Leong Sze Hian/

I refer to the reports “Charity sector to get public confidence boost” (Channel NewsAsia, Jun 25)and
Donations to charities up 13% to S$776m in 2010” (Channel NewsAsia, Jun 17).

The latter states that:

“… the sector remained dominated by charities earning less than S$250,000. They made up 42 per cent of the charity population last year, but accounted for less than one per cent of the total income of the charity sector”.

After a hiatus of five years, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) has started raising funds again, starting with its charity dinner event, which raised $818,658.

According to NKF’s website, the Ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure is 5.07.

However, this is based on the assumption that there are no donations, grants or investment gains or income in the future.

In this connection, donations, grants and investment income for last year was 20, 5 and 6.8 million, respectively.

Its Total Funds also increased from 278 to 284 million, and its operating surplus was 6.7 million.

This means that it has about 20 million more in its reserves (Total Funds) now than when the NKF scandal broke in 2005, as its Total Funds for the year ended 2005 was $263 million.

If donations, grants, investment income and any increase in the Total Funds (of which the bulk is invested) are included, what would its Ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure be?

If we deduct the total of $32 million from donations, grants and investment income, from the Total Expenditure of $53 million, the figure is $21 million.

So, does it mean that on this basis, the Ratio of reserves to annual operating expenditure is about 13?

Does this mean that it has reserves to last about 13 years, instead of 5?

If we include the Programme fees of $26 million, which it received from dialysis patients, does it mean that it may have reserves to last forever?

So, is there really a need to start raising finds again as the NKF is still the largest (by reserves) Voluntary Welfare Organisation (VWO) in Singapore, considering that many charities may still be reeling from the economic recession the previous year, given its relatively sound financial situation?


The above is actually a follow-up and update to the article “NKF – the neverending need to raise funds?” (Jul 9, 2010 ), which is reproduced below.

How many years of reserves does the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) have? Well, going by what is reported, it is hard to tell.

Last year, in November 29, 2009, the chairman of the NKF, Mr Gerard Ee [picture left] was reported to have said: “The charity has enough reserves to last for about five years.”

Its annual report for 2010 says that the current reserves are projected to last for about seven years, adjusted for inflation and projected capacity increase.

On 8 July 2010, NKF’s chief executive Janice Tay said: “[Based] on the calculations that we have on our reserves, our current reserves, we could last up to four years….if there were no donations coming in”
Confused? We are.

I refer to the article “NKF short of money and nurses” (ST, Jun 5).

Even if NKF continues to have an annual net deficit of $0.9 million like last year, its surplus of $9 million for the previous year may be enough to cover about 10 years of deficits.

The main reason for its investment income falling from $15.4 million in 2006 to $6.6 million last year, may be because the global investment markets for the last year, was the worst in the last 60 years or so, due to the financial melt-down.

With reserves of $247 million, if the rate of return on its reserve funds increase by just 0.4 per cent per annum, compared to the last year, the increased investment income may be enough to offset the annual deficit of $0.9 million.

Another way of looking at it is that the $247 million reserves may be sufficient to cover 274 years of its annual $0.9 million deficit.

With $247 million reserves now, compared to the $263 million in 2005 when the NKF scandal unfolded, I understand that the NKF is still the charity with the largest amount of reserves.

As its total funds is $278 million, if we include the Restricted Fund of $26 million and Endowment Fund of $4 million, does it mean that it now actually has more funds than in 2005?

With many charities still reeling from the economic recession last year, I feel that there may really be no real need for NKF to sound the alarm bells now to appeal for more donations, given its relatively sound financial situation.

Its annual report says that the current reserves are projected to last for about seven years, adjusted for inflation and projected capacity increase.

In my view, this reserves ratio may be somewhat pessimistic, as it assumes that that there will be zero donations for seven years.

Since the bulk of NKF’s funds – $200 million are managed by two fund managers on a capital guaranteed mandate – is it also assumed that there will be no investment income for seven years?

Given that it had $18.5 million donations for the last year, in the midst of Singapore’s worse economic recession, and that what perhaps riled Singaporeans most when the NKF scandal broke, was the issue of whether the NKF had three years of reserves or 30 years of reserves, I would like to suggest that the calculation of its reserves ratio be further clarified to include projected donations and investment income in the future.

Finally, as the current financial year ended on 30 June 2010, surely there are already some indication as to whether this year’s investment income, donations and net operating deficit, have increased or decreased compared to last year.

I am somewhat puzzled as to why NKF told the media that it was short of money and in the red in June, only to turn into the black just one month later, with a surplus of $5.8 million which is more than six times the previous year’s $0.9 million deficit?

So, how long actually can NKF’s reserves last – 5 years (Nov 29,2009), 4 years (Jul 8, 2010), 7 years or longer?


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Will SMRT management be held accountable by the authorities?

by Anthony Ng I have been very disturbed by the continuing saga, the…

The untold power of public image amidst Ridout Road controversy

Opinion: Rudy Irawan Kadjairi contends that despite a ‘done-by-the-book’ approach, the perception of privilege remains. He argues that perceptions, often unswayed by evidence, significantly influence how incidents are understood, suggesting that a code of conduct was breached in the recent Ridout saga.

The importance of volunteering with the opposition parties

The following letter was sent in by reader David Tan. I have…

不满淡马锡聘雇方式 何晶:投诉人力部啊!

淡马锡控股首席执行员何晶,怒斥恶意起底该集团雇员的行径,指责这是“胆小鬼的仇恨行为”,也挑战若有人对该集团的聘雇方式有意见,应通过正当管道,投诉到人力部等监管机构。 她也指出,如果基于事实而不是谣言或揣测,当然可以控诉不公平的雇佣问题,但她不接受恶意的抹黑或起底的行为,和作出不实指控。 “最好就是重新培训、提高技能,来适应瞬息万变的世界。不要被任何试图挑起种族歧视的有心人所愚弄。” 事缘日前社交媒体突然广传贴文,质问为何淡马锡集团聘请外籍雇员,也公开他们的照片和履历。这迫使淡马锡在本月14日发表文告并投诉给脸书,认为这些流传社交媒体的贴文,已因为仇恨言论违反脸书社群守则。 网民:难道新加坡教育培育不出人才? 不过,仍有不少网民在何晶的脸书留言,质问难道我们的教育系统,无法培育出业界特别是银行业所需的人才?有者也指出,仅有少数外籍雇员,民众自然不会过问。但有不少参与国民服役的国人,无法找到工作,民间的焦虑是需要去解决的。 就在前日,一位退休银行家敢敢发文,揭露过去20年,不少在新加坡金融领域的外籍人士,担任中高级管理职位。 “一些大型、老牌外籍银行,倾向雇用外籍人士、排挤新加坡人才,已是业界熟知之事。我呼吁当局应严密审查金融领域的这种现象。” 促通过正当管道提出投诉 在脸书上粗略翻查的话,不难发现有关淡马锡员工的类似帖文。脸书之前已删除了部分,被淡马锡控股标记为违反仇恨言论社区准则的帖文。 “讨厌一个国籍到一个族群的距离非常短,且很快地,将变成针对所有不一样的人。” 她呼吁民众适应新环境条件,“这需要我们每个人都意识到,我们必须不断努力变得更好并且更适应”…