatra. For the last 30 years, the Achenese had been fighting a guerilla war for independence from the Indonesian government. Although there had been many previous meetings between the warring sides, nothing concrete had been achieved. However after the tsunami, within months, an agreement was reached with started the whole process of reconciliation and autonomy. The latest report was that the peace process is going according to plan.
Maybe we should heed Mother Nature....
First Anniversary of the Indian Ocean Tsunami
Categories: Others
Today marks the first anniversary of the Indian Ocean Tsunami. More than 200, 000 people were either dead or missing. The rebuilding of lives and livelihood is still continuing. Below is a page lifted from the US Geological Survey department on the mega-earthquake and its ensuing tsunami.
Magnitude 9.0 - SUMATRA-ANDAMAN ISLANDS EARTHQUAKE
OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA
2004 December 26 00:58:53 UTC
|
|
Felt Reports: This is the fourth largest earthquake in the world since 1900 and is the largest since the 1964 Prince William Sound, Alaska earthquake. In total, more than 283,100 people were killed, 14,100 are still listed as missing, and 1,126,900 were displaced by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in 10 countries in South Asia and East Africa.The earthquake itself caused severe damage and casualties in northern Sumatra, Indonesia and in the Nicobar Islands, India. It was felt (IX) at Banda Aceh, (VIII) at Meulaboh and (IV) at Medan, Sumatra; (VII) at Port Blair, Andaman Islands, India; (III-V) in parts of Bangladesh, mainland India, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand. The tsunami caused more casualties than any other in recorded history and was recorded nearly world-wide on tide gauges in the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. At least 108,100 people were killed and 127,700 are missing and presumed killed by the earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia. Tsunamis killed at least 30,900 people in Sri Lanka, 10,700 in India, 5,300 in Thailand, 150 in Somalia, 90 in Myanmar, 82 in Maldives, 68 in Malaysia, 10 in Tanzania, 3 in Seychelles, 2 in Bangladesh and 1 in Kenya. Tsunamis caused damage in Madagascar and Mauritius and caused minor damage at two places on the west coast of Australia. Seiches were observed in India and the United States and water level fluctuations occurred in wells in various parts of the United States. Subsidence and landslides were observed in Sumatra. A mud volcano near Baratang, Andaman Islands became active on December 28 and gas emissions were reported in Arakan, Myanmar. (last updated 2/15/05) [US Geological Survey]
Sunday, December 25, 2005
NKF saga and fiasco by Prof Hwang - the similarities
Categories: Wormie Says
The embarrasing debacle experienced by Singapore and South Korea seemed to have something in common. I am talking about the report on the debacle in the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) and the fiasco created by formerly Prof Hwang Woo-suk of Seoul National University on stem-cell research.
In Singapore, the NKF had been the most successful non-governmental organisation (NGO) in terms of fund-raising and support for hemodialysis service. It had been so successful that every year it managed to garner over S$15 million in donations. It has been the envy for many charitable organisations here with some organisations voicing their concerns that donation dollars may dry up due to the success of the NKF. Through the years, it had even become a brand name for a fund-raising organisation. This is evident by its branching into the NKF Cancer Fund and NKF Children's Medical Fund, although there are already charity organisations looking into their plight. Because of its successes, rumbles regardings mismanagement and regulator suspicion on lack of governance were not thoroughly followed through. Each accusations were either explained to the regulators satisfaction, not found out by the audit or simply sue to frightened off any would be accusors.
Another 'contributing' factor is the fact that the Government works on the policy of not over-spending on health care. Only 3% of the GDP is spent on healthcare here. Don't get me wrong. Despite this the Government manages to provide good basic healthcare at a very affordable price to the general public. No patient is deprived of healthcare because of inability to pay. Because of an aging population and the "need to preserve the country's reserves", charitable NGOs are 'encouraged' to provide some of the costly medical care, the best example being hemodialysis, to off set some of the expenses from the Budget. Because of this, it is easier to overlook some of the grievances brought against NKF. How can a charitable organisation, which on paper had a good governance, which provide so good a support for the patients it looked after, and so successful in fund-raising be mismanaged? The auditors were unable to find anything wrong. Everything must be in order.
In South Korea, a similar climate exists. Over there, the need to be successful had always been a priority. This has brought South Korea to the forefront in technology and sports in a short span of time since World War 2. Ten years ago, brands like LG (then Goldstar) and Samsung were never heard of, but now it is a household name, able to stand against names like Panasonic, Sony and Nokia, Siemens. In the sports arena, now they are deemed strong contenders in the field of hockey, football and badminton when previously they were rarely mentioned even in Asian sports.
When it comes to stem-cell research, the whole nation were thrill when researcher Hwang Woo-suk were able to come up with ground-breaking research papers. He became a national hero of sorts overnight. In the Koreans' quest to excel and particularly to stamp its presence in the world of stem-cell research, they had backed Mr Hwang fully and compassionately till the truth comes out and South Koreans felt betrayed.
In both instances, here in Singapore and in South Korea, apart from the similarities mentioned about - that of the need to excel, the financial promise and pride of the nation - lies the most important similarity of all. Both men are intelligent and charismatic. Both seemed to be able to sway others into believing them and seemed able to convince others about their 'good' work. Their charisma and persuasiveness had made regulators so comfortable and trusting that they become so easily persuaded and convinced.
These two incidents hopefully will teach all of us a lesson. No matter how successful and agreeable any organisation is, there should not be any letting down of guards. The regulators must ensure that any rules laid down are follow and any reports of misgivings should be thoroughly looked into. This is the only way forward so that embarrassment of such scale will not happen again.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Mr Health Minister, I salute you!
Categories: Singapore
Once again well done Mr Health Minister. Earlier when he revealed that independant auditors KPMG will be looking into the finances of NKF, he reiterated that he had also directed them to look into the role of the regulators in the debacle. There was also a hint of regret when he indirectly admitted that he may have been 'wrong' in defending NKF when the latter's reserves was in questions. That was in July 2005.
Now with the full report being released by the New NKF, he scored again. This time the Health Minister admitted partial blame (althought he wasn't the Health Minister when the misdeeds in NKF were carried out). He even confirmed that NCSS did relay its concerned regarding the finances in the then NKF in 2001 after a query raised in KPMG report.
He even went further when he said, "Yes, I accept that I defended it (the NKF). And now, I look silly myself. I felt betrayed myself."
Wow, how many government leaders or for that matters, anybody in management, so openly admit mistakes done. This is the only way a society will progress - admit that there is a problem, and then try to solve them. This is the only way a problem can be solved. If this is a typical Minister at work, then Singapore's future will be bright.
Well done, Mr Health Minister! I salute you again.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
NKF Saga - Statement by Health Minister
Categories: Singapore
STATEMENT BY HEALTH MINISTER KHAW BOON WAN ON KPMG'S REPORT ON THE NATIONAL KIDNEY FOUNDATION
1. The KPMG report has been widely reported. Their assessment and their conclusions are out in the open. I am glad that the KPMG has not pulled any punches. Our priority now is to collectively learn from this episode and to act on it.
Punishing Wrong-doers
2. First, anyone found in criminal breach will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This will be done. MOM has completed its investigations. We will be pressing for charges to be made. CAD and CPIB are still in the midst of their investigations. They will proceed thoroughly as usual. There will be no cover-up of any wrong-doing. As their investigations are still in progress, we should not comment further at this stage.
Cleaning Up NKF
3. Second, we will clean up the NKF. We have now a strong Board and they are delivering results. Their job is unfinished but they are committed to seeing it through. Mr Gerard Ee and most of his Directors have agreed to stay on for 3 years to complete the transformation of the NKF. The Government appreciates their national service. I am confident that in 3 years’ time, NKF will have a standard of corporate governance that is first class.
Strengthening Regulatory Regime
4. Third, we will strengthen the regulatory regime on VWOs. Yesterday’s BT commentary by Conrad Raj asked a question: why did no one heed the signs? Let me spend some time on this important question.
5. To do so, we need to go back to the origins of the NKF. How did it all start? What was its purpose? How did it become a household name?
The Original NKF
6. The NKF was the brainchild of Prof Khoo Oon Teck. He was the father of dialysis treatment in Singapore, a wonderful man with a charitable heart. As a young doctor, he witnessed first-hand how his brother, the late Rev Khoo Oon Eng, suffered long years of kidney failure and eventually succumbed to it. Prof Khoo was to recount years later that his brother’s suffering and premature death provided the impetus for him to devote his whole life and career to caring for renal failure patients.
7. In 1969, he founded the NKF as a society under the Societies Act. Shortly before that, he had set up the first kidney dialysis unit in an attic above Ward 23 in the old SGH Bowyer Block. The Bowyer Block has since been largely demolished, but I retain memories of that attic which I visited as a young officer in MOH.
8. From that humble beginning, Prof Khoo went on to build up the NKF. He strongly advocated a publicly-funded dialysis treatment programme for patients. He felt that this would better inculcate a spirit of self-help and caring for one another. He was tireless in fund-raising, despite a heavy clinical workload. He was a selfless volunteer and an inspiration to many.
9. He chaired the NKF until illness forced him to retire in 1995. Over 26 years, the NKF under his leadership contributed tremendously to renal treatment in Singapore. It did very good work and mobilized the entire community, from churches to temples, from hawkers to professionals, from students to housewives.
10. As we read the KPMG report on the abuses of the NKF in recent years, let us not lose sight of the original NKF and its accomplishments. For a quarter of a century, NKF was a model of success for voluntary organizations. Concerned citizens coming together to initiate and provide a much needed care to fellow citizens. People caring for people with a level of compassion and love that for-profit organizations and bureaucrats cannot possibly match. It was the model of the people sector at its best. We had all supported the old NKF whole-heartedly and for many years our trust was not misplaced. Even after Prof Khoo left in 1995, the NKF continued to work to the benefit of many patients.
Losing the Moral Compass
11. That is probably why no one took serious heed of earlier signs of trouble. I do not know when the NKF began to shift its strategic focus and, along the way, lost its moral compass. It might be in 1999 or thereabouts, when it progressively transitioned from a society to incorporation as a company in 2001.
12. Around that period, I understand that the regulators did occasionally receive informal but often anonymous feedback on the NKF. Some criticized it for being arrogant, while others complained against its aggressive fund-raising tactics. There were some anonymous allegations of the CEO’s lavish lifestyle.
13. Where appropriate, regulators did follow up on the complaints. Criticisms were set aside after the NKF leadership was able to convince the regulators that they had not done anything improper. The regulators were also reassured by periodic assessments given by the NKF auditors that the financials did not show any unusual transactions.
14. And when the NKF continued to deliver tangible results – the large number of grateful dialysis patients and the healthy reserves being progressively built up, the regulators assumed that the criticisms were probably due to discomfort at the unconventional means of fund-raising. We now know that we have been misled. Perhaps, we were coloured by our deeply-held and positive view of the original NKF under Prof Khoo Oon Teck.
Misleading Many
15. But we were not alone in missing those early signs. I asked for a scan of media reports on NKF around that period. There were many, and the strong support and praise of the NKF were palpable. Even as late as this year, during the trial on SPH’s defamation case, many still came forward to defend Mr T.T. Durai. In particular, the NKF staff were sure that he had been victimized. Now that the KPMG report has been published, ST today reported that many now feel betrayed.
16. Even Prof Khoo who has the greatest interest in the NKF was misled. In July, he described Mr Durai as “hardworking, loyal and honest man who volunteered his time for the NKF at the expense of his own family”. He was not wrong to say that Mr Durai worked hard for the NKF. But the way he captured the Board and ran the organization was fundamentally flawed.
17. Mr Durai obviously had strong views on how the NKF ought to be run. If the NKF were his privately-owned company, he could perhaps be excused for running it as he pleased. But the NKF was not his little empire. It was a public organization supported by public funds. No matter how good you believe your ideas are, you still have to subject them to continuing and open debate with your Board of Directors and your fellow colleagues. This did not seem to be the case.
Board Has Failed
18. As a lawyer, he would understand the need for sound corporate governance. Indeed, the old NKF publicly declared that it was a pioneer amongst charities in introducing strong corporate governance practices. But it was merely a structure in form. Mr Durai’s actions could not absolve the former NKF Board, whose fundamental failing was in not fulfilling their duties as Directors. Regrettably, they delegated practically all their powers to the CEO. As a result, they did no more than endorse his decisions with little or no challenge. Consciously or otherwise, they constituted a facade of good corporate governance, but without much substance to back it. This allowed serious problems such as mishandling of contracts and conflicts of interest to happen. They have badly let down the donating public which trusted them, just as much as the former CEO has.
Bizarre HR Policies
19. Mr Durai’s HR administration was also highly unacceptable. For his part, Mr Durai was obviously embarrassed by the high salary that he took from the NKF. So he chose to suppress transparency and consciously stayed out of Board membership. His exchange of letters with his Chairman, rejecting the latter’s repeated offers to raise his salary, but only to get paid more than what was formally offered, was bizarre, to say the least.
20. Mr Durai’s handling of his own staff’s remuneration was equally questionable. All CEOs value good employees and would rightly strive to attract, reward and retain them. But to reward certain employees with ad-hoc salary increments, exit bonuses, back-dated salary adjustments is strange for any entity that has grown far beyond the size of a small family-run company.
Auditors Found Wanting
21. Over the years, the NKF had been audited by certified public accountants, both as per routine corporate reporting requirements and in response to specific requests by the regulators. However, the weaknesses in NKF’s corporate governance went unnoticed. Different groups of auditors have been commissioned to peep into the NKF. Even last year, when my Ministry got the KPMG to conduct an ad-hoc review on the NKF’s tax-deductible receipts, that review had not uncovered any large-scale weaknesses. It certainly did not suggest the pervasiveness of poor governance and mismanagement.
22. That the current KPMG audit could now reveal so much is the result of deploying enormous auditing resources and under exceptional circumstances. With the former NKF Board and CEO having resigned, the KPMG auditors were able to go through every file and read every email, without people looking over their shoulders or obstructing their way. I appreciate the challenge of auditing an organization which we now know was completely dominated by its CEO. If he deliberately set out to mislead, it would take some efforts to uncover the truth. But it is not impossible and hence my disappointment with the former NKF auditors.
Regulators Could Have Done Better
23. On Government’s part, we accept KPMG’s sharp comments on the regulators. There were many agencies involved, each with its specific roles and responsibilities. This created a lack of clarity in the regulatory structure, which became vulnerable to exploitation. We will fix this within 3 months. This may require legislative changes.
24. We have learnt a sharp lesson from this episode. We will tighten the co-ordination across agencies and close the gaps in our current system. We will provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each agency. We will clarify the 30% rule on expense ratios and make it unambiguous. An inter-agency committee has started working on this. And as a regulatory philosophy, we cannot be overly-trusting that others will behave honourably, nor be swayed by the apparent success of the parties we regulate. If regulators are suspicious, it is their responsibility to follow through robustly even if it causes unpleasantness and unhappiness.
25. Within my Ministry, I have restructured the unit supervising healthcare IPCs and beefed it up with more staff, including additional accountants.
Conclusion
26. But at the end of the day, let us remember that we are dealing with an NGO, a non-government organisation. The NKF is not a government department. Like all other charities, the primary responsibility for the proper running of the NKF lies with the Board of Directors.
27. The Government has a duty and it is to ensure that there is no criminal misconduct, and that the basic rules, such as the 30% expense ratio cap, are complied with. However, in the case of a large entity like the NKF, because of its scale of fundraising, and the patronage that Government leaders lent to the NKF, the Government had a heavier responsibility to satisfy ourselves that the organization was properly run. We failed in not doing so earlier.
28. Now that NKF has a new Board and is making a fresh start, we will work with it to institute tighter checks and balances on the NKF to prevent any future recurrence. However, we must not because of NKF, tighten up on the rest of the charities with a heavy hand, or we will stifle their initiative, their public spirit and their community-building instincts. The Government must strike a balance between regulatory rigidity and operational flexibility.
29. We have a basic choice to make. Either we get the Government to be more involved and shrink the role of volunteers and civic society. Or within the framework of privately-led VWOs, we strengthen checks and balances to ensure better accountability.
30. We think the right way is not to have the Government take over. That will change the character of the organization altogether, and choke off the volunteer spirit and the motivation for the public to donate to worthy causes. Instead we should prevent the Board from being captured by a dominant and charismatic CEO, mainly by putting reliable and dedicated people and ensuring proper succession. There is no 100% solution to this problem. But we will do everything practical to reduce the chances of the problem recurring.
31. In closing, let me again thank Mr Gerard Ee, his Board and the interim CEO for the excellent work they have done while under the most difficult of circumstances. I also thank the NKF nurses and other staff who have bravely and steadfastly cared for their patients through these difficult months. Indeed, they have been badly let down and misled by their former bosses. They deserve our sympathy, not our anger. NKF has lost its way in recent years. Let us all help the new NKF team to bring the NKF back on track.
ANNEX A TO 21 DEC 2005 STATEMENT BY HEALTH MINISTER
Fixing Regulatory Gaps
1. The Government will tighten the co-ordination across agencies, close the gaps in our current system, and provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each agency.
2. In May 2005, MOF accepted the recommendations made by the Council on Governance of Institutions of a Public Character (IPCs), with some moderation in view of IPCs’ concerns on compliance costs and implementation time.
3. However, KPMG has pointed out weaknesses which are not adequately addressed by the Council’s recommendations. For example, there are no implementation guidelines for the application of the 30/70 Rule on fundraising expenses, or the determination of the number of years for an IPC’s reserves to last.
4. The Government will review this, in particular to tighten rules and raise standards in areas of public concern and for larger charities. MOF will announce the revised rules in due course.
5. KPMG also observed that the regulators rely largely on auditors’ reports and formal complaints to identify non-compliance by charitable organizations, and that there could be more active follow-up on instances of non-compliance.
6. The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Regulation of Charities and IPCs is reviewing the regulatory framework to rationalize the existing regulations, as well as the roles and powers of the various agencies. Preliminary recommendations are expected by Feb 2006. It will consider KPMG’s suggestion that regulators conduct compliance inspections. This may require expanded legal powers and resources.
7. In line with the work of the Council on Governance of IPC, NCSS plans to make some parts of the NCSS Code mandatory.
8. Since Nov 2005, MOH has increased manpower and resources for a new Division dedicated to the regulation of IPCs under MOH. MOH will formulate strategies to promote sound financial management and accounting best practices among VWOs under its purview.
ANNEX B TO 21 DEC 2005 STATEMENT BY HEALTH MINISTER
Central Fund Administrator for the National Kidney Foundation (NKF)
1. KPMG’s report stated that NCSS earlier had some concerns about NKF’s accounts, and described it as a “wasted opportunity” that the issue was not addressed 4 years ago.
2. NCSS had been the Central Fund Administrator for the NKF in the 1990s. By 2000, NCSS found it difficult to assess the use of NKF funds because the NKF’s programmes were predominantly medical and health-related. For that reason, a more logical Central Fund Administrator to oversee the NKF was MOH. NCSS also had concerns on the NKF’s use of tax-exempt donations and its fund-raising expenses.
3. NCSS informed the Commissioner for Charities and MOH in 2000 of its concerns over the NKF. The regulators collectively assessed and found nothing which would lead to the conclusion that the NKF’s financial track record and fund management track record were less than satisfactory, and would justify the removal of its Institution of Public Character (IPC) status. The NKF had provided reasonable responses to queries on its financial statements, which were accepted by the regulators. In addition, the NKF’s auditors then, PwC, expressed the professional opinion that NKF’s financial statements were in order.
4. Taking into account the above factors, MOH granted the NKF its IPC status from 2002-2004. MOH subsequently commissioned KPMG to do a one-time review of the NKF’s FY03 tax-deductible receipts. KPMG at the conclusion of its review surfaced a number of observations, which the NKF addressed.
[Original link]
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
NKF Saga - Auditors report
Categories: Singapore
The much awaited report on the infamous NKF saga was released yesterday. Although the true picture had not been fully appreaciated, from various reported articles, it seems that not all questions are answered.
The whole National Kidney Foundation (NKF) saga started after The Straits Times published an article entitled "The NKF Controversially ahead of its time" by its senior correspondent Susan Long on 19 April 2004. [link] Four days later, NKF served a writ on the newspaper saying that the newspaper article implied that NKF had misused funds collected from the public and splurged them on its CEO's office; and that NKF had mismanaged public donations. The court proceedings started on 11 July 2005. However, the defamation suit was withdrawn abruptly the next day by NKF, despite the 10-day scheduled trial. Then on the 14 July 2005, the whole NKF Board and its CEO, TT Durai and Patron resigned. This was revealed after the Health Minister conducted a press conference in which the Minister said that his Ministry was 'invited' by NKF to look into the fiasco. Now five months later, the auditor's report was finally released to the new NKF Board on 16 December and the public on 19 December 2005.
The report had carefully avoided the one point the public wanted to know most - that is, is there any misappropriation of funds, and who is the one ultimately responsible for the seemingly exorbitant salary and bonuses payable to TT Durai.
The main fault seemed to be "poor management practices and a lack of good governance of the NKF under its previous Board and management, and even questionable ethical conduct." The independant auditor, KPMG, found that the former NKF Board delegated all powers to the Executive Committee, which in turn delegated most, if not all, powers to the former Chief Executive Officer, Mr TT Durai. The Board was largely an ineffective one, which resulted in the concentration of power and authority in Mr TT Durai. The NKF also did not have a formal remuneration policy nor a comprehensive HR policy on staff benefits, which led to the apparent arbitrary determination and awarding of promotions, salary increment, performance bonus and other discretionary payments. There were numerous breaches of stated purchasing policy and noted inadequacies in finance and accounting controls.The NKF Board's Audit Committee was also found to be ineffective. There were evidence of manipulation of accounts, in order to comply with the 30/70 rule. KPMG also found that several directors in the former NKF Board and key management personnel had interests in or were involved in companies who had business relationships with the NKF.
Some of the findings were already suspected by the public and this had finally been confirmed. This included figures relating to the number of kidney patients, patient subsidies and treatment costs. They were inflated or misleading in its press releases and fund raising promotional materials. Board members, senior volunteers and staff made frequent travel and they travelled on First Class.
On the issue of regulation, the auditor said, "... while the Commissioner of Charities forms the central plank for the regulatory oversight of charities, there are various other bodies that participate in an assortment of roles which result in a sometimes confusing regulatory environment. The regulators play different roles, and not all are concerned with the welfare of charity beneficiaries, true owners of charities and their funds, or the management of the affairs of a charity. While some bodies have the power to initiate an investigation into the management of a charity, none did so in the case of the NKF, in the absence of formal complaint." Who would dare to try to make a formal complaint? At least three people had voiced their concerned regarding the going ons in NKF and what happened? They were sued by NKF and had to apologised and pay cost. The public was lucky the last time when Susan Long's article was published. The NKF, probably felt to all and mighty, sued SPH, parent company of The Straits Times. They had forgotten that this time it is no longer a case of David and Goliath. Here are two juggernauts who had to defend their integrity. If not for NKF short-sightedness, then TT Durai and the Board would probably still be flying first class and receiving fat pay checks courtesy of the general public!
Everyone is waiting eagerly for a comment from the Ministry of Health on this matter. The Taxman and CPIB is still looking into the issues. When the dust settles, it is hoped that frameworks are in place to have a better check-and-balances so that such mismanagement will not happen again. This is important not only for kidney patients but for all those who are dependant on charitable organisation in one way or another. Once the public is convinced that the chances of mismanagement is nil or marked reduced, then donations will start to pour in.
Links:
Verbatim: word for word [link1] [link2]
National Kidney Foundation [link1] [link2]
Channel NewsAsia [link1] [link2]
SPH Press releaseTT Durai to pay legal costs in NKF defamation suit against SPH
Statement on NKF withdrawing defamation suit against SPH
NKF VS SPH: ST'S COURT TRANSCRIPT FOR JULY 11 - MORNING SESSION
NKF VS SPH: ST'S COURT TRANSCRIPT FOR JULY 11 - AFTERNOON SESSION
NKF VS SPH: ST'S COURT TRANSCRIPT FOR JULY 12
The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?
NKF Saga - the article that started it all
Categories: Singapore
The NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?
By Susan Long
Controversy stalks the National Kidney Foundation, with critics lambasting its fund-raising methods, brazen self-promotion and work practices. Is the NKF just a cutting-edge charity ahead of its time, or is there more to those rumblings?
A RETIRED contractor who wants to be known only as Mr Tan used to be a National Kidney Foundation (NKF) donor until he was hired to install some bathroom fittings for its new headquarters at Kim Keat Road in 1995.
Inside chief executive T.T. Durai's office suite on the 12th floor of the $21 million building, he says he 'lost it' when he had to install, among other things, a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a gold-plated tap.
'I started screaming my head off. The gold-plated tap alone cost at least $1,000. It was crazy. If you're Bill Gates and own your own multinational, whatever you want, fine. But you're a charity, using donors' money,' he huffs.
After his outburst, he was told to 'just do' his job. The shower stall remained, but the taps he eventually installed were 'scaled down' to an upmarket chrome-plated model.
To this day, the 54-year-old belongs to NKF's die-hard detractor camp, unmoved by its shining success in social entrepreneurship and its track record in saving lives. As he puts it: 'After that day, not a cent from me. I'm not going to pay for gold-plated taps.'
Asked for its response to the contractor's story, the NKF's public relations arm sidestepped the details and said yesterday: 'Since you can't give us details of the contractor... it is difficult for us to give an answer to enlighten your readers.'
In the past fortnight, the NKF has hogged the headlines. Propitiously, the news of its amazing $189 million in reserves broke the very day it celebrated its 35th anniversary on April 7. Since then, a stream of more than 130 people - former employees, former donors and disgruntled members of the public - have e-mailed or called this newspaper to let off steam about its hard-sell tactics, thick carpets and controversial chieftain.
At the same time, about 30 others, individuals and organisations, have sent in letters of support for the organisation, praising its dialysis programmes and pledging continued donations.
So far, the NKF kitty appears none the worse for wear despite all the caterwauling. On April 11, its 11th NKF Charity show raised $6.7 million, just a fraction short of last year's $6.8 million. Last night, it netted another $6.4 million.
These serious sums of money - how the NKF gets it, spends it and accounts for it - have been a well-gnawed bone of contention among its naysayers. Way before details of its $5 million tie-up with insurance giant Aviva unleashed a ferocious debate on donor privacy issues, charges of 'invasive' fund-raising have dogged the outfit.
But the NKF has made no bones about gunning for the charity dollar - the more the merrier, just like any other profit-and-loss business. Relentless innovation over the years has brought new ways of fund-raising: greeting cards, live charity shows, donations via SMS, consultancy services, even selling its spare telemarketing capacity to private companies. In the social service sector, the NKF is the unparalleled paragon of the art of 'heartsell'.
Most impressive of all, notes Mrs Tan Chee Koon, executive director of the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre, is its ability to tap on the health screening it conducts for heartlanders to ensure a 'sustained pool of regular givers'.
Unlike many charities which rely on large, one-off infusions from wealthy foundations, NKF's bread and butter is the $3 to $5 monthly Giro donations from about one million ordinary Singaporeans. With such a big base of small heartland givers - its website says nearly two out of every three Singaporeans are donors - the pennies add up.
Every day, seven days a week, some 100 'prevention evangelists' and nurses fan out to companies, army camps, condominiums and churches islandwide to test the blood, body fat and urine of at least 1,600 people daily.
Since 1997, more than one million Singaporeans have undergone these free health screenings, which are followed typically by an impassioned pitch: 'This is something we're doing for you; is there something you'd like to do for us?'
A voluntary sector consultant notes: 'Even old grannies are not spared the spiel. Most are pressured to do a Giro contribution for a minimum of six months. Nothing they do is illegal, but it's all very aggressive. Nothing wrong with that, but when they push the fund-raising envelope, they tend to be insensitive to the larger consequences for the charity sector.'
But the NKF's head of what it calls 'prevention marketing', Ms Shirley Tan, makes no apologies for the 'heartfelt pleas' it delivers along with its basic health checks, which she notes would cost at least $60 in private clinics. She says these are 'free-will offerings' and the 'evangelists' have no financial targets to meet at each venue.
PAINFUL LESSONS
NKF chairman Richard Yong, 63, a former private banker who has been on the NKF board for 18 years, makes clear that lucre is the necessary lifeblood of the organisation.
Every cent literally buys time for each patient. And the NKF's mission to save the lives of those with kidney failure is undeniably daunting, which explains why there are no other self-funded, non-profit dialysis providers in the world.
Each patient is admitted for life - or until they are lucky enough to get a kidney transplant. The average life expectancy of those on dialysis is 10 to 15 years, at a cost of $150,000 upwards a head to the foundation.
Mr Yong says patients themselves pay from nothing to $800 each month for three-times-a-week dialysis which would cost at least $3,000 each month outside.
The incidence of kidney failure here - increasingly a lifestyle disease closely associated with diabetes and hypertension - is now the third highest in the world, trailing only affluent countries like the United States and Japan. This, coupled with a fast growing grey-haired population, means that the NKF has plenty of costly work cut out for it.
Its money-minting machinery, however, was not always so hard-nosed or well-oiled. Starting out in an unprepossessing Singapore General Hospital attic with just two beds and one metal tray in 1969, Mr Yong says, it battled the same growing pains that less publicised, cash-strapped charities face today.
When it set up its first dialysis programme in 1982 in Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital, it dispensed free treatment with little regard for outcomes and costs.
In 1986, it ran out of money, so he and other board members had to make the heart-wrenching decision of who among their 32 patients should continue with dialysis, and who would have to be sent home with morphine to die.
'I couldn't sleep; I couldn't eat. Who were we to play God?' he recalls. It hit home then: It was important to have 'healthy reserves that can withstand even the most dire economic times', and self-generated income 'so that we can be independent, instead of on our knees, poor and begging for life'.
So the irony is that, despite being one of the oldest, the NKF is yet one of the most progressive charities here. As a mature 35-year-old, it is looking at sustainability and continuity issues for the next 100 years, even as most other voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) grapple with day-to-day survival issues.
In the international arena, it is such a trail-blazing model of social entrepreneurship that American universities like Harvard, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have done case studies on it.
Locally, however, it is so far ahead of its time that society has yet to keep pace. Unlike in the West - where charities aggressively campaign for the charity dollar, professional fund-raising is a bona fide industry and tie-ups with commercial entities are old news - the social sector here unfortunately is still in its infancy.
According to Mr Terry Farris, head of charity management for Asia at European private bank MeesPierson, the fact that it costs money to raise money - the accepted norm, he says, is now 15 to 20 cents out of every dollar - may not have sunk in here yet.
Many VWO chiefs note there still exists an arcane expectation that non-profits should survive on the 'goodwill and sacrifice' of volunteers, even though it is recognised worldwide that the public good is much better served by hiring professional managers at market rates.
TOUGH LOVE
THE NKF has tried to break away from the 'third-tier' image charities suffer from, by sourcing for talent worldwide and paying them fair market value. According to NKF's honorary treasurer Loo Say San: 'Many Singaporeans prefer not to work for charitable organisations, so we go overseas to hire.'
It does its recruitment drives at top institutions like the Indian Institutes of Management and Beijing University, competing with the likes of General Electric and Morgan Stanley for the best brains money can buy. Since 2001, it has also tapped the skills of a steady stream of MBA interns from top business schools like Harvard and Stanford.
It staff strength is 947, a figure that NKF defends as necessary to man the three shifts of dialysis sessions, each lasting four hours, which its 22 centres around the island run daily.
Pressed for details on staff composition, Mr Yong said 'more than half are medical personnel'. The rest are spread among the administrative, marketing, fund-raising and communications departments.
The taboo it seeks to break is that charity is synonymous with poor quality. As Dr Gerard Chuah, an eye surgeon and chairman of the NKF Children's Medical Fund, says: 'What bothers me is when people say, why can't you continue to function out of containers? Hello, just because we're a charity doesn't mean we have to operate in a hovel out in the rain.
'Would you ask a family member of yours who has an honours degree to work in a container? We want to get the best people we can find who will run good programmes to save more lives.'
Even when administering its dialysis and patient rehabilitation programmes, the NKF approach is controversial. You might call it 'tough love'. According to Mr Job Loei, a dialysis patient who also helps counsel new admissions at NKF, those wallowing in self-pity are set straight.
NKF demands that patients co-pay for dialysis, hold down jobs and stick to their diet - or pay more. Patients' fees, for example, are reduced by $50 to $100 as an incentive, if they find a job, get promoted, tie the knot, give birth, or even when their school-going children score As.
It helps patients find jobs, provides courses to upgrade their qualifications and holds personal grooming classes to help them remain attractive to their spouses. If their children's grades slide, it even helps engage, and provides subsidies of up to 80 per cent for, tuition teachers to coach them.
As Mr Yong says: 'We don't dialyse them to go home and sleep. We want them to have jobs, bring home the bacon, contribute to the economy, have normal relations with their spouses and their children to do well in school. We say openly to them: 'If you want to die, go and die by yourself; don't come to us'.'
As a result, 93 per cent of NKF dialysis patients work, support their families and lead productive lives, compared to less than 60 per cent worldwide. The general philosophy is: No free rides.
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
LIKEWISE for employees, adds Mr Loo. They are constantly reminded that their wages come from donor dollars. To prevent wastage, there is an extensive list of fines, from $5 for getting to work five minutes late, to $30 for forgetting to switch off the lights. All staff functions are held in the in-house auditorium 'for fear of being labelled spend-thrift' if they venture outside.
For the record, Mr Yong says, there is no such thing as 'first-class travel'. Senior executives, from directors up, including CEO Mr Durai, fly business class. The rest fly economy.
Little is known of Mr Durai, 56, apart from the fact that his name T.T. (Thambirajah Tharmadurai) means a charitable man in Tamil. A former president of the then University of Singapore Students' Union, he graduated with a law degree and worked in the government legal service for six years until 1977.
The elegant and eloquent man eschews publicity and, despite 3 1/2 hours spent with top officials at the NKF last week, this reporter received only a handshake from him. No quotes.
His staff know him as a 'visionary' who cares deeply for NKF patients and knows each one by name. He is also a 'tough taskmaster' who works from 6am to 10pm, and eats and showers in his office.
He is said to run a tight, results-oriented ship, with a labyrinth of departments within departments and units within units.
But even the most embittered acknowledge it is a 'dynamic' workplace and training ground. Its staff turnover is high; employees are so often poached that managers now have to sign three-year contracts.
One downside cited by former employees is a corporate culture described as 'cagey', in which staff are discouraged from discussing finances.
Despite much public prodding and the Finance Ministry's encouragement to charities to reveal the salaries and benefits of their top employees, NKF top guns are sticking to their guns not to allow more public disclosure.
What they keep reiterating is: 'Although the NKF is a non-profit organisation, the people who have chosen to work in the NKF are private individuals, who are entitled to their privacy.'
But therein lies the chink in an otherwise spiffy armour: NKF's forward-looking business model lacks the financial transparency that would enable it to stand tall and get out of its controversy-laden shell.
After all, if it is governed by the creed of the marketplace, it should also appply rigorous standards of disclosure and accountability.
As a VWO analyst notes: 'You can find out how much any CEO of a public company makes, so why not them? How can it be that when they feel like it, they can be 'private', but when raising funds, they are 'non-profit' and 'public'? If any member of the public asks, why shouldn't the information be made available to them?'
As society matures, says Mr Farris, people will have higher expectations of non-profit governance.
'Like it or not, if you turn over as much as $67.5 million a year, you're a business, though it be the business of doing good,' he says. 'As a charity, you have to always remember: You are spending other people's money.'
On the NKF's part, so often has it been bad-mouthed - which it attributes to 'professional jealousy' - that it seems to have developed a persecution complex of sorts. 'Why is it us, always us?' is a plaintive cry its board members often utter.
It has also gone beyond plaintive cries, to being the plaintiff in defamation suits - at least three times. In 1999, for instance, it sued Madam Tan Kiat Noi for sending out an e-mail message accusing it of paying ridiculously high bonuses to its staff. An estimated 100,000 people received it. The case was settled after she apologised publicly, and paid $50,000 in damages, as well as NKF's legal costs.
Whither the NKF from here? Although it continues to bid the public judge it by its works and its effectiveness, detractors will continue to be fixated by the shroud over its numbers. Like it or not, rumblings are likely to persist until there is more publicly-transparent accounting.
(First published in The Straits Times on 19 April 2004)
[Original link]
Monday, December 19, 2005
NKF Saga - Peanut Lady made to eat peanuts!
Remember the Peanut Lady? Now she looks like a peanut-eater after a statement by ex-NKF chairman Richard Yong relating to former CEO TT Durai's salary in the KPMG report. In it he claimed that ex-CEO TT Durai's salary was known and endorsed by the Peanut Lady. She refuted the statement saying that it was incorrect. Poor lady, having her name dragged in the mud. Maybe some people can have peanuts and eat it too!
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Chinese Malaysian vindicated!
Categories: Malaysia
Malaysian's Deputy Tourism Minister Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who was part of the delegation led by Home Minister Datuk Azmi Khalid that went to China recently to clear any misconception that Malaysia was targeting Chinese nationals, was reported as saying that Chinese Malaysians studying and working in China have been instrumental in helping ease tensions between the two countries recently. He said they had upheld Malaysia's dignity in China, particularly in the way they had responded to the furore over the alleged ill treatment of Chinese nationals in Malaysia. As this issue had had an adverse impact on the country's image, he said, Chinese Malaysians had explained the situation to the Chinese media in an attempt to rectify the negative perceptions.
"Chinese Malaysians have truly shown their patriotism in China," he told a press conference on Dec 15. He was also quoted as saying that Malaysian students and businessmen in China not only loved Malaysia but were also knowledgeable about the country's development. [The Star Online, Dec 16]
This come as both welcome and sad. Welcome because after 48 years of independence, finally Chinese Malaysian are publicly praised for being patriotic. Sad because the Chinese Malaysian patriotism had been questionned all this while.
All this while, when the dominant ruling party said about creating a Bangsa Malaysia, are the Chinese Malaysian included in the game plan? Or are they just paying lip service? What about using Datuk Michelle Yeoh, the Bond girl, to promote Malaysia's tourism? And the plan for Michael Wong, previously of Wuyingliangping fame, to promote Malaysia's tourism sector? Is the dominant political party merely using these true-bred Chinese Malaysians for the good of the dominant race or for the bigger picture, that of Malaysia?
With Malaysia's 50th independance in 2007, it is hoped that the racial outlook will be better. Quoting a letter written by Malaysian First, "Many Merdeka celebrations have come and gone, and it is very sad that after all these years, we have yet to find a true Malaysian identity." [The Star Online, Dec 11]. Hopefully, the public declaration by a Malay Minister that Chinese Malaysian are patriotic, will be a start to better things to come.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
A trip to the 'new' Mt Faber........
Went to Mt Faber last nite, to experience the new revamp place called the Jewel. Going up hill was the same, finding a car park was equally difficult; nothing much had changed. That is until you get out of the car for a walk around the area.
When my daughter wanted to go to the toilet, to our horrors of horrors there was no public toilet in sight! The only public toilet available was next to the bistro and it is under renovation! You however could still use the toilet if you don't mind the fact that there is no door! So unless you are really desperate and in urgent need, maybe you want to avoid the toilet altogether. There other toilet was in the pub over in the Cable Car station. However, this toilet is only for patrons.
After this unpleasant experience, we ventured down to the Cable Car station where the pub is. To our horrors, we were not allowed up the Cable Car station unless you have a ticket. So we tried the other entrance which leads up the pub. No luck. Again you are not allowed in unless you want to patronise the pub! We headed back to the third 'entrance' where the escalator was - the assess to where the previous koi pond was. This was however locked-up with a signboard saying only the gate being opened up till 7 pm. Therefore our trip up the 'new' Mt Faber lasted about 25 minutes - 10 minutes to find a parking, 10 minutes to find a toilet and 5 minutes to roam around the area.
What a let-down. Previously, the public could just go up to Mt Faber simply to enjoy the scenary and enjoy the air. And all this for free. However, for whatever reasons, the 'new' Mt Faber is not friendly at all. Unless you want to spent money at night, there is no way to enjoy the scenery. The best view up in the Cable Car station is now off limits unless you wants to patronise the pub. Otherwise your view is severely restricted by the surrounding tress. Now you can no longer look into Sentosa unless you want to 'pay' for the view!
This is reminiscent of the North-East MRT line. If you can't generate enough demand, remove the alternative. What a shame. Now Singaporeans has even less options to enjoy in an already very limited choices.
So if you are thinking of visiting the 'new' Mt Faber, my advice is DON'T, unless you are pay. Gone are the days when nice scenary is free.
Do you know........?
Categories: Do You Know?
The Gödel's Theorem
Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was born in Brunn (now Brno), in what is now the Czech Republic. He studied physics in Vienna, and emigrated to the US in 1939, where he took a position at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study. In addition to other honours, in 1975 he was awarded the National Medal of Science, the US government's highest scientific honour.
He was noted for his contributions to the foundations of logic and mathematics. In a celebrated paper published in 1931, Gödel first put forward what came to be known simply as "Gödel's Theorem". With this theorem, Gödel had effectively demonstrated that some mathematical propositions are undecidable. Gödel's Theorem made a deep impact in the fields of mathematics and logic, and has been called the most significant mathematical truth of the 20th century.
Gödel's (Incompleteness) Theorem states that you cannot formulate a finite system of axioms to prove every result in mathematics. Inconsistencies can arise if you try to prove statements that refer to themselves.
One of the most famous of these is the assertion "This statement is false." If the statement is true, then according to the statement itself, the statement is false. But if the statement is false, then the statement must be true.
Another more interesting and of theological significant - the theological parallel in the Problem of Evil: God doesn't exist since an ultimate ruler must be responsible for all things but a perfectly just being wouldn't be responsible for evil acts.
Actually this doesn't prove divine nonexistence: just that certain notions of being "ultimately responsible" and being "perfectly just" are inconsistent. Being ultimately responsible is a form of strength like being able to encode sequences of numbers. Being just is like the property of being self-consistent (inconsistency is the sole mathematical evil). As with diagonal arguments, you can't have both.
References:
1. Discover Magazine Vol 26 No 10
2. http://www.nas.edu/history/members/godel.html
3. http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html#FirstIncompleteness
4. http://godel.4mg.com/ (unfortunately some links are broken)
5. http://www.myrkul.org/recent/godel.htm
6. http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel
8. http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/math/Godel.html
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Well done Mr Health Minister
Categories: Singapore
Health Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan has scored again! He was commenting on the preliminary report on the NKF saga. He was reported as saying that he had instructed the appointed auditor KPMG to look into and be critical about the Ministry of Health and see if there are any shortcomings. Not only that, he indirectly admitted that he may have been 'wrong' in defending NKF when the latter's reserves was in questions. Well done! This is how a problem can be solved - you admit there is a problem and not find a scapegoat. Once you know where the problem lies, then and only then can you begin to know when to start, where and how far to go and how to tighten loose ends. With more Minister like him, I am sure Singapore will certain progress further.
Well done Mr Health Minister!
Who will defend Malaysia?
Categories: Malaysia
Once again an army camp had been broken into yesterday. According to NST, Twenty-one guns and some 500 bullets were stolen. Police believed this to be an inside job. This is the third such case since year 2000.
In July 2000, 15 members of Al-Ma’unah, a deviationist group, staged an arms heist at the Territorial Army’s 304th battalion camp in Grik. They carted away a cache of 116 weapons and ammunition.
In February 2001, four masked men stormed the Guar Chempedak police station in Kedah, attacked and seriously wounded two policemen before leaving with two M-16 rifles.
It is sad that such incident has happened again. And worse - the thieves aren't even carrying heavy weapons. Just a few men can manage to steel armoury from our defence forces. If it is so easy to break into army camps, what will happen in times of war? Imagine, the enemy does not even need to send in a team of soldiers. Just pay or bribe a few locals and the job gets done! Can anything be easier?
I hope the highest authority will look into this incident and truly rectify this problem. I said truly because after the previous 2 incidents, things do not seem to change much. Those responsible should be disciplined or even sacked.
If our army base is so easily penetrated, who will defend Malaysia?
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Singapore, you have nothing to apologize
Categories: Singapore
Nguyen Tuong Van was hanged yesterday (2 Dec) in Singapore for drug trafficking. His death sentence was widely condemned by the Australian public with the Australian government sending several appeals; all to no avail. Why was there so much protest for a convicted drug trafficker?
It is well-known that all convicted drug traffickers caught with more than 100 g of heroin and other drugs faces the death penalty. Travellers flying into Singapore are told of the death penalty on arrival. If they travel by land there is a signboard with similar warning prominently displayed. Therefore there is no reason to plead ignorance. If one is a trafficker, I am sure he would have done a detailed study of the law of the countries that he would have to transit and surely he would have known about the death sentence for drug trafficking in both Malaysia and Singapore. If he still chooses to traffic drugs via these two countries, then he should be prepared to face the consequences.
The legal system in Singapore is respected by countries around the world including Australia. Therefore it seemed somewhat strange for the Australian government to try to intervene and to have the death sentence overturned. Whether the Australian government is agreeable or not, due process of the Singapore law had taken place and a sentence had been pronounced. These laws, like the Australian law, are based on the British law; legacy of a shared colonial past.
By trafficking drugs Nguyen had indirectly sentence his fellow Australian drug abusers to death. As is widely known, once a person is addicted to drugs, his life is forever condemned. Not only will he need to get money, legally or otherwise, to foot his addiction, his general health is compromised with early death inevitable. Why aren't Australian crying out against drug traffickers sentencing their innocent fellow citizens to death? To be blunt, why try to save one heartless and 'brutal' condemned man from death when many more innocent lives can be 'saved'. Why make a 'murderer' a martyr?
I am proud that the Singapore government did not back down on this issue. Due warning had been issued and the Nguyen knew where he stood when he chose to transit through Singapore. If the government had backed down on this issue, then the Singapore government will be seen as weak and Singapore today may not be as safe and secure as what foreigners had come to expect and envied. Furthermore it will have to explain to its citizens and other foreigners why Australian are treated differently for the same offence.
Singapore, you have nothing to apologize.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Questions, questions and more questions.......
Categories: Malaysia
The setting up of an independant commission of inquiry to look into the balai polic video clip is certainly welcome. But the real task should not be just to look into this unfortunate incident. This incident should be an 'excuce' for the government to reform some of the practices of the law enforcement agency. I am not sure what the scope of the inquiry will be but I hope they will answer some if not all of below.
Obviously, first and foremost is to determine the legality of the strip-search. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police had said that strip-search is legal, but lawyers had said that it is illegal as Section 19 and 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 7 and 8 of the Lock-up Rule 1953 did not mention anything about strip-search. Even if strip-search is legal, then the questions remains whether squats and ear-squats allowed at all? Certainly this had to be looked into.
Further if strip-search is legal, then when is it legal? I am sure strip-search need not be carried out for all offences. If you were called up for suspicious behaviour, then such searches should be highly unnecessary even if you were to be kept in lock-up. However if you were caught for drug trafficking, then such searches may be necessary. Therefore it is important to define the circumstances when such a search is to be carried out.
This brings us to the next questions. If it is to be carried out, who should supervise and how many personnel should be present. The rank of the personnel should be clearly defined as usually if a higher ranking personnel is involved in the strip-search, then the strip-search may be more acceptable to the detainee. It would be most helpful also if the detainee who is about to be strip-search be formally introduced to the personnel carrying out the search and also be told how many personnel are involved so that the detainee will know exactly what is happening and therefore further reduce any misunderstanding that may occur.
If the commission had determined that strip-search is illegal, then they should determine where the point of breach occurs. This is important because a break in chain of commands had occured and therefore any loopholes should be plugged. Who and why should be established not to find scapegoat but to further strengthen the flow of commands. This will also help in reinforcing and strengthening the law so that such unfortunate incident will not occur again.
Having identified the personnel involved, then whether the personnel should be disciplined and how should the involved be disciplined? Should punishment be harsh or just a warning will do? I certainly hope the Commission will recommend.
Last but not least, should strip-search be made legal at all? Is there a place for such searches to be carried out? The scenario given by the Police is that such searches are necessary for the police to ascertain that no weapons were carried by the detainee. Further, squats were necessary to expose any contraband that maybe hidden in the private parts of female detainees. Granted such reasonings are plausible but what safeguards are there to prevent any abuse of powers on the part of the Police? Therefore, it is hoped that the Commisions will come out with clear guidelines as to when such procedures should be done with the public clearly informed. This will reduce any misunderstanding that the public may have about the Police.
The Prime Minister is right in forming a Commission of Inquiry to look into this incident. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry, Malaysia's image will be improved as she shows the world that Malaysia has nothing to hide. If some misdeeds had been done by some overzealous government personnel, then they will be dealt with and the situation rectified. Internally, by having such Commission, the public is reassured that the Government is serious in stamping out any power abuse and corruption that PM Badawi had emphasised.
(Posted from Penang)
