The Field Marshal

End of the NKF Saga? CEO, board and patron of NKF steps down. Is this the end of the NKF debacle, the single development that has ccaused the majority of Singaporean donors to lose faith in charities on the whole? I see these developments as the first of many in the long road to clean up the act of charities in Singapore. One bad apple does not mean a rotten barrel. True. But, it also means that the worms are in the barrel. It is high time that stricter rules and regulations are placed on charitable organisations here. Guidelines simply won't work, since guidelines are not mandatory in nature. After this episode, what I want to see are, (a) greater transprancy - even if it means revealing the pay of the board members, and, (b) greater accountability to donors - who afterall give out of their hard earned money. I am still bewildered that after the relevation of T.T. Durai's admission of a $600,000 paycheck, there are still some voices defending the right not to disclose the pays of CEOs in voluntary welfare organisations. What I am worried about is that the incoming NKF CEO - Gerrard Ee has also agreed with this policy too. In today's New Paper, Mr Ee explained that the resistance was not an attempt to deceive the public, but a matter of staff morale. He said that it has been a perennial problem in social services to attract good talent, because of the generally lower pay. He said "if these people can earn more in the commercial sector, why would they want to join social services? We don't want to affect staff morale further by forcing people to reveal their pay, especially, if they're already not earning that much". I have to agree that statement by Mr Ee is a fair one. But upon closer inspection, I cannot help by see the underpinnings of the Singapore Inc. ethos in it. Basically, having been socialised in the formal education system here, we think about nothing by meritocracy and economic results. Thus, even in the charitable organisations, the boards perceive that talent will be lured by attractive renumeration and perks. From the prospective CEOs' view, the perceived reality is that you want the best person, you got to pay for it. What's lost in this is the compassion and love that should have been the very foundation and reason for the people who 'volunteers' to work in the social services sector. This volunteerism should embodify sacrifice and altruism - the 'I do it freely for the society, out of love for the people'. Therefore, I find it hard to understand why morale should be affected if a CEO's pay is considered as low compared to his peers in the private sector. They should remember that the purpose of the roles, while similar, in that they provide leadership and vision to the organisations, charities are fundamentally different from your run of the mill MNCs. By choosing to work in a VWO, the person should approach the work from an altruistic perspective. One should forget about the perks and huge renumerations that comes from working in the private sector. One should do it out of love. I believe that the satisfaction of seeing their customers - the needy and sick - getting the best care possible should more than compensate for the 'loss' in income. If you ask me, I would respect the CEO that willingly offers to lower his pay packet to ensure that donors' money are well utilised. These are the people who deserve a standing ovation. I am sure the society will show these people their utmost respect. I believe that Singapore is an anomaly, in that we equate everything 'good' with a high price tag. This society is sadly devoid of the compassion and altruism that is the hallmark of a highly developed civilisation. Perhaps it is time to reconsider that values that we imbibe in the next generation, one that has been brought up in MTV, iPods and PS2s.