Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
corporate governance and misplaced trust
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 52, 53, 54  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: corporate governance and misplaced trust Reply with quote

corporate governance has been kicked around quite a fair bit recently with several high profile corporate failure and corporate fraud. there were some changes made towards ensuring better corporate governance and corporate transparency to protect minority shareholders' interest. and of course there were a lot of cheap talks about corporate governance but with very little attempt to make real changes that will benefit the genuine small shareholders.

there have been a few cases of disclosure where absentee directors were kept in the board and continue to be paid generously. are the few cases that were made public all there is or were they only the tip of the iceberg? how many redundant senior management staff have been retained for all kinds of reasons except the right reason in the industries. how many are kept and paid handsomely at the expense of returns to shareholders?

at the lower end of the economic structure, workers above 40 are expected to take a pay cut as they grow older, presumably becoming less productive. but at the top management level, many who have outlived their usefulness, or no longer as productive as before, are still being kept and paid continuously increasing salaries. some even have special posts created just to keep them in the payroll. the question is, whose money is used to pay for these senior gentlemen who are no longer shouldering their share of the load? there are of course some senior gentlemen who still worth every cent they received. but not many.

does the current corporate governance practices ensure that everyone is being paid his worth and not large wages and perks to recognise past contributions of senior management staff?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

redbean said...
some of the key prerequisites for good corporate governance.

1. an independent body to appoint independent directors to the board.

2. the appointed directors must not be beholdened to the management and their rewards and terms of service must also be independent of management.

3. the independent directors must not be connected or related to the management.

October 12, 2005 12:16 PM


redbean said...
has the administering of corporate governance flouted some of these basic principles? are we still appointing related people by related people or by management to be independent directors?

are our independent directors beholden to the management who appointed them?

are their appointments and remunerations tied to the approval of management?

or we are just kidding?

October 12, 2005 3:59 PM


redbean said...
another worm is uncanned today. the paper reported that ex mp lew syn pau, a chairman and director of a string of companies, have violated the companies acts and is being charged in court.

lew, an ex mp and a scholar, is one of the supertalents that sits in many boards and wears many big hats.

with his generous incomes from all the directorships and chairmanship, it is unlikely that lew would want to run foul of the law. he is one of the rare talents that are handsomely rewarded in our meritocratic system. people who are able to help the company to grow and bring in huge profits will always he highly regarded and highly paid.

October 13, 2005 9:29 AM


redbean said...
jackson tai of dbs was unhappy that public companies are expected to report quarterly financial statements as a means towards greater transparency and good corporate governance. the value of such frequent reportings may not really achieve the desired results except more works for the finance people and management which can be used for more productive purposes. its value thus is very subjective.

he also commented that mas rulings on directors with 5% or more shares of the company cannot be regarded as independent directors. thus affecting the pool of independent directors available.

i totally disagree with this comment. the current practice of appointing independent directors is totally foul, being the private tuft of a small pool of people who know one another. i appoint you, you appoint me. and it ended up with one person being director of 10 or 20 companies. it is not only an insult but a fallacy to claim that there is not enough qualified people to fill in as independent directors. there are many in the financial industries very well qualified to fill all the independent directorship even if mas changes the rules to limit each person to a maximum of 3 directorship.

this independent directorship has been a pie that was closely guarded and no strangers are allowed in. and the party and merry making continue even when it breaks all the fundamental prerequites to ensure good corporate governance really works to the benefit of the small investors.

for good corporate governance to work, a new set of rules must be introduced that ensure all independent directors are really independent.

many qualified professionals have been prematurely retired and many are about to retire. all these people are expected to live till 80 or 90 years old. independent directorship is a good opportunity to provide a source of income to all these senior citizens who have contributed to the economy actively and to share their wealth of experience in the boards of public organisations. it will solve the more serious segment of our unemployment problem. there is no need to turn them into cleaners and sweeper or taxi drivers.

October 15, 2005 9:43 AM
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

corporate governance without responsibilities

an article by adrian tan on corporate governance in today newspaper questioned the responsibilities of parties involved in doing due diligence on a company before being listed or being bought over. his findings, after interviewing experts in the business, discovered that for the huge sums of money being paid to the managers of public issues or those who arranged the sale of a company, the job done is elementary and without responsibilities. what these people did was to established and confirmed what the company said about it's business model, its management and their qualifications and the assets they have. and they charged quite a handsome fee for doing these.

and when the company was eventually found to be misrepresented to the extend of declaring bankruptcy or declaring big losses within a few months after due diligence was done, just too bad. not their problem.

if this be the case, then these kinds of work could be done by a lawyer's clerk like doing conveyancing checks and for a small fee. all the regulators needs to do is to haul up the offending company's management and charge them. and this is what they are doing. so why dispense with so much money and time doing due diligence that is just the verification of data and facts but with no responsibilities?

is this what corporate governance is all about?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

corporate governance and accountability

the usa regulators have completed a report on the accounting and auditing firms and have highlighted audit deficiencies by ernst and young and pwc, 6 cases in ernst and 30 cases in the latter. they are saying that they will take the findings seriously but short of making these firms being made accountable for their shortcomings.

in singapore this seems to be the way authorities are treating professional incompetencies and fraud. we have yet to see such big boys being held responsible for their misconduct, not meeting professional efficiency and doing their due diligence. the question is why are these big boys allowed to get away often scotfree from mistakes that have huge financial impacts and often affecting many innocent public investors.

it is way long overdue to bring the big boys to task to restore some credibility to the corporate world and make corporate governance meaningful instead of mere lip service.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

foreign talents for company boards

it is a truth that nobody wants to know. or at least nobody who is benefitting from all the fat director fees would want to know. heng swee kiat, the mas managing director said this,' these busy directors find that they do not have time to keep up with the workings of the business and to fully digest the information they are confronted with in their board papers.' is this new or news? has rip van winkle just woken up?

now, finally mas wants to do something to correct this anomally that has been common knowledge all these years. it is pure nonsense for someone, no matter how talented, to be in full employment, maybe even wearing several hats, to sit in more than 3 boards of directors. everyone has only 24 hours a day to work. no, minus all the rest and sleep time, travelling time, eating time, quality time with families, how much time is left for real work? 10, 12 hours.

it is high time that corporate governance be taken seriously and directorship be taken seriously. the party is over. or is it?

is the call for foreign talents to boost up the pool of directors necessary? some companies that need that extra exposure may need some foreign talents. but we are not short of qualified people to be directors. we have plenty of them, now jobless or holding lesser jobs, because of age. many have been prematurely retired for their own good as if after 45 or 50 they should be buried and forgotten.

we have a very serious unemployment problem at hand for the above 50s. there is no need to import more fictitious foreign talents. look after our own people. make directorship a new career for the senior and qualified professionals. are we so short of ideas as to discard all our experienced people to be cleaners and taxi drivers?

limit directorship to a maximum of 3, preferably 1, for full time employees. the rest of the directorships can be made available for qualified and experienced singaporeans. these are the jobs that we should reserve for our own citizens. not fictitious foreign talents.

can we be real? can we create value jobs for our citizens?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous said...
Good morning Redbean

What? Singapore companies hiring ang mohs for directorships while Singaporeans are without jobs? I thought Singaporeans are wiser than that. I say, hire them only when they can contribute to the betterment of the company and not just to add colour to the board of directors. We are better than them in many ways, but if we need foreign expertise and new western ideas of doing business, then by all means hire them. At the end of the day, they must to made to work for their money, like the rest of us.

December 01, 2005 10:49 AM


redbean said...
anonymous,

this is another story of the emperor's new dress.

there are many companies that can make do with the expertise of singaporeans. not everyone is a singtel or sia or nol or dbs.

the directorship pie has been the monopoly of a small group of people. it is a small happy party.

i have heard comments by some of the privileged few that they don't even know where the money comes from. they just got paid by so many directorships that they lost track of them.

obviously they did not attend the board meetings or they slept through the board meetings without knowing that they were there.

December 01, 2005 10:56 AM


Anonymous said...
Redbean, sad that these privileged few do not share their pie with more deserving Singaporeans. I too came across a case when I was talking to a prominent Singaporean architect who was holidaying/business in London. He told me he was in London to seek a London based architect for a joint venture to put up a building in Singapore. I asked why he had to do that and he told me that the Singaporean authority had insisted that had to be so. I said, surely you must have architects in Singapore who are capable of putting up a simple building. What he said took me by surprise. He said that the mentality of many Singaporeans who are in authouritative positions are in the habit of making local architects' life miserable because they are jealous and do not like to see other Singaporeans do well. I would have thought that where possible one would like to use local talent.

If Singaporeans do not change these kind of mindset, the future of Singapore will not be too rosy.

December 01, 2005 12:46 PM


redbean said...
the seed of self destruction was planted the moment singaporeans started to begrudge fellow singaporeans who earned more than them. this karma has started with the destruction of many trades and the incomes of these professionals and semi professionals.

instead of everyone prospering and living merrily, many lives were destroyed and you have hardship all around. 40 years of building up wealth were destroyed in less than 10 years. wealth is now concentrated in a few. that is how a society cracks.

when there are more unhappiness than happiness, change will take place. our economy is likely to go bust, first with the stock market and then the property market. the property market can only be supported by a strong stock market. but the stock market is as good as dead, though the appearance still look rosy. can't imagine the stock market running to a standstill.

the forces of karma are unstoppable.

December 01, 2005 1:31 PM


Matilah_Singapura said...
I think you are reading the situation wrongly. You are evaluating throught your own filters of perception: perceptions based on race, instead of focusing on the sole reason for the existence of any comapany : PROFIT i.e. increase in owners' equity, and return on equity.

There are many singaporeans who sit on foreign boards too. singapore is the regional home of many multi-nationals. Singaporeans hold board positions.

What's the problem? It is in the companies' best interests to appoint the mst worthy people to do the job. It has got nothing to do with race.

Remember, its a meritocracy

December 12, 2005 9:23 PM


redbean said...
how did race comes in? my contention is lt and ft. and the other aspect is the forces that were let loose because of personal perceptions. and agreed, my view is also a personal perception.

there are many people who are doing extremely well. but many have also fallen along the wayside.

it is to the company's benefit to appoint the most trustworthy? not all are trustworthy. and not all are worth their values.

December 13, 2005 11:07 AM
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

corporate governance by khaw boon wan

according to khaw boon wan,

'the key points about corporate govenance, aside from accountability and transparency, is checks and balances. This is not your own company, your own family business. Even if it is your own family business, and you have minority shareholders, you have to be accountable.'

in corporate governance you need watchdogs to watch the professional management. but how can watchdogs be watchdogs if they are appointed by the people they are supposed to watch?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous said...
Do we have a choice in the first place?? Singapore has only a small pool of "trustworthy" and "elite group" deem by our government capable of performing the role of watchdogs.

December 04, 2005 6:10 PM


redbean said...
hi anonymous,

trustworthy starting to turn rusty. in politics, one of the key functions is the distribution of wealth and power. how these are shared will affect the retention of power and the support given to the power. power is more difficult to share as the lost of power eventually leads to the lost of everything. but wealth is easier to spread. and wealth can be created if the environment is favourable.

the present system allows a small group to increase their wealth and not spreading them wide enough. it is not that there is insufficient wealth. there is no need to keep piling up so excessively while others are left on the wayside. it does not make sense to allow an individual to hold 2 or 3 key positions and add on a few directorships. this is like one man getting 5 or 6 men's pay. and these are not penny jobs but high paying ones.

and now people are lamenting that there is not enough local talents and thinking of giving our wealth to foreigners, unknown entities who have not contributed anything here while the locals are cast aside.

this is a very pathetic and tragic development.

December 04, 2005 10:23 PM


IMAGOD, the original said...
Who's watching the watchman?

December 06, 2005 10:12 PM


redbean said...
our watchmen are assumed to be men of high calibre and integrity. and after being paid very well, they will not stray.

nkf with one single stroke has destroyed this myth.

December 07, 2005 8:49 AM


IMAGOD, the original said...
Wah, li dat ah...

MATILAH SINGAPURA!

Wink

December 07, 2005 11:22 PM


redbean said...
nkf has done a lot of damage to the whole system of elitism and super talents. a lot of the previous assumptions are not only being questioned but proven to be untenable.

the worst thing that it had done is to discredit a whole pool of the notables. men at the top of their professions and wealthy individuals, all being dragged into a shitpool. of course some walked into it willingly.

December 08, 2005 9:00 AM
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

how to make corporate governance real?

the weakest link in the whole system of corporate governance is the independent directors. as long as the system does not ensure that independent directors are completely independent from the management, it is very difficult to make the system works. it is like having kelong referee in a football match.

what could possibly rectify this shortcoming is for mas to require independent directors to be appointed by an independent institution. all it needs is for 2 or 3 independent directors to be appointed from a neutral body to a company's board. and the directors shall be a member of the remuneration and audit committees. presently the best body to take on this role is the sias. it represents thousands of shareholders and should rightly be given a voice or say in the management of public companies. the minority shareholders need to be protected.

the neutral institution can set its own rules and regulations on the criteria and eligibilities of candidates to be appointed as independent directors, set its own length of appointment, guidelines on remunerations etc. the service and appointment of independent directors will thus be out of the hands of a company's management, and the directors will come and go without having to appease the company's management. the independent directors can thus act independently, objectively and professionally for the interest of the company and the shareholders, and not just for the interests of the management.

it is a simple and basic requirement without which the whole system of corporate governance is flawed.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

corporate governance: a christmas wish

companies appointed people to their board of directors for various reasons. public listed companies have to as provided by the companies act. given a choice, companies would want to appoint all their fathers, mothers, grandpas and grandmas and uncles and aunties as directors. better to pay themselves than outsiders.

some people were invited to join the board as a reward, some for the connections they can bring along, some to lend credibility and prestige, some to curry favours, and some to share expertise. no one is invited as a watchdog. no watchdog is welcome in the board of directors. whoever try to be a smart alec and want to be a watchdog will soon be shown the door.

how then can the system caters for this important function when it is a non starter in the first place? my christmas wish is for the mas to make it compulsory for public listed companies to appoint 2 to 3 directors from an independent approved institution. preferably this institution be the sias which represented several hundred thousand investors. they have a genuine and vested interest to want to make sure that public listed companies are managed in a way that do not compromise the interests of public shareholders.

sias can then work out their own procedures to provide a list of qualified directors for public listed companies. and one of the main role of these directors, in fact the most important role, is to be watchdog. of course the companies will not be too happy with this. but if corporate governance is to work, this is it. the companies can still appoint all the other directors they want. but the independent directors must sit in the audit and remuneration committees to keep an eye on things. their tenure of directorship will be decided by the independent institution ie sias. not the management.

as for private companies or vwos, they can also tap their directors from this same institution or from another govt appointed institution. perhaps ncss could be tasked to perform the same function as sias.

then we will have a really independent watchdog body of independent directors to ensure things are done in a more transparent way. not that this is the cure all formula. but it will help in many ways. the current procedure is flawed as independent directors are not independent.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

how to improve corporate governance? back to basics

the nkf fiasco has been an enlightening lesson to everyone. all the myths were destroyed in one stroke. all the big names, rich, professional, highly paid...people are just people. we need a few good men. and good men are not measured by all these. corporate governance must be revisited from the basics.

we not only need independent directors who are really independent. we need people who step forward to serve to really serve and have the time to serve. we need responsibility and accountability.

people who accept the appointments better have the time to do a good job and not be on holiday all the time. and telling people that they are volunteers is not an acceptable excuse. if they are not prepared to commit the time and dedication, they must not accept the job. it is highly irresponsible to do so. the job comes with a lot of prestige for the ego, some even pay big directorship fees, honour, and recognition. it also comes with a heavy responsibility. and everyone must be held accountable for negligence, mismanagement or fraud under their watch. there is no excuse and no escape from taking the rap. and the authorities must get this message through. no tea party in public service or as directors of commercial organisations.

the rest of good corporate governance like regulations and procedures, training, corporate authorisation, checks and balances, legislation, duties of watchdogs etc will only be useful if there is a heavy hand on accountability. otherwise, for some cheap thrill of recognition and fame, and worst still, for director fees, people will just grab as many directorships as possible with no concern of whether they can contribute or have the time to contribute to the good governance of the organisation.

lets hope that the party is over and people get down to serious business.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speedwing said... This NKF saga has occupied our mind and topic of conversation for such a long time. I do not know about the rest, but I am sick to my back teeth with it. What would it take for the whole episode to be put to rest? When will Singaporeans be satified that justice has been done? What must the government do to bring back normality?

The affair must not be allowed to go on much longer. It is damaging the squeeky clean image of Singapore.

December 24, 2005 12:14 PM


Anonymous said...
To forgive and to forget the NKF fiasco are totally two different issues.

December 24, 2005 12:29 PM


redbean said...
there must be a proper closure. the people are waiting for the cheats to be punished. and they are watching to see how the govt handle this case.

if this case is mishandled, the wrath of the people can be quite unpredictable.

no one is going to let this matter rest until justice is served.

the other matter that everyone is watching is how the new team is going to transform nkf, or are they going to tow the same line. now they are singing the same song that they must have 10 or 20 years of reserve or else it is untenable. and with such bad publicity they must be crazy to think it is the right time to ask the public for more money. it only shows how lost they are and how detached they have been from the masses. basically they have lost touch with the ground.

how many of the donors have even 3 years of savings to see them through bad times?

and all the figures published are still very questionable.

December 24, 2005 7:06 PM


Speedwing said...
As I have said in my earlier postings, unless you have definite proof that a crime has been committed, there will never be any prosecution. Those who have benefitted from this NKF saga have all laughed their way to the bank. My guess is there will be an investigation, nothing concrete will be found and all will be swept under the carpet. After all, it benefits no one unless you can retrieve some ill gotten money from someone. I seriously doubt that.

December 24, 2005 11:03 PM


redbean said...
from what that has been revealed in the papers, there are many trespasses. just the payment of remuneration, overtime, leaves backdating, from a hr point of view, the methodology was wrong and you can definitely recover them, especially when they are paid to himself.

if the govt could not press any charges, then singapore will become a haven for corporate misdeeds. we will be even more attractive than bahamas. the nation will become a laughing stock to the world.

this case is even whose than the cao case. that case was wrong decision in investment with management trying to cover up their mistakes. in this case it was a coordinated plan to siphon out the money to his own companies, paying his good friends ridiculous salary and bonuses, misrepresentation, lying, misappropriation etc.

if he can get away scot free, the govt will lose all its credibilities in the eyes of the people and might even lose a lot of seats in the next general election.

December 25, 2005 9:38 AM
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkf board and exco were misled!

there is an article by adrian tan(in today paper) taking the line that nkf board and exco could have been misled. that they did not have the full picture when approving all the extravagance. this is not too farfetched from another view that the board and exco were mesmerised by a charismatic ceo.

how silly! are the board and exco all boy scouts and girl guides? these are top notched people who have rose to the top of their profession, with a whole life of working experience and professional trainings. would they be like school girls looking gaga at their idol, the ceo? or were they all sleeping at board meetings, not knowing what was happening?

let's wake up and face the hard realities. the whole thing would not have gone that far without the acquiescence of the board and exco.

and please do not claim that they were volunteers and shall not be held responsible for fraud and neglect of fiduciary duties. no volunteer shall walk away free if they are part and parcel of a fraud. anyone who does not have the time or dedication to serve must not accept such an important appointment. it is simply irresponsible.

are singaporeans really that stupid to even think of such reasonings as possible and real?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Elfred said...
A patron can be considered misled...

But not the board and the minister.

There seem to be no idea of such necessity to note such differences.

We can't focus on Mdm Goh as Patron... obviously, this patron is perceived to be closely linked to Somebody. And this patron stood by Durai to the very last...

A person linked to somebody standing by a crook to the last is a very bad reflection to the somebody when you stress that she is just a patron, with non-executive powers... But the wives of ministers are also enjoying no executive powers... but who will fool around with the ladies? Which is why for good reasons, in understanding of the public, we cannot focus on the patron part-- it's consider pushing off limelight to the public while we can say a damsel is being misled.

This is politics.

December 30, 2005 9:36 AM


redbean said...
elfred,

i really dunno what to say. everyone is so condescending. everyone thinks that those people are naive little kids.

hey many are top talents and have achieved a lot in their lives. top students, scholars etc. how could people dismissed them as easily misled and mesmerised by a ceo?

but maybe, because they were led by a really super talent that turned them into putties.

December 30, 2005 10:02 AM
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkf, 3 years reserve more than enough

nkf is not a financial institution. it is not there to raise fund to keep in the kitty. the funds are to be used for the patients it is supposed to help. 3 years of reserve is more than sufficient. the public are generous and will donate whenever there is a need.

with such a fat reserve, for the time being nkf shall only raise enough to cover operating expenses. and nkf shall not have wild ambition to build another 2 or 10 hospitals and tell the public it needs more money. it shall operate the charity within its means.

now i can understand why everyone is trying to build more and bigger charities. if that is the case, all the hospitals shall be taken over by the charities and let the charities run all the medical services. they can even run all the public services...and ask the public to donate for it.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 52, 53, 54  Next
Page 1 of 54

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions