- Joined
- Jan 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
- Points
- 0
In 2010 CDAC paid $4.3 million out of $10.8 million CPF collected to 71 staff
I was glad to read of our self help group Chinese Development Assistance Council’s (CDAC) pledge to extend more assistance to the needy as we brace ourselves for a looming global financial crisis (Sunday Times 4 Dec).
I have worked for a short stint as their job placement officer there during 2007 and was most impressed with their extensive tuition programmes offered to our needy kids.
Hundreds of volunteer tutors – paid hourly, take care of the thousands of lessons conducted throughout the country benefiting tens of thousands of kids yearly.
They also have solid programmes to help out those who are jobless and need financial welfare assistance. Their skills upgrading programmes for the low-income are also impressive and most eligible upgraders pay less than 10% of the total course fees chargeable.
In fact, many who could not get any assistance from our Community Development Councils (CDC) would apply at CDAC who is seen to be less stringent in their procedures and are more compassionate in their approach.
Each month, all working Chinese citizens and permanent residents contribute $0.50 to the fund if they earn $2000 and below. They contribute $1.00 if they earn $2000 and above. The same CPF deduction rule applies to other races.
You can opt out of the contribution by going to the CDAC website and download an opt-out form.
Do not discount the small amount that is being contributed monthly as CDAC takes in $10.8 million from such CPF deductible contribution for the year 2010.
However, I always feel that our self help groups – CDAC, Mendaki, Eurasian and Sinda, can do more to reach out to the different communities besides carrying out current programmes for the needy.
They did all the good stuff which CDCs have being doing all along – job matching, skills upgrading, social welfare among others and one wonders if our self help groups have out-live their original mission.
Formed in 1992 by Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) and the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations (SFCCA)., its mission is “to nurture and develop the potential of the Chinese community in contributing to the success of a multiracial Singapore”.
Moreover, with the recent spate of racial discrimination incidents, our self help groups can do more to actively reach out to the different communities instead of duplicating what CDCS have being doing successfully all along.
It had also splashed out quite alot of money on useless programmes e.g. the social outreach attempt using a community bus.
I remembered following the big outreach bus weekly to remote parts of Singapore hoping that someone out there would stop by our bus and look through our programmes while we were parked at some forsaken place due to the car park problem.
We had less than five enquiries in a month from the public and every week, three bus rides would be made in an attempt to promote our services to the public.
The monthly price tag for the driver and maintenance of the bus: $8000 a month. The project was thankfully scrapped after a year – wasting almost $100, 000 in the process.
I could go on but that would mean I am bad mouthing my previous employer.
High Staff Cost
Though I am no accounting expert, I was alarmed at the high staff cost entailed in running a 71-strong flagship with 311 part-time volunteers probably paid on a hourly basis.
$4.3 million was paid out as staffing cost for the year 2010 and this worked out to each full time staff costing an astronomical $55, 000 per year! The financial figures could be found here. .
The council may have over paid it’s staff – its shocking to pay $4.3 million in staffing cost out of the $10.8 million received from the CPF contribution in year 2010.
The total income for the council for 2010 was $20 million which included our CPF check-in contribution, grants and subsidies from government agencies, investment return and fees it collected from some of its’ programmes.
Staff cost alone worked out to almost 22% of the total operating expenses of $19 million for 2010.
A year before in 2009, it also paid out another astronomical $3.6 million in staff cost alone for 59 full time staff and 260 volunteers – even though it was 19% lesser than the 2010 figure, the staff strength was also lesser by the same correponding figure.
I am all for adequately paying staff who works for an organisation but when 40% (S4.3m) was paid out of what was been taken in as charitable donation ($10.8m) from a cluless contributing public – something is wrong somewhere even though I am no accounting expert here.
There was also no proper break down on how much the full time staff and volunteers’ cost were and even the Executive Director (ED) pay package was not disclosed.
Huge $55 million In Reserve Holding
Another financial item that stood out was the huge amount of reserve it holds – $55 million as of 31 Dec 2010.
Most of it – $48 million - was held in a fund management investment scheme and one hopes that it is not all held in speculative risky instruments.
$16.6m was held in quoted equities securities, $13m in quoted debt securities and another $7m in unquoted debt securities – all were used for trading purposes.
Out of the $48 million investment fund, $10 million is in cash form – probably for easy transfer if there is a need.
For a charity organization meant to help the public using CPF monthly deductible contribution, I thought that the reserve held was too excessive.
$10 million in reserve holding will be sufficient for the council as it is almost guaranteed an annual income of $10 million each year from the CPF check-in contribution besides whatever top-up the government will provide to the council.
Holding too much reserve means that the council has being ineffective in using whatever money it has received all along and the council’s committee can perhaps think out of the box to better use the extra fund for community outreach purposes.
While working in CDAC, I attended meetings and there were always pleas for the deparments to use up all it’s money allocated as if not their reserves will grow too large.
Besides the $10 million CPF funds it received annually on average, the government also pumped in $4.1 million in 2010 through various grants and subsidies.
Should CDAC now re-channel any surplus funds that it will receive in future to benefit other charitable organisations which are badly in need of funds?
I also remembered how when a job placement officer helped our jobless client found a job, each placement would bring in an extra $1000 funding from the Work Development Agency (WDA).
Each job placement officer has a target of 10 placements a month and we have two placement officers working then.
It looks like the government funds are meant for those organisations which carry the same agenda as theirs.
Political Agenda?
The Chariman of the council’s committee is Mr Lim Swee Say – a PAP MP and also the current NTUC labour chief.
There are also a few other MPs sitting on the board e.g. Baey Yam Keng, Grace Fu Hai Yien, Sam Tan Ching Siong (ex-ED of CDAC and now senior Perm Sec with MCYS), Ong Ye Kung (NTUC) among others.
The directors in office are as follows:
(For the term 25 June 2010 to AGM in 2012)
Mr Lim Swee Say (Chairman)
Mr Baey Yam Keng
Mr Philip Eng Heng Nee
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien
Mr Gan Kim Yong
Mr James Kuah Geok Lin
Mr Lau Tai San
Ms Lim Sau Hoong
Mr Ng Siew Quan
Mr Ong Ye Kung
Mr Adrian Peh Nam Chuan
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong
Mr Tan Eng Lai
Mr Tang Kian Meng
Mr Tay Khiam Back
Mr Teo Chiang Long
Mr Alex Yam Ziming
Source: CDAC
One wonders how politically-neutral and objective the council can be if it has a minister chairing the board with other like-minded MPs from the ruling party deciding on the activities for the council.
I believe that the self help groups can function better with a board that is politically neutral.
Our community development councils already have almost all politicians sitting on the mayor seat and its’ agenda is mostly political – even though most of its’ funds come from our tax payer money.
Moreover, self help groups, deriving most of its’ funds from the public’s CPF contribution must strive to be apolitical so that the needy can be assisted without any political gain from the mostly-PAP board.
Conclusion
Some may have speculated that I have a hidden agenda when I wrote this article.
I must confessed that I did not enjoyed my short work stint with the council as it is a very closed-up protective environment which always favoured those that belonged to the inner circle.
The usual workplace bullying took place there and the superior would close an eye when a fresh face took in some verbal battering. I was also shouted at by a influential senior staff in front of others and no one lifted an eyelid.
Another junior staff was loaded with too much work while the rest took it easy. Most of the senior staff would pretend to work late to prove to the managers that they are hard working when in fact they were loafing off during the day.
Though the council has enjoyed a family-themed work environment within the smaller inner circle, it has suffered from being too inward looking and almost tried too hard to reach out to the community with its’ over-stuffed coffers.
It is perhaps timely for the council to break away from focusing on its past glory of using tuition programmes to reach out to the needy and try to think of new ways to prepare for a looming global financial crisis ahead.
The council also needs to get rid of all the politicians on its board so that it’s mission can be strictly community-focused and apolitical.
If not, many Singaporeans will always remember the self help groups as another political tool – used by the ruling party at the people expenses.
I was glad to read of our self help group Chinese Development Assistance Council’s (CDAC) pledge to extend more assistance to the needy as we brace ourselves for a looming global financial crisis (Sunday Times 4 Dec).
I have worked for a short stint as their job placement officer there during 2007 and was most impressed with their extensive tuition programmes offered to our needy kids.
Hundreds of volunteer tutors – paid hourly, take care of the thousands of lessons conducted throughout the country benefiting tens of thousands of kids yearly.
They also have solid programmes to help out those who are jobless and need financial welfare assistance. Their skills upgrading programmes for the low-income are also impressive and most eligible upgraders pay less than 10% of the total course fees chargeable.
In fact, many who could not get any assistance from our Community Development Councils (CDC) would apply at CDAC who is seen to be less stringent in their procedures and are more compassionate in their approach.
Each month, all working Chinese citizens and permanent residents contribute $0.50 to the fund if they earn $2000 and below. They contribute $1.00 if they earn $2000 and above. The same CPF deduction rule applies to other races.
You can opt out of the contribution by going to the CDAC website and download an opt-out form.
Do not discount the small amount that is being contributed monthly as CDAC takes in $10.8 million from such CPF deductible contribution for the year 2010.
However, I always feel that our self help groups – CDAC, Mendaki, Eurasian and Sinda, can do more to reach out to the different communities besides carrying out current programmes for the needy.
They did all the good stuff which CDCs have being doing all along – job matching, skills upgrading, social welfare among others and one wonders if our self help groups have out-live their original mission.
Formed in 1992 by Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) and the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations (SFCCA)., its mission is “to nurture and develop the potential of the Chinese community in contributing to the success of a multiracial Singapore”.
Moreover, with the recent spate of racial discrimination incidents, our self help groups can do more to actively reach out to the different communities instead of duplicating what CDCS have being doing successfully all along.
It had also splashed out quite alot of money on useless programmes e.g. the social outreach attempt using a community bus.
I remembered following the big outreach bus weekly to remote parts of Singapore hoping that someone out there would stop by our bus and look through our programmes while we were parked at some forsaken place due to the car park problem.
We had less than five enquiries in a month from the public and every week, three bus rides would be made in an attempt to promote our services to the public.
The monthly price tag for the driver and maintenance of the bus: $8000 a month. The project was thankfully scrapped after a year – wasting almost $100, 000 in the process.
I could go on but that would mean I am bad mouthing my previous employer.
High Staff Cost
Though I am no accounting expert, I was alarmed at the high staff cost entailed in running a 71-strong flagship with 311 part-time volunteers probably paid on a hourly basis.
$4.3 million was paid out as staffing cost for the year 2010 and this worked out to each full time staff costing an astronomical $55, 000 per year! The financial figures could be found here. .
The council may have over paid it’s staff – its shocking to pay $4.3 million in staffing cost out of the $10.8 million received from the CPF contribution in year 2010.
The total income for the council for 2010 was $20 million which included our CPF check-in contribution, grants and subsidies from government agencies, investment return and fees it collected from some of its’ programmes.
Staff cost alone worked out to almost 22% of the total operating expenses of $19 million for 2010.
A year before in 2009, it also paid out another astronomical $3.6 million in staff cost alone for 59 full time staff and 260 volunteers – even though it was 19% lesser than the 2010 figure, the staff strength was also lesser by the same correponding figure.
I am all for adequately paying staff who works for an organisation but when 40% (S4.3m) was paid out of what was been taken in as charitable donation ($10.8m) from a cluless contributing public – something is wrong somewhere even though I am no accounting expert here.
There was also no proper break down on how much the full time staff and volunteers’ cost were and even the Executive Director (ED) pay package was not disclosed.
Huge $55 million In Reserve Holding
Another financial item that stood out was the huge amount of reserve it holds – $55 million as of 31 Dec 2010.
Most of it – $48 million - was held in a fund management investment scheme and one hopes that it is not all held in speculative risky instruments.
$16.6m was held in quoted equities securities, $13m in quoted debt securities and another $7m in unquoted debt securities – all were used for trading purposes.
Out of the $48 million investment fund, $10 million is in cash form – probably for easy transfer if there is a need.
For a charity organization meant to help the public using CPF monthly deductible contribution, I thought that the reserve held was too excessive.
$10 million in reserve holding will be sufficient for the council as it is almost guaranteed an annual income of $10 million each year from the CPF check-in contribution besides whatever top-up the government will provide to the council.
Holding too much reserve means that the council has being ineffective in using whatever money it has received all along and the council’s committee can perhaps think out of the box to better use the extra fund for community outreach purposes.
While working in CDAC, I attended meetings and there were always pleas for the deparments to use up all it’s money allocated as if not their reserves will grow too large.
Besides the $10 million CPF funds it received annually on average, the government also pumped in $4.1 million in 2010 through various grants and subsidies.
Should CDAC now re-channel any surplus funds that it will receive in future to benefit other charitable organisations which are badly in need of funds?
I also remembered how when a job placement officer helped our jobless client found a job, each placement would bring in an extra $1000 funding from the Work Development Agency (WDA).
Each job placement officer has a target of 10 placements a month and we have two placement officers working then.
It looks like the government funds are meant for those organisations which carry the same agenda as theirs.
Political Agenda?
The Chariman of the council’s committee is Mr Lim Swee Say – a PAP MP and also the current NTUC labour chief.
There are also a few other MPs sitting on the board e.g. Baey Yam Keng, Grace Fu Hai Yien, Sam Tan Ching Siong (ex-ED of CDAC and now senior Perm Sec with MCYS), Ong Ye Kung (NTUC) among others.
The directors in office are as follows:
(For the term 25 June 2010 to AGM in 2012)
Mr Lim Swee Say (Chairman)
Mr Baey Yam Keng
Mr Philip Eng Heng Nee
Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien
Mr Gan Kim Yong
Mr James Kuah Geok Lin
Mr Lau Tai San
Ms Lim Sau Hoong
Mr Ng Siew Quan
Mr Ong Ye Kung
Mr Adrian Peh Nam Chuan
Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong
Mr Tan Eng Lai
Mr Tang Kian Meng
Mr Tay Khiam Back
Mr Teo Chiang Long
Mr Alex Yam Ziming
Source: CDAC
One wonders how politically-neutral and objective the council can be if it has a minister chairing the board with other like-minded MPs from the ruling party deciding on the activities for the council.
I believe that the self help groups can function better with a board that is politically neutral.
Our community development councils already have almost all politicians sitting on the mayor seat and its’ agenda is mostly political – even though most of its’ funds come from our tax payer money.
Moreover, self help groups, deriving most of its’ funds from the public’s CPF contribution must strive to be apolitical so that the needy can be assisted without any political gain from the mostly-PAP board.
Conclusion
Some may have speculated that I have a hidden agenda when I wrote this article.
I must confessed that I did not enjoyed my short work stint with the council as it is a very closed-up protective environment which always favoured those that belonged to the inner circle.
The usual workplace bullying took place there and the superior would close an eye when a fresh face took in some verbal battering. I was also shouted at by a influential senior staff in front of others and no one lifted an eyelid.
Another junior staff was loaded with too much work while the rest took it easy. Most of the senior staff would pretend to work late to prove to the managers that they are hard working when in fact they were loafing off during the day.
Though the council has enjoyed a family-themed work environment within the smaller inner circle, it has suffered from being too inward looking and almost tried too hard to reach out to the community with its’ over-stuffed coffers.
It is perhaps timely for the council to break away from focusing on its past glory of using tuition programmes to reach out to the needy and try to think of new ways to prepare for a looming global financial crisis ahead.
The council also needs to get rid of all the politicians on its board so that it’s mission can be strictly community-focused and apolitical.
If not, many Singaporeans will always remember the self help groups as another political tool – used by the ruling party at the people expenses.
