Stunning relevation about $500,000 GIC housing loan in Ong Seh Hong's testimony

[londontrader]

"It is an interesting news to me to be seen side by side to the proposed study of criminalizing those who take loans from the loan sharks."

It seems like Mr Wong KS and his men in blue have a problem catching the actual loan sharks. They seem more capable when dealing with political opponents. Maybe they need to divert some of that energy?

"Why didn't charity organization provide cheap loans to the poor instead of those who are earning many times than the poor?"

Now's that an idea

 

[halsey02]

"It is an interesting news to me to be seen side by side to the proposed study of criminalizing those who take loans from the loan sharks."

It seems like Mr Wong KS and his men in blue have a problem catching the actual loan sharks. They seem more capable when dealing with political opponents. Maybe they need to divert some of that energy?

"Why didn't charity organization provide cheap loans to the poor instead of those who are earning many times than the poor?"

Now's that an idea

his honourable WKS says you lesser mortals borrow money from ah loong, do to jail..but you know any good MONKey..can leand you $60,000 without any collacteral & check..no need credit bureau report etc..

better than any banks etc... I want too!..but alas! I am a lesser mortal! ommmmmmmmmm

 

[londontrader]

You mind is still stuck in the middle ages, we are talking about organisation that generate funds of millions of dollars and at the same time taking care of hundreds of patients. renci need to emply doctors and nurses and professional health care workers to look after the old patients.

these people need to be paid close to market rates , we can be altuistic but who is going bring home the bread and the butter. The amount of income may be high by your standard but Dr ong could have earned more if he work in gic,

I agree that running a hospital requires one to pay the going rate for skilled labour. It is just my considered opinion that a charity needs to show some restraint ie. okay to err on the less generous side but enough to get the staffing you need. Personally, I find that Ren Ci was rather generous and would be very interested to see how Dr Ong added value over and above his remuneration. Do you have any information with regard to that?

Also, Dr Ong's remuneration is below average in my line of work. But then again I am just one of many selfish rent seeking capitalists out there. Are you sure he had better prospects in GIC? He was a VP in HR & Corp Svcs (screams Cost Centre!). He did complete a masters in applied finance, maybe he fancied being a fund manager and earning the serious money.

 

[londontrader]

his honourable WKS says you lesser mortals borrow money from ah loong, do to jail..but you know any good MONKey..can leand you $60,000 without any collacteral & check..no need credit bureau report etc..

better than any banks etc... I want too!..but alas! I am a lesser mortal! ommmmmmmmmm

hahaahahhah
nicely said!

 

[miosux]

So what's my opinion about this issue?

1. I will congratulate any charity who can achieve it's aims without having to resort to typical corporate type behaviour (which we do seem to find distasteful when associated with a charity).

2. I will not condemn a charity which has to pay commercial wages if they need to in order to meet their stated objectives. Especially applicable to hospitals ie. medical personnel don't always come cheap and altruistic

return you my 1 cent opinion:

1. if charities cannot achieve pt 1 above, then they should stay out of the 'business' of charities.

2. charities that need to pay commercial wages are simply inviable if you apply natural selection theories to the charity sector, within the spirit of 'charity'. their work should be done by the gov or private sector.

3. by paying commercial wages, these charities are skewing the playing field for other charities and depriving other otherwise viable True Charities* of funds.

4. *True Charities i would propose, are those that can exist without paying commercial wages and engaging in other high expense corporate practices.

5. paying of commercial wages, even if the charity is able to meet its stated objective, is simply justification of our government's pragmatic stance on paying bloated wages to themselves.

lets not forget that charities are rooted in idealism, not pragmatism. if you want pragmatism, go start a pte ltd or ltd company. not an IPC.

my 1 cent become 2 cents due to inflation over time taken to write this post.

 

[kchunjeng]

When LKY gone,

Singapore will have more problems surface.

Take my words.

 

[scroobal]

=londontrader;216761
If:

1. Ren Ci fully disclosed everything that transpired
2. The decisions leading up to the loans were reached by consensus
3. Dr Ong disclosed every aspect of his arrangements with Ren Ci
4. The donors had every opportunity to be kept informed about how their $ was dispensed

Would you have a problem with their management?

As to to Dr Ong, the role of a CEO is all encompassing. Its carries moral responsibilities as well. I have no issues with his compensation but I more disturbed what had gone on during his time there. He failed to highlight issues. It does not matter if Dr Ong is a nice guy or not.

Besides Ernest & Young, forensic auditors from another firm (foreign in the main) was called in. There is more to this than meets the eye. This episode is opaque compared to what was done to NKF. The person who was brought in to chair the organisation shortly after the MOH probe showed irregularities is a CCC chairman and a PAP stalwart. Besides religious sensitivitives, there is also political backlash.

Have they released the full audit report like they did NKF?

If you look at Ren Ci website, a newbie would not have a single clue that something wrong had happenned unlike the MKF affair where donors and public were aware.

Interestingly, no seems to have questioned Ren Ci diverting funds to other charities despite it being published on a yearly basis. Why is a charity that receives public donations and govt grants is able to divert funds to other charities.

 

[SamuelStalin]

That's why I say these SDPies are all frogs in the well, for them not to even know employee loans are common practice. But they want to pick on OSH, who wasn't even MP then, who just wanted to make sure he was in the same position loanwise as if he didn't leave Temasek.

Cass this is scary, I mean SDPs are scary, but well, I'm not going to fuck you up your ass or put my cock in your mouth, don't worry. :

 

[holyman]

some issues that many forummers here missed:

(i) Mr Ong is already a professional, a MP, and assumed to be well to do in every sense. From an ethical and moral point of view, he should not have taken the $60K loan from the hospital. Reason being, if I am not wrong, Renci is not a Pte Ltd, and is a VWO. To be a CEO of a VWO and using charitable funds as a personal loan, that speaks a lot about his character. It is right to say it takes 2 hands to clap here, therefore Mr Ong could also have rejected the loan, OR have cheque paid out to GIC, rather than a personal cheque. He looks like shit on TV now because its a big bobo for his reputation.

(ii) When this fiasco initially surfaced, I think there was a discrepancy of between 8 to 12 million in the books. The monk also said he used some of the funds to cover losses for a talisman shop he opened in Thailand. Correct me if I am wrong on this. Just like the current financial crisis when it happened in july 2007, the news at that time was full of cover up, just like this renci case now. Discounting the news published in ST, there is still at least another 7.99 million unaccounted for...

(iii) This is the key issue here: payback perks! How many donors gave huge amounts and got tea or coffee money back? For example, if a CEO of a company donated $1 million, did the monk give back cash perks maybe $5000under the table? What if big characters were involved in this? Such practice is still happening in SG, and is "the way of life" in our neighbouring SEA countries...

 

[IMHO2006]

If the monk helps the poor and the sickly, he also entitle to a salary to upkeep himself and his parents right?

 

[IMHO2006]

If the monk helps the poor and the sickly, he also entitle to a salary to upkeep himself and his parents right?[/QUOTE]

 

[londontrader]

"if charities cannot achieve pt 1 above, then they should stay out of the 'business' of charities."

It seems that small charities are able to keep to the spirit of being a charity. The very large charities (ie. lots of $ and assets) are going to need some form of professional management. So, the issue is do they pay the going rate to get the staffing they need? You seem to think not and that is your choice. If others don't agree with you, they will continue to support their preferred charity. That is their choice.

"charities that need to pay commercial wages are simply inviable if you apply natural selection theories to the charity sector, within the spirit of 'charity'. their work should be done by the gov or private sector."

Private sector? They charge excessively even compared to the least generous (from the less fortunate's pt of view) charity.

The Govt? I think we need another govt or just let the less fortunate die off.

Charities are viable as long as they continue to:

a. Achieve their objectives of helping the less fortunate
b. Continue to attract funds because they have done a good job in (a)

"by paying commercial wages, these charities are skewing the playing field for other charities and depriving other otherwise viable True Charities* of funds."

You have a point about how the monster charities are crowding out the smaller ones. Mainly has to do with the clout and money they have to do very large scale fund raising.

However, paying the going rate to staff a hospital with medical personnel isn't responsible for this crowding out.

"True Charities i would propose, are those that can exist without paying commercial wages and engaging in other high expense corporate practices."

Well there are those around that need your support
So I hope you are playing your part

"paying of commercial wages, even if the charity is able to meet its stated objective, is simply justification of our government's pragmatic stance on paying bloated wages to themselves."

I am okay with charities paying the going rate if they need to.
I am not okay with the govt's bloated wage policy and these issues are not as related as you imply

The charities are saying that they can't run their operations with just volunteers and altruistic types (low wage). Can you run a hospital in singapore without paying commercial wages?

The govt is saying they can't attract talent unless they pay excessively high wages (opportunity costs too high). I agree that govt officials deserve a reasonable wage but that wage should incorporate the right incentives. The PAP wage structure is pegged to the highest private sector earners. So isn't the incentive kinda skewed towards looking out for high earners?

"lets not forget that charities are rooted in idealism, not pragmatism. if you want pragmatism, go start a pte ltd or ltd company. not an IPC."

Their objectives are idealistic
However, if you deem those objectives to be impt enough, I think a little pragmatism (to achieve the objectives) is okay.
That's why IPCs need to show RESTRAINT ie. not be too generous with pay. That's where they find the balance between idealism and pragmatism.

"my 1 cent become 2 cents due to inflation over time taken to write this post."

What's this
Hyperinflation?!

 

[londontrader]

When LKY gone,

Singapore will have more problems surface.

Take my words.

LKY not yet gone
singapore already have enough problems

 

[londontrader]

"As to to Dr Ong, the role of a CEO is all encompassing. Its carries moral responsibilities as well. I have no issues with his compensation but I more disturbed what had gone on during his time there. He failed to highlight issues. It does not matter if Dr Ong is a nice guy or not."

So maybe Ren Ci's donors didn't get enough value from Dr Ong's rather generous package. No bang for their buck so to speak. Maybe they need some clawback features in Ong's contract.

I was actually seeking your opinion about charities paying generously (like Ren Ci) and keeping up with good corporate governance (unlike Ren Ci). It seems that you are okay with this practice?

The rest of your post highlights very relevant issues and I agree with you. The story is still unfolding, so let's wait and see.

 

[halsey02]

If the monk helps the poor and the sickly, he also entitle to a salary to upkeep himself and his parents right?

Righto!, we all need to be fed, parents need to be fed, friends need to be fed, I want to be the friend of the monk!..I can buy myslef a gorgeous Mont Blanc pen, a Guicci bag, a lo lex watch... know any monk, I can beffiend...friend like me, need to be fed also, & upkeep

 

[londontrader]

"Mr Ong is already a professional, a MP, and assumed to be well to do in every sense. From an ethical and moral point of view, he should not have taken the $60K loan from the hospital."

If they bundled the 60K into his salary, is that better?

"Reason being, if I am not wrong, Renci is not a Pte Ltd, and is a VWO. To be a CEO of a VWO and using charitable funds as a personal loan, that speaks a lot about his character."

No charitable funds for personal loans
So what about charitable funds to pay salaries?
I agree that his character sucks but would like to seek your opinion on the above

"It is right to say it takes 2 hands to clap here, therefore Mr Ong could also have rejected the loan, OR have cheque paid out to GIC, rather than a personal cheque."

The $ was used to discharge his outstanding liabilities with GIC, so what's the difference? I believe that Ong asked for the loan so why would he reject it?

I agree with the concerns that you point out in the rest of your post.
Let's see how the rest of the story unravels.

 

[londontrader]

If the monk helps the poor and the sickly, he also entitle to a salary to upkeep himself and his parents right?

Yes but should a monk accept so much money
Should other monks who help the poor receive the same kind of benefit

 

[scroobal]

"
I was actually seeking your opinion about charities paying generously (like Ren Ci) and keeping up with good corporate governance (unlike Ren Ci). It seems that you are okay with this practice?

.

Sorry for getting it wrong. I have no issues with Charities paying market rate but not the version that Govt political holders use. Market rate is the only way to progress. As a charity, transparency is fundamental across all fronts. A CEO cannot hope to keep his remuneration confidential as along as it is a charity. I have known Honorarium holders with their hands in the till and have not been prosecuted because they were volunteers. So its best to pay and sue the chap is he transgresses.

There are couple of other financial disclosures that must be made. Unfortunately except for Medicins sans Frontieres, the rest are not up to par.

 

[londontrader]

Sorry for getting it wrong. I have no issues with Charities paying market rate but not the version that Govt political holders use. Market rate is the only way to progress. As a charity, transparency is fundamental across all fronts. A CEO cannot hope to keep his remuneration confidential as along as it is a charity. I have known Honorarium holders with their hands in the till and have not been prosecuted because they were volunteers. So its best to pay and sue the chap is he transgresses.

There are couple of other financial disclosures that must be made. Unfortunately except for Medicins sans Frontieres, the rest are not up to par.

Thanks for your clear reply

we are mostly in agreement but I would expect charities to show some restraint ie. err on the side of being less generous but still get the staffing needed. This acts as a sobering reminder that it's donors' funds they dispense. I expect govt officials to show a higher level of restraint but that's a pipe dream in a place like singapore.

It's interesting that you bring up honorariums. Yeah, that's a loophole if I ever saw one. Time to expose all the TT Durai's in the world!

cheers

 

[miosux]

Private sector? They charge excessively even compared to the least generous (from the less fortunate's pt of view) charity.

The Govt? I think we need another govt or just let the less fortunate die off.

u hit the nail on the head. so if the private sector can't provide public goods at accessible price levels, that means its the government's job to do so.

if this gov can't do so and the less fortunate die off, then it becomes a PR nightmare for them.

maybe i'm implying the less fortunate should be sacrificed for regime change... or maybe i'm not and we're all just reading too much into this....

i respect your opinion that charities are entitled to pay commercial level wages, i just hope your wallet remains open to them because mine has been firmly shut. so you got to pick up the slack from pple like me.

i rather give to the tissue paper uncles, ice cream vendors and buskers on the streets. at least i know every $ goes direct to the recipient instead of having 50% diverted to admin and wage costs.

my 2 cents become 4 cents. dam this hyperinflation.