NKF: A case of the tyrannical majority?

With the bulk of the NKF storm over, it looks a little late to discuss the topic now, doesn't it? I don't feel that there's a need for a summary of the entire event, so I'll just write some of my thoughts instead.

----

I can't help but feel that the public reaction towards NKF's board of directors could have been better managed. People wanted the board to immediately resign, pretty much from the beginning. Yes, the board has done wrong, but no chance was given to the board to explain their actions. The legal court trial may have been a fair one. But in the court of public opinion, NKF pretty much got a lynching. And they got it bad, all because they weren't given a chance to defend themselves.

To me, it seems that instead of the board resigning because they were wrong, it was more like the board resigning because the general public thought they were wrong. In fact, the board could have had plenty of excellent reasons for their actions, but they were not given a chance to say them, and now we would never know.

That lost chance of redemption may be gone forever.

Such is the price to pay in a democracy, where the power lies with the people's majority. Even if the majority is inherently wrong due to some false or impulsive belief, things will still be done their way. More so when applied to a charity dependent on public funds. Hence the term "tyrannical majority"

------------

3 years or 30: What has not been revealed

During Davinder Singh's eloquent demolition of Mr Durai during the NKF trial, Singh had briefly calculated that NKF's reserves would last them 30 years or thereabouts, instead of the 3 years that NKF has themselves advertised. He did so by citing the total reserves amount, divided by the treatment cost subsidy per patient, divided by the total number of patients (2000 i think).

At first glance, things did seem to be that simple. Why did NKF give such an erronous statement? I wonder how much of the general public had put some thought into the calculations themselves. For example, did they consider that:

1) How liquid are these reserves? I think NKF has an investment arm or something to ensure that the reserves generate some income so that the charity is not wholly dependent on public donations. And some investments lock down the cash for a period of time, preventing NKF from withdrawing their full reserves easily.

2) Are dialysis machines expected to last 30 years without maintenance or replacement? How much does the maintenance cost? Are there newer and better machines that the NKF intends to upgrade to?

3) There are 2000 patients being subsidised by the NKF. Is that number expected to stay constant over the next 10 years, or is an increase expected due to the changing eating habits of S'poreans?

4) What other charity works are the NKF involved in? Last I heard they were doing something for children as well. And isn't NKF planning to branch out to more areas to help folks other than needy diabetics? Don't those cost money?

5) What other admin costs are there that we're missing? If more patients are expected, does NKF need to build a new dialysis branch in some part of S'pore? Or extend a building wing?

6) How about inflation? Inflation rate in S'pore is around 1%. (more, if in an economic boom).

7) The dialysis subsidy is set at 25% of the cost to the patient. Is NKF changing the subsidy amount in the near future?


To be fair, I think the NKF's figure of 3 years is an unstatement and therefore a error on the part of the NKF. But the rosy 30-year picture of Davinder Singh's is pushing it too far. Nothing is ever simple when it comes to large sums of money, and a thinking people need to be able to deduce that before they cry foul.