Charity: Ball in Our Court

Charities have been under scrutiny these past few weeks. They have been analysed, questioned and probed.

Now it's our turn to be tested. Us, the public, who gave freely to NKF's many shows on Mediacorp Channel 8 and who were outraged over the recent revelations of possible misuse of funds.

The President's Star Charity is upon us again. Will we, who gave so much to one single charity, be willing to give to a cause that supports 47 charities? Are we so scarred by the NKF incident that we cannot trust other charities?

Let's look at it this way. Nobody forced a gun to our heads to donate during the NKF charity shows (I am not talking about donations to NKF through other means). We sympathised with the plight of patients shown on air, we answered the pleadings of the stars flown in from abroad and we gasped at the courage of local artistes who risked life and limb (and in some cases, eyesight). We did this, mind you, knowing that NKF did more on-air charity shows than any other charity and knowing that NKF raised more money from on-air shows than any other charity.

Let's ask ourselves a few questions here. Why did we give more to NKF's shows than to shows to benefit other charities? Were the stars appearing on NKF's shows more appealing to us? Did they perform more heroic and dangerous stunts? Were the videos of the kidney patients more touching because they were more professionally made? Were the stars on the NKF shows pleading just a little harder, or seem just a little more desperate?

Here's the big question - WHY do we give to charity during such shows? I hope the answer is not because of anything in the list of questions above.

I am not naive. I know that celebrity spokespersons and charity shows are vital to charities, who might otherwise languish, with most of the public not knowing of their existence. Charity shows raise awareness for a cause. Celebrities are the messengers raising awareness. Say you like Zoe Tay. She tells you that cancer patients need your help. Would you:
a) Donate because Zoe is telling you to give?
b) Donate because you must show support for Zoe?
c) Donate because Zoe must be the celebrity that gets in the most donations (hey, it IS a competition)?
d) Pay attention to what Zoe said because you like her and donate because you now realise the plight of cancer patients.

Whatever your motivation, money gets donated and the charity benefits. That's a good thing. But if you donate because of (a), (b) and (c), then charity becomes part of the show business machinery and charity shows a form of life reality TV. How does that do the charity any good?

If charities need to appeal to those instincts in us (ie celebrity worship), lack of governance and transparency is the least of the problems facing the charity sector. As damaging as the NKF revelations have been to the sector, I would worry a lot more if the community is giving because of how the cause is packaged, rather than the cause itself. Yes, targets are important, but so are motivations.

So, this is our test now. The President's Star Charity might not be as exciting or as slick as the NKF shows. There will not be any death defying stunts. We are still recovering from the NKF saga. Do we give? Do we care?

Project "Superstar"

Let me call it now, weeks before the actual event. The winner of the Project "Superstar" Grand Final will be a male singer.

Last year, I predicted that Singapore Idol would be won by a guy, although the female finalists outnumbered the males and all the early talk was about the female power-houses (Jessea, Beverly and Olinda, I think). My logic back then was that the voting demographic skewed heavily towards younger girls, probably the tweens and teens. Unless there is a future Stefanie Sun among the contestants, guys are going to have a natural advantage. Particularly young, cute guys with nice smiles, that seem relatable and non-threatening. Witness Taufik, Christopher and Sylvester (not that I find Sylvester cute at all, but hey, I'm not in the typical voting demographic).

Applying that same logic to "Superstar", a guy is going to win. The female contestants do not quite fit the teen-idol mould that appeals to the tween and teen female demographic (typified by Stephanie Sun's winning combination of sweetness and youthful energy). A couple of them have the looks, but seem to be suffering from nerves, rendering their performances rather anaemic.

Even without the logic, I think the male contestants in "Superstar" are generally MUCH superior to the females. If they did not structure the show such that the two genders compete separately, we might have had 7 males and only 3 females making up the 10 semifinalists. The only female singer that can compete with the top guys is Kelly Poon and she might not have the votes to carry her through to the final 2. I think she suffers a bit from being perceived as the judge's favourite, which might not endear her to those who are predisposed to disliking "teachers' pets".

Project "Superstar" is grandiloquently named, even more so than Singapore "Idol". The title says it - this is a search for a superstar, not just a reasonably talented performer. It's a tall order and I think the producers have set their sights much too high. The contestants seem likeable enough, but there is not one "superstar" in the whole bunch. Nobody quite has that spark which marks a "star", never mind a "superstar". When a few are still struggling with the basics of singing, the "superstar" part is really a stretch.

To make things worse, the format of the show seems to encourage them to be generically sweet and nice. I guess coming across as a nice person helps to rake in the votes. But the end effect is that they seem interchangeable - the guys all have non-black spiky hair, the girls all have sweet, toothy smiles and all of them have colourless personalities. I am sure that these people are very lively and fascinating and interesting in real life, but we are not seeing ANY of this on the show. Everyone seems to love everyone else, every one hugs each other and cries at each result show, everyone says basically the same thing when he/she is not eliminated, everyone who is eliminated says basically the same thing on his/her farewell video.

It's a pity, because there are several things about Project "Superstar" (sorry, I just cannot leave off the " ", because they are absolutely necessary) which I think are better done than in Idol, which Superstar has a lot in common with.

I like that the judges usually give in-depth critiques, often alluding to the technicalities of singing. In fact, I think they spend just as much time on "breath support", "head voice", "chest voice" and "relaxed jaw" as they do on things like performance and "feel". It's an acknowledgement that singing is much more than sounding rather okay in a karaoke bar; it requires training, skill and technique. In four seasons of American Idol, the closest we ever got to a technique-related critique was the oft-mentioned "pitchy".

I also like the fact that the judges' scores count towards the final scores of the contestants. At least the professionals have a small say. But having the audience know the judges' marks can have its drawbacks. Fans of low-scoring contestants could go on a voting rampage to save their darling. Fans of high-scoring contestants could be lulled into a false sense of security. Or, like I suspect with William Tanoto Tan and Kelly Poon, people could just dislike them because the judges so obviously favour them. It might be better that the judges' scores only be revealed during the result show.

The idea of making the contestants sing duets is also a great one. Singing harmony is a great way to expose weaknesses and also a great way to develop musicianship. And the sadist in me enjoys about watching these attention-grabbing famewhores having to work together and share the limelight with a competitor. If they weren't all so boringly nice about everything, this could have been a recipe for screaming matches and temper tantrums. See, if they did this on American Idol, we would get to watch backstage footage of contestants quarrelling over line allocation, trying to upstage each other and hurling assorted accusations and insults. Perhaps the "Superstar" producers were aiming for this. They just underestimated the good breeding (and incurable need to be liked) of Singaporean youngsters.

So, as Project Non-Offensive Nice-Looking Singer enters its semi-final rounds, let me stick out my neck about the grand final: it's going to be a nice-looking boy versus a nice-looking girl, they'll both sing at least one love-themed ballad, the judges will be very nice, the guy will win and be very nice about his victory, and the girl will lose and be very nice about her defeat. The show will do nicely in the ratings and everyone will get a nice feeling from watching it.

This post brought to you by the word "Nice".

America's Next "Top Model"

Season 4 of ANTM debuted on Mediacorp Channel 5 on Monday. They skipped airing Season 3 entirely, but that's understandable, as Singapore is already 2 whole seasons behind the US, and the new season there is starting in September. What I don't understand the long hiatus between airing of the seasons. It seems so long ago since we saw Yoanna beat out Mercedes in Season 2 of ANTM, because it WAS very long ago. Surely Mediacorp could have found a way to squeeze it into the schedule. I am sure ANTM would have been preferred over a number of other shows ... oooh, let's see .... The Swan? Extreme Makeover? Fear Factor?

Anyway, about ANTM. First things first, people who win on this show do NOT become America's Next "Top Model". They get to become America's Next "Slightly-Less-Unknown-Than-Before Model". Adrienne of Season 1 mainly worked in South Africa and has done another reality show since winning, hardly top model stuff at all. Yoanna of Season 2 does catalogue work, and hardly any runway work. Eva, of Season 3, I know nothing about, so I presume she probably isn't a "top model" either. ANTM is less about finding a top model and more about making Tyra Banks even more famous than she already is (and I have to admire her for it).

Based on Episode 1 of Season 4 - the girls are ... err, let's see how to put this diplomatically ... not so conventionally attractive. If I am not bothered about mincing words, I might call a couple of them downright ugly. Brandy - she of the red, clownish hair-weave - has a huge gap between her front teeth and squinty eyes. Michelle - the wrestler - has no neck, disproportionately broad shoulders, and an excessively manly face, with prominent brow ridge and square jaw. LLuvy - the Liza Minelli clone - has crazy eyes and looks like a 12 year old with bad make-up.

Many top models are not movie-star beautiful, but isn't having an attractive face part of the job requirement? A few of the season 4 girls might not even get picked up in a bar, never mind a modelling agency. I know that with make-up and styling, most of them will look rather good. But by that standard, three quarters of the female population would be model material. Maybe there's hope for the rest of us.

Tragedy in London

This weekend, there was a sad twist in the tale of the London bombings. London plain clothes police shot to death a Brazillian man in a London tube station. He had left a building under police surveillance for housing terrorists and conspirators. He was wearing bulky clothes that might have concealed explosives. He had panicked and jumped over a train ticket barrier when approached by the police. He fit "the profile" of a potential suicide bomber. The police felt they had no choice but to shoot him in the head, lest they set off explosives if they shoot his body. The fatal mistake was that this was a completely innocent man.

The Guardian has an excellent leader article analysing the complex moral and practical dilemma faced by policy makers and law enforcers in London's current climate.

One always has to condemn the unnecessary death of an innocent man. But in these circumstances, did the police have any choice? They were acting on available intelligence, after all. The scary thing is that terrorism related intelligence will never be 100% accurate. Is that element of doubt enough to negate all police action? Should they prize the sanctity of "the one over the many" or should they act to maximise "the greater good"?

I don't know the answer. I am just glad that I don't have to answer questions like that. It is easy to pontificate from far away, when I don't have family living in London under the dual threat of intended terrorist attacks and unintended police action.

To the family of the innocent Brazilian electrician, this unimaginable tragedy must understandably forever shake their faith in London's law enforcers. I hope that in time, they will recognise that their son was ultimately yet another victim the terrorists who planned and executed the bomb attacks; they might not have pulled the trigger but they are the true killers here. This, then, is the great achievement of the terrorists; an environment of heightened fear and paranoia, where people can die even without another bomb going off.

Record Stores: Frustrations of a Musical Theatre Fan

I was at Borders and HMV Heeren last week, trying to scrounge for a couple of Original Cast Recordings (OCR) of musical theatre scores. A year ago, HMV Heeren had a semi-decent collection of what they called "Shows" recordings, lining half a wall on the third floor, taking up about two of their display racks. My recordings of Aspects of Love and Into the Woods were purchased from this store. Now, this section has been relegated to one third of a rack, tacked on at the end of a substantial display of movie soundtrack CDs. They even had more compilation albums (The Best of Broadway, the Andrew Lloyd Webber Collection etc) than recordings of individual shows.

Things were slightly better at Borders but not by much. A few years ago, I bought Sondheim's "Sunday in the Park with George" from Borders and the store was known for having copies of the not-so-blockbuster shows. The title cards in the display rack showed tantalising evidence of CDs that might once have been on sale but are now no longer in stock (or presumably on the inventory - show music is hard to move, so I suppose these titles are not high on the stockist's priority). The available recordings were strangely retro, with more than a few original Broadway cast recordings of shows that debuted in the 1950s and 1960s.

Neither Broadway nor the West End are anywhere close to being satisfactorily represented, but Broadway appears to have gotten the slightly longer end of the stick. OBCRs like Chicago and The Chorus Line at least had more than one copy on display. Even OLCRs of old standbys by ALW were hard to come by. The recording of The Woman in White, Lloyd Webber's latest West End offering, was available at HMV, but it was just one miserable copy, at the exhorbitant "import" price of $65. I know that pricing of these things has to do with exchange rates, but come on, $65???

You would also think that nobody on Broadway or the West End had mounted a new musical in years. Mamma Mia! does not count in my book - it's more of a pastiche revue than a musical. On that score, Smoky Joe's Cafe does not count either. In the two stores, I could get Julie Andrews and Angela Lansbury singing roles they originated in the theatre, but not recordings of the recent Broadway hits, Avenue Q, Wicked or even The Boys from Oz, Hugh Jackman's star-turn on Broadway. I can't figure it out - I know classics will always have their market, but would a modern hit musical not have some following? Maybe the classic recordings are just cheaper to bring in (it is all economics, I suppose).

Even the provision of the "staples" disappoint. Les Miserable has had 4 high-profile recordings. In both stores, only the 10th Anniversary recording was available. This is a excellent "live" recording, but best experienced with the visuals on the DVD. An enthusiast seeking a purely audio recording would have no options at all. The other block-buster musical, Phantom of the Opera, was available in both its full-length 2 CD and highlights versions. Still, the number of copies in-store was far fewer than the copies of the soundtrack for the movie version (found in the Soundtrack section, of course). I suppose we are now to accept Gerard Butler as an acceptable substitute for Michael Crawford (not even close, mate, no disrespect to Mr Butler) and Emmy Rossum for Sarah Brightman (I actually find Brightman's singing unpleasantly affected, but Rossum's uncertain technique is a far greater disadvantage on record). Heck, if they start making movie versions of all the big musicals (Sunset Boulevard seems a go, and Les Mis cannot be far behind), who would ever need cast recordings anymore?

Yes, both stores would say that if they can order in the titles that you want. That's all fine and dandy, but that means no browsing, considering of options (such as different recordings of the same show), no chance to have you eye caught by a CD cover design or the name of a performer. If I know exactly what I am looking for down to the CD number, I don't need to order at a store - Amazon.com is more convenient and just about as affordable. And for the more advanced, many sites offer legal digital downloads of entire albums. emusic.com is my latest find; it carries smaller labels and has OCR's such as 25th Annual Puttnam Spelling Bee and Falsettoland for download.

It's like musical theatre is a niche genre that cannot justify the inventory costs or shelf space. I think musical theatre is just as accessible as classical music, which is still decently represented (but more on that another time). It's certainly much less "difficult" than opera, and HMV has a whole rack of opera recordings, plus another of opera DVDs. Is it stuck in a vacuum - too high brow for some, too low brow for others? Or is it hampered by the relatively limited offerings of "live" musical theatre on the local stage? Does it really not enjoy much of a following here?

Or has it always has its share of admirers, but who have ceased to purchase from local record store? Perhaps they have discovered the joys of online shopping or purchase from overseas stores, either when travelling or through friends. Certainly, there are many viable options for fans, and the lack of options in local retail stores is not a crisis. But I do lament the loss of visibility for the genre, and the inevitable relegation to minority niche status.

Freaks, Fans, Fury and Fallibility

It's been a few weeks now since the jury in the case of State of California vs Michael Jackson found the accused not guilty on all counts. It caused something of an uproar in America - in equal parts, unrestrained joy and scandalised outrage. And then there were those were cautiously pleased with the verdicts. Regardless of what they were personally inclined to believe about MJ, they assessed that the prosecution had not presented a case proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If Americans are to continue to have faith in their legal system, "Not Guilty" was pretty much the only verdict that would be acceptable. The due process of law must be respected, even if it sometimes appears to fly in the face of what is emotionally felt to be "justice". I have watched enough of "The Practice" to understand this sentiment, and to ultimately, sympathise with it. (I know, it's sad to take instruction from a TV series, especially one which got unwatchable towards the end; but for a couple of seasons, the show made a few pretty good points about access to justice).

For myself, this case is interesting from so many perspectives, perhaps underlying the inherent pruriency in each of us.

Michael Jackson - wacko or sly? Watching his interviews, you know at once that Michael Jackson is undoubtedly not like most people. Of course, his lifestyle (and fame and fortune) alone is unlike most people's. But where he really differs from you and me is in his mind. I don't know enough to say that he is crazy or deranged, but the man clearly is odd. I don't think he realises how strange much of his behaviour seems to the rest of the world (the Bubbles thing, dangling his baby from the balcony, buying the remains of the Elephant Man, the horrific painting of himself surrounded by boy cherubs). And yet, there is a certain shiftiness about him when he talks about his facial surgeries (or as he claims, his lack of surgery), his relationship with Debbie Rowe and the origin of his children. It was almost like he was cultivating a deliberately obtuse demeanour that we were SUPPOSED to see through. Perhaps he knows he is seen as strange and doesn't understand why, but is willing to play along with it as part of being Michael Jackson, being strange in ways that are understandable to him. If he ever allows himself to receive therapy, the medical records should make for great reading some day in the future, when the patient confidentiality period has lapsed.

Michael Jackson - pedophile? In its purest, original form, the term "pedophilia" is Greek for "lover of children". "Love" here is taken in a romantic/erotic context. The term pedophile has become pathologised as pedophilia is treated in the DSM as a mental illness. Even certain dictionaries define a pedophile as one who engages in sexual activities with children. But its literal meaning has nothing to do with the actual act of sex, so we can talk about MJ being a pedophile without saying that he has had sexual contact with children. It appears obvious that he IS a pedophile, in that he loves children (technicallly, only boys) romantically. Even unbiased commentators (for instance, J Randy Taborelli who wrote The Magic and The Madness, a respectful biography of Jackson) report MJ's behaviour around Jordan Chandler in the early days as that of a man in love. He cried when Chandler's mother blocked access to the boy, became desperate and begged to see him. He wanted to be the the boy constantly. There were other boys before and after Jordan Chandler, MJ's "special friends" who followed him on tour, attended functions with him and were seen holding hands with him as they posed for the press. But Jordan Chandler might well have been the love of his life. The upshot is this - Michael Jackson becomes infatuated and falls in love with young boys (and often of a certain type - exotic features, olive skinned and handsome), so yes, he is a lover of boys - hence a pedophile.

Michael Jackson - child molester? Has he acted on this love he has for boys? The evidence we have is simply not enough for an outright "yes" or "no". I have read the graphic allegations made by Jordan Chandler on The Smoking Gun; they do seem convincing, but I wouldn't put money on it myself. The recently concluded case surfaced more graphic details (appealing to the prurient in us all, no doubt). Again, the problem is that these are words that require us to "believe", and we only ever need to believe when we cannot KNOW. I happen to believe that he has molested at least one boy at some time, but I do not know it. Do I believe beyond a reasonable doubt? That's another matter altogether. I did not follow the case closely enough, so I can only say that my belief might not be founded on all available evidence.

What was really going on with the jury? In post verdict interviews, a few of the jurors seemed to have based their "reasonable doubt" on the fact that the accuser's mother had come across as unreliable and a bit of a nutcase. I suppose one has to credit the defence for deflecting the burden of proof from the boy onto the mother, who is far less sympathetic. But did the jury acquit because they did not believe the mother, or because they simply did not like her? We are all human, and we allow our feelings towards other people to cloud our judgement of what they do and say. Staying objective is difficult, but necessary. I just wonder if the jury managed it.

Not guilty by reason of celebrity? One has to admit that a few of the jurors appeared rather star-struck. One juror attended the post-verdict celebration party thrown by the Jackson family, which does seem rather inappropriate. Might this have influenced their decision? First OJ Simpson, now Michael Jackson. Does celebrity bring with it an inbuilt defence? I think any juror would be affected by the fact that the defendant is a celebrity - it might make them more anxious to be neither overly-critical nor overly-lenient. When the defendant is well-known, he cannot get a "jury of his peers" because his celebrity is a factor which affects their perception of him, and of the case. An unknown man accused of the identical crime as Michael Jackson would not have been regarded in the same way by the jurors - and might not have received the same verdict.

The true-believing fans - deluded or convinced? Apparently, there was a group of loyal Jackson fans that came from all over the world and camped outside the court house for the duration of the trial. I am endlessly fascinated by the psychology of fandom. Do they believe in his innocence because they are such great fans of him as a musician? I imagine it must be difficult to reconcile the creative output of the musician that touches their soul with the criminal acts he was accused of. Or are these staunch believers of his innocence also fans of the person (or at least the persona of benevolent do-gooder and child-saver that was Jackson's public face before the weirdness crowded out everything else)? For me personally, one can be a fan of an artiste's output, without necessarily believing him to be beyond all reproach. Richard Wagner was a known anti-Semite and I "hate" him for that, but every time I listen to Tristan and Isolde or the great love duet in Sigfried, my breath is taken away anew and I am again humbled by Wagner's genious. I don't know if I might feel differently if he was a child molester, as there are boundaries and deal-breakers for us all. Are these Jackson fans clinging to his innocence because the allegations are so unthinkable?

Public outrage - reasoned or over-reacting? Outside of the Jackson fansites which are of course numerous, public response on the Internet seems to be predominantly one of disbelief and outrage. Some were upset because they work with or have experience with child abuse victims - the verdict seemed a blow against what they obviously feel strongly about. Yet they seemed to have taken these less personally and reacted more mildly than others. Many people, or at least those who are vocal on the Internet, believe with an absolute certainty that he is guilty and has gotten away with his crimes on the strength of his celebrity and the imputed stupidity of the jury. In the first flush of their fury, strong words were being bandied about and some even wished fates much worse than death on Jackson and the jury. The die-hard believing Jackson fans were termed "floons" (as in F Loons, no prizes for guessing what the F stands for). A herd mentality also began to take root, resulting in tendency to believe every scrap of negative gossip and conjecture about Jackson. There was something unmeasured about much of this. The beast of public opinion is a strange one; it seemed to me that the communal activity of posting on an Internet message board seems to have enabled and fueled their fury, even more than the verdict itself.

Michael Jackson - What next? Who knows? I hope he gets help. Even those closest to him have acknowledged that he didn't have a normal childhood, that he was never allowed to grow up with a view of the world that in any way resembles the views of others. He has likely jeopardised his already fragile musical legacy, but that seems inconsequential now given the many lifes in disarray because of this case, the accuser and his family chief among them. They are so young, with so many years ahead of them and will forever have this high-profile event in their past. Jordan Chandler received millions as part of the out of court settlement 12 years ago; but has lived as a recluse and will probably never have true anonimity. Perhaps most disturbingly for me, Jackson has children that might be growing up in an environment even less conducive than the one he had as a child. If nothing can be done for Michael Jackson anymore, can something not be done for them? When the freak-show ends and we lose interest in the shocking, lurid details of his weirdness, there are still lives other than his to be lived.

Charity: Not so Cut and Durai

Two major court cases are in the news this week. In one courtroom, the murder trial of the chap who is accused on murdering young Huang Na last year. In another, NKF CEO TT Durai has taken SPH to court over an article in the Straits Times last year, in which NKF was depicted as somewhat lavish in its spending on taps in the CEO's executive washroom.

Usually, the lurid tale of murder and sexual molestation of a child would grab all the headlines, but the outrage and public attention have landed squarely on a defamation suit over bathroom fixtures. I bet more than one NKF PR advisor had taken heart that the Huang Na case was being tried in the same week, the better to deflect attention from the NKF suit. You simply have to love the unpredictability of public response!

And now, public outcry has led the resignation of NKF's CEO and Board. It happened within a space of 2 amazing days after court proceedings revealed a littany of lavish spending by NKF on salaries and executive perks. Singapore had not become so united behind a non-sport event since the MacDonald's Hello Kitty craze, when young and old queued overnight outside MacDonald's restaurants and established a kampung camaraderie reminiscent of the pre-1960's.

What is at the heart of this public outrage? The surface facts are enough to set off several alarm bells:

• NKF CEO earned $25,000 a month
• He received 12 months' bonus last year, earning $600,000 in total
  
• In last 3 years, his salary and bonuses totalled $1.8 million
• NKF's coffers has enough reserves ($260 million!) to last over 20 years , not the 3 years previously stated
• NKF has overstated the number of kidney patients that need its help - the true number is closer to 2,000, rather than the 3,000 plus figure that Durai has stated in the past
• NKF CEO is entitled to business class travel on SIA
• He has traded this for flying 1st class on lower-cost airlines
• NKF CEO has used NKF resources for his and his family's personal convenience

Many of these revelations did not surprise me, not the salary and the bonus, nor the inaccuracies about the number of patients and the size of the reserves. For more than a few years now, I have regarded NKF as an anomaly - a charitable organisation run like a profit-oriented conglomerate. NKF has engaged in active expansion of services and operations, marketed aggressively and successfully branded itself as the household name in charities. It is a corporatised charity, its management driven by financial and market imperatives. Its reward structure would naturally encourage income maximisation; in its case, income in the form of public and donations (corporate donations are apparently a minor proportio of its funding). In pursuit of this, is it any wonder that the need for funds is somewhat exaggerated? Would we be as willing to give if we knew NKF had enough reserves for 10 years, never mind 20? 3,000 patients instead of 2,000; reserves for 3 years instead of 20. To certain NKF executives, this might have seen like nothing more than taking minor creative license. After all, advertisers engage in "puffery" when selling a product or service; it makes the public more inclined to part with its dollars. It is accepted practice in business, so why not for a corporatised charity?

TT Durai was something of a fund-raising savant, coming up with ever newer and brighter ideas, from SMS solicitations using the name of stars to lucky draw chances. He also engineered an alliance with Mediacorp, which at times almost functioned like the solicitations arm of NKF. The alliance was wildly successful, raking in tens of millions in donations each year. (Surely it's not being cynical to note that it also boosted the visibility of the Mediacorp artistes, adding a heroic dimension to their public persona. Next to family and friends, "Mr Durai" might have been the person most thanked at last year's Star Awards.)

It made me uncomfortable, this juggernaut with its large databases of donors and ever-more frequent star-studded charity shows. I have the fullest sympathy for kidney patients (and know families who have had to deal with kidney diseases). Dialysis is expensive and the need for assistance is real. But NKF so dominated the fund-raising space that there seemed to be nothing left for the 900 other charities in Singapore. What of the cancer patients, orphaned children, the disabled and the infirm elderly? How much more can individuals give to others if so much already goes to NKF? NKF itself, in its zeal to swell its own coffer of reserves, did not seem to have ever considered the needs of other charities. It was never openly said, but its "business model" might have regarded other charities as "competition". After all, when your KPI is to bring it as much public funds as possible from a limited pool, can you help but regard the likes of Singapore Cancer Society and Singapore Heart Foundation as competitors? Every dollar that goes elsewhere is a dollar less for NKF, a dollar less counting towards the KPI.

For so long, NKF was the household name in VWOs. It was the most visible, even sponsoring Mediacorp drama serials in the run up to its various charity shows (I have my beef with Mediacorp's role in this, but this is not the place to voice that). It was the one that most people donated to, whether through monthly contributions or donations during televised charity shows. Other charities were relegated to the back of our minds, because they did not market themselves so aggressively that they were in our consciousness the way that NKF was. Now that NKF is disgraced, will the public be able to continue separating NKF from other charities? Or has this one broad brush tarred all the others? It seems that Singapore Cancer Society has already received requests to cancel monthly contriutions, although they have absolutely nothing to do with NKF. Perhaps this confusion arose because NKF's latest drive was for its Cancer Fund. Which then brought this question to my mind - was there a need for a NKF Cancer Fund when the Singapore Cancer Society has accumulated more experience and expertise in cancer-related programs? Was this not creating competition in a sphere that would probably best function without it?

Arising from the ashes of this debacle is the need for greater transparency and better governance at NKF and other VWOs. It is actually remarkable to me that this hasn't become an issue before. NKF raises so many millions a year, yet its practices have never been scrutinised closely. Perhaps we had thought that governance belonged in the realm of private corporations, where scandals such as Enron and CAO have been widely publicised. Perhaps it was unthinkable that charitable organisations would not be able to self-govern with the same ethics, altruism and selflessness that seemingly underly their very existence. It is ironic that the NKF saga broke the same week that the Government announced that it is accepting proposed changes to the Code of Corporate Governance. The newspapers were a hoot; one on page, we saw headlines about Madam Ho's speech on Corporate Governance as the Singapore Economics Society dinner; on the facing page, we read about the public's outrage over the NKF revelations.

Of course, the Code does not apply to non-profit organisations, but perhaps these organisations should be held to be just as accountable as public-listed corporations. If NKF has prided itself on its corporate management style, then if should have been subjected to the same legal, reporting and disclosure requirements as any corporation. Under the mantle of a non-profit organisations, they get many breaks - not the least of which, tax-related exemptions - but they have manifestly not functioned like a non-profit organisation. They have been labelled social entrepreneurs, which is remarkably telling. I believe that social entrepreneurship is one of the great developments in business philosophy. But I have always upheld it to be wonderful because it was practised by profit-oriented organisations. In the act of making profits, an entrepreneur is socially responsible and positively affects society in a way that circularly benefits his business venture. It is beautifully, elegantly complete - a rare synthesis of socialism and capitalism. It is about serving society's good while making profits. It is in fact the reverse of what NKF does, which is to make profits while serving a social cause. If this appears a stylised over-simplification, it is. The facts lend themselves to stylisation; I just do not believe that NKF is in any way a suitable model for social entrepreneurship as I understand it.

I am NOT against a more professional approach to fund raising and running charities. Yes, you have to spend money to raise money, and yes, you have to reward professionals who do a good job raising money. But I would contend that the sky is NOT the limit for a charity, the way it is for a private concern. You can raise TOO much money, although most charities are never in this happy position. You have raised too much money when you can survive for another 20 years without active fund-raising and if you do not invest in high-risk basic research. Who knows, in 5 year's time, we might have a cure for diabetes and viable low-cost options for patients with kidney failure. What will happen then to the excess funds - declare an even fatter bonus for the staff?

I hope this incident has opened the public's eyes to the importance of finding out about the charities they donate to. In the past, were we blinded by the dazzling star power that entreated us to give to NKF? Did we feel compelled to donate as we watched Mediacorp artistes endanger their lives on live television? Did we fall for the hard-sell that follows the free health screenings provided? Were we tempted by the chance at winning a condominium or a fat wad of cash? Probably yes. Are these really the reasons why we give to charity? Do we not care where the money goes as long as the message (or messenger) is persuasive enough? To be responsible donors, we need to do our research too. Whatever the reason we give to charity (for good karma, because of pure altruism, out of gratitude for past assistance), we should know how our money is being used and how the cause is being supported. It is the responsibility of the VWO to provide this information for us to make informed decisions.

This does not detract from what NKF has achieved and the good work that it has done and will continue to do. It serves an important cause and provides invaluable assistance to many people, and should be lauded for its forward-thinking initiatives and innovative practices. NKF does many things which are very right and for the right reasons. But I am glad that what it has done wrongly has come to light. It was time that we knew.