National Kidney Foundation

So, it has come to an end.
Mr T.T. Durai & the board of directors resigned from their posts.

Does that help the patients? Are the angry Singaporeans appeased?
I wonder.

Many Singaporeans are unhappy over the fact the Mr Durai lied, cheated & flaunted his riches. They are unhappy that their donations to the 'so-called' charitable organisation are being used to pay for his salary & luxurious lifestyle. What I don't get, does the CEO of a charitable organisation deserves a market rate salary or should he live like a pauper; earning a pittance salary?

Why can't the charitable organisation be run like a company? It has the various functions of what a company would have. NKF has been operating effectively to help the lower-income patients, helping them pay for the dialysis, it has consistently increased the number of kidney dialysis centres around Singapore, enabling more kidney patients to get the treatment they require; but cannot afford. All these have gone unseen by the angry Singaporeans.

I'm a donor whom contributes monthly, i'll still continue with my monthly contributions. I know for a fact, the whole sum of my donation doesn't seem much & maybe only a portion goes off to really helping the patients. But, at the least; i'm still helping kidney patients.

Very often, we jump to conclusions (no offence to anyone). We tend to see things too simply.

We base our 'facts' on media reports, form our perceptions based on what is perceived by the media. Media manipulation is always existing, the news/reports we read/see/hear are equally heavily edited & sensationalised. Not forgetting, the media scene in Singapore is not as liberalised; we only have 1 broadcaster & a conglomerate on its own. There is no room for a second opinion or the chance to form another perception by a 2nd broadcaster. We are not like U.K, USA or even our closer neighbours in Asia; where broadcasters are able to piece together a story/issue differently from another media broadcaster.

Ultimately, the broadcaster is out to make profit. Whatever news' coverage that would bring about more viewership, enabling ad slots to cost more; that would be it. Whether or not if it's 100% truthful or deceitful, as long as it sells. Bottomline, money talks.

So, just how much of what you read/see/hear over the news is true or how much is falsified? You have to decide that for yourself. Not forgetting, the broadcaster is probably state-owned.