Saturday April 25, 2009
Where money holds sway
INSIGHT: BY SEAH CHIANG NEE
The large salaries paid to the elite is pushing many Singaporeans towards an unhealthy chase for the dollar.
THE trial of a high-living Buddhist monk who owns three properties and loves luxurious cars has shown how far Singapore has fallen under a money culture.
It is the latest of an ongoing debate whether this affluent city is over-paying its leaders in government, big business, big charities and religion.
Even priests and monks, who should be the last people to be involved, are not spared, the latest being one of Singapore’s top Buddhist monks.
He is Venerable Shi Ming Yi, who ran a popular and successful Buddhist hospital and medical centre for the poor.
As CEO and chairman of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre with assets of S$47mil (RM112mil) , largely on public donations, he was paid a whopping annual salary of S$192,000 (RM461,000).
The saffron-robed monk, aged 47, is facing charges over an unauthorised loan from Ren Ci’s coffers to his ex-personal aide.
He is accused of embezzlement and fraud, which are serious charges. But for a monk who has taken the vow of worldly abstinence, it is more like a bombshell; and for Buddhist followers, too.
The furore is even being played out outside the court-room, focused on his CEO-type salary that allowed him to live a lavish lifestyle, which critics say is unbecoming of a monk.
He had spent large amounts on branded goods like Montblanc and Louis Vuitton and stays at luxury hotels such as St Regis and The Regent, charged to credit cards.
Singaporeans have learned that Rev. Ming Yi owns three properties in the posh Orchard area as well as an expensive car (including a BMW in Australia two years ago.).
“All this is totally against Buddha’s teaching,” a critic exclaimed.
Another blogged: “Any monk that takes money as his private or personal income should be de-robed. Monks have taken a vow to give up material wants except for basic needs.”
The Christian faith, too, is not excluded by society’s grip of the money culture.
The majority of religious leaders of all denominations live frugally on moderate incomes.
The big organisations involved in large fund-raising could provide the exception.
A few are paid like CEOs because their efforts rake in large amounts of money from followers.
One of the richest is the New Creation Church, known for its fund-raising abilities, and was reported to have paid one of its leaders more than S$500,000 (RM1.2mil) last year.
The church had an income of S$55.4mil (RM133mil) and total assets of S$143.36mil (RM344mil) last year.
In just one day alone it pulled in S$18mil (RM43mil) for the building of its new premises.
Singaporeans are reminded of the notorious National Kidney Foundation charity scandal four years ago caused by its brilliant fund-raising CEO.
T.T. Durai was the very person who had helped it grow into a S$260mil (RM625mil) charity to provide subsidised dialysis treatment for needy patients.
Durai’s salary of S$600,000 (RM1.4mil), which was hidden from the public, was considered excessive by many of its two million donors.
He lost the job in 2005 when he was found to have spent the charity’s funds on luxury items (including a gold tap for an office) for personal use. He also gave misleading information to lure more people to contribute.
Recently, a public outcry arose when government-controlled Capitaland, South-East Asia’s biggest property company, gave its CEO Liew Mun Leong S$20.52mil (RM49mil) for 2007’s enlarged profit.
The timing was terrible; the company’s profits were reeling.
The debate is whether quality leaders in charity and religion – and politics, too – should be paid similar to a top executive of a profitable private venture.
The difference, of course, is that the money is raised from the public, based on trust that it is for a collective purpose.
Rev. Ming Yi’s defenders, however, argue although he is a monk, where a high salary appears ridiculous, he is also chief executive of a large, well-run, hospital and medical centre.
“So what’s wrong about his high pay?” one asked.
Others say today’s Buddhist monkhood, like others, is different from ancient times when monks lived an austere life within high walls.
Rev. Ming Yi told the court that “we live in a modern world ... no longer like what it was in the past”.
Asked to elaborate, he added: “If people earn more, they will spend more.
Many religious people, not just myself, are very different now.”
Unfortunately not many people’s expectations have changed.
Most Singaporeans believe that when they donate money to a religious organisation or a charity, it is aimed at helping people (or troubled souls) in need, not to provide comfort for a few leaders.
The debate about Singapore’s spreading money culture - with a per capita GDP of US$48,900 (RM175,000) - has intensified since the economy plunged and sent many workers into hardship.
People have become more sensitive about the ruling elite – whether in the government, civil service or a large corporation – being paid excessively more than the average, middle class person.
Ironically, the unpopular elite pay policy is pushing many competitive Singaporeans towards giving wealth accumulation top priority.
People are lured to an unhealthy chase for the dollar.
“They see materialism as a god. Money can do anything, even deciding what is right or wrong,” remarked a semi-retired professional.
On the same day that Rev. Ming Yi was testifying, the manager of a shipping firm was fined S$1,200 for vandalising his neighbour’s flat.
The amount did not faze the apparently well-to-do man, who told a reporter: “After all, I can afford to pay. I spend S$4,000 on karaoke in one night. What’s S$1,200?”
Who says money doesn’t talk?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27827.1
Showing posts with label Ming Yi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ming Yi. Show all posts
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ming Yi: Not 'aware'
April 22, 2009
REN CI HOSPITAL CASE
Ming Yi: Not 'aware'
| By Selina Lum & Carolyn Quek | ||
 |  | Former Ren Ci Hospital Chief Ming Yi (right) is accused of misappropriating $50k of Ren Ci's funds by approving a loan to his former personal aide Raymond Yeung Chi Hang (left). --PHOTO: ST |
Both sums - for $300,000 and $50,000 - were in Ren Ci's books, but not in Mandala's.
Taking the stand for the second day yesterday, Ming Yi, former chief executive of the charitable hospital, said: 'I was very worried because I did not know what had happened... I have said and mentioned to many people that whatever amounts from Ren Ci to Mandala and Bodhicherie, I would be responsible. So I was very worried.'
Mandala is a shop selling Buddhist artefacts while Bodhicherie is a vegetarian food business. Both are affiliated to Ren Ci.
The $50,000 loan is at the heart of the criminal trial now into its ninth day. Ming Yi has been accused of making a loan to Yeung, which both men later tried to cover up.
On Tuesday, Ming Yi dwelt at length on his life story and the difficulties he faced raising funds for Ren Ci. At the end of the day, District Judge Toh Yung Cheong suggested that he confine himself to broad points.
Ming Yi's lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Yeap kept his client to point on Wednesday, questioning him on the $50,000, how he met Yeung and why he hired him without an employment pass initially.
Ming Yi said that during the probe, he was not aware that the 'missing' $50,000 had been used by Yeung for anything personal.
Ming Yi said Yeung repaid him in November 2007 from the sale proceeds of his property in Melbourne, which was given to him by an elderly monk.
It was only in January last year that Yeung 'confessed'', said Ming Yi without elaborating.http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27646.1
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thirsting After Greed
Thirsting After Greed
After the Marcos family fled Malacañang Palace, Imelda was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 888 handbags and 1060 pairs of shoes. Okay, maybe she collects stuff, like some people hoard Starwars figurines. Some mitigate her spendthrift habits as a compensation for a childhood of absolute poverty.
But why would a monk have need of 9 credit cards? Of course there are those who live on credit, paying off one credit card bill with another bank’s card. Like a one-man Ponzi scheme, with the scammer and victim being same. Or there are those insecure types, using a wallet full of cards to compensate for poor self esteem. Neither stereotype seems to fit Ming Yi, until recently, the highly paid CEO of Ren Ci Hospital Charity. He disabused public perception that Buddhist monks should be garbed in torn clothes, remain in the temple and not “go anywhere”. Latter kind of explains his choice of hotels like St Regis, The Regent, Four Seasons and Banyan Tree.
When MP Lily Neo prepared for her maiden voyage into politics, she hired an old Honda Accord to drive to the HDB heartlands for the election hustings. One of the rare politicians whose personal wealth has no need of the seduction of the MP allowance, she knew her husband’s sports cars or her own Europe makes would be an insensitive choice of transportation. And her empathy was consistent in her work for her constituents, fighting tooth and nail with Vivian Balakrishnan (”How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”) for $30 extra in welfare support so that they may afford 3 full meals. Humility is from the heart.
Ming Yi’s explanation for his lifestyle, “I think we are living in a modern world,” brings to mind the old quarrel of Ho Ching with then boss and chairman of ST Technologies, Yeo Ning Hong. Latter had taken her to task for paying a million dollar bonus to one of her staff. Subsequently father-in-law castigated Yeo in parliament for being “out of touch with the private sector”, she got her job back, and “ended up in a higher tax bracket.”
Shin Buddhism, or the teachings of Shinran (1173-1262), teaches humility as the most important universal virtue. Many people think that the ultimate goal in Buddhism as well as human life is to become good. But according to Shinran, it is to become humble. Humility is timeless, only greed grows with time.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27426.1
After the Marcos family fled Malacañang Palace, Imelda was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 888 handbags and 1060 pairs of shoes. Okay, maybe she collects stuff, like some people hoard Starwars figurines. Some mitigate her spendthrift habits as a compensation for a childhood of absolute poverty.
But why would a monk have need of 9 credit cards? Of course there are those who live on credit, paying off one credit card bill with another bank’s card. Like a one-man Ponzi scheme, with the scammer and victim being same. Or there are those insecure types, using a wallet full of cards to compensate for poor self esteem. Neither stereotype seems to fit Ming Yi, until recently, the highly paid CEO of Ren Ci Hospital Charity. He disabused public perception that Buddhist monks should be garbed in torn clothes, remain in the temple and not “go anywhere”. Latter kind of explains his choice of hotels like St Regis, The Regent, Four Seasons and Banyan Tree.
When MP Lily Neo prepared for her maiden voyage into politics, she hired an old Honda Accord to drive to the HDB heartlands for the election hustings. One of the rare politicians whose personal wealth has no need of the seduction of the MP allowance, she knew her husband’s sports cars or her own Europe makes would be an insensitive choice of transportation. And her empathy was consistent in her work for her constituents, fighting tooth and nail with Vivian Balakrishnan (”How much do you want? Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?”) for $30 extra in welfare support so that they may afford 3 full meals. Humility is from the heart.
Ming Yi’s explanation for his lifestyle, “I think we are living in a modern world,” brings to mind the old quarrel of Ho Ching with then boss and chairman of ST Technologies, Yeo Ning Hong. Latter had taken her to task for paying a million dollar bonus to one of her staff. Subsequently father-in-law castigated Yeo in parliament for being “out of touch with the private sector”, she got her job back, and “ended up in a higher tax bracket.”
Shin Buddhism, or the teachings of Shinran (1173-1262), teaches humility as the most important universal virtue. Many people think that the ultimate goal in Buddhism as well as human life is to become good. But according to Shinran, it is to become humble. Humility is timeless, only greed grows with time.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27426.1
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Ong Seh Hong: It was a staff loan
It was a staff loan
Weekend • April 18, 2009
Dr Ong Seh Hong,
MP for Marine Parade GRC
IN THE on-going trial of Reverend Ming Yi, my name was mentioned in relation to a loan made to me when I joined Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre as a staff. I am writing to state the facts of the loan and the events leading to it.
I had an outstanding staff housing loan from my previous employer, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) in 1999. I was offered a job by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical and Paramedical Services in January 2000. This was before I was elected as an MP in October 2001.
To join Ren Ci, I had to settle my housing loan with the GIC. One of the conditions for accepting the job in Ren Ci was that Ren Ci was to grant me a loan of $60,000 as a staff loan, to pay off in part the outstanding loan I owed to GIC.
I repaid the sum of $60,000 within three years by December 2002 as per the terms on which the loan was given to me.
When I borrowed the sum of $60,000 from Ren Ci, I was not an MP. Ren Ciextended the loan to me as a staff.
These are the facts surrounding the staff loan extended to me as an employee of Ren Ci Hospital.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27249.1
Friday, April 17, 2009
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approved several loans to staff (2nd version)
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approved several loans to staff (2nd version)
By Liang Kaixin, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 17 April 2009 0826 hrs
 | ||||||
| ||||||
SINGAPORE: The sixth day of the trial against former Ren Ci CEO, Shi Ming Yi, threw light on the way staff loans were granted, even though the hospital did not have a formal policy on them in place.
The court on Thursday heard that Ming Yi had approved several loans to various staff.
Among them was Dr Ong Seh Hong who is currently the community hospital's chief operating officer and clinical director of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre. Dr Ong is also a Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC.
When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, the MP said in a letter dated Friday: "I was an employee of GIC in 1999. I was offered by Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre to be Director, Medical & Paramedical Services in January 2000.
"However to leave GIC, I had to pay S$560,000 to settle my outstanding staff housing loan. I agreed to join Ren Ci on condition that I received a loan of S$60,000, to pay off in part the amount of S$560,000 and I paid the remaining S$500,000 from bank loan.
“When I borrowed the sum of S$60,000 from Ren Ci, I was not an MP. It was lent to me as staff, and was part of the terms on which I agreed to join Ren Ci. I have since repaid the sum fully."
The court also learnt that Ming Yi's former aide, Raymond Yeung, was offered an employment contract in 2001, despite his unsuccessful application for an employment pass.
Ming Yi subsequently granted Yeung a S$50,000 loan, even though the latter remained without an employment pass until 2004. This was recorded on Ren Ci's books as a loan made to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre.
At issue now is whether Yeung, who is an Australian citizen and only became a Singapore Permanent Resident in 2006, had received the loan as a legitimate Ren Ci employee.
The trial continues.
- CNA/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27140.1
$60,000 loan from Ren Ci to PAP MP Ong Seh Hong sparked furore in cyberspace
$60,000 loan from Ren Ci to PAP MP Ong Seh Hong sparked furore in cyberspace
The Ren Ci fiasco took an unexpected twist today when it was revealed in the court by Ming Yi that he approved loans to several of its staff including is Chief Operating Officer Dr Ong Seh Hong who borrowed a stunning sum of $60,000. (read article here)
Dr Ong Seh Hong is the PAP MP for Kampong Ubi ward under Marine Parade GRC. He was in the spotlight lately over the Geylang Serai market food poisoning outbreak which took away the lives of two residents living in his constituency.
He has declined to comment on the matter on the grounds of the ongoing trial.
Within minutes of the news release on the Channelnewsasia online portal, the major internet chatrooms are abuzzed with the loan Dr Ong had taken from Ren Ci.
In less than a hour since the post first appeared on CNA forum, it has attracted over 2,000 views.
Many cannot understand why a doctor and a MP has to borrow money from a monk. Some questioned if the loan is interest-free.
Wrote “18″ on CNA forum:
“It is a public fund & not Ah Gong or your $$ cannot any how loan la… If it is a listed company, sure close shop one…..”
Another forumer remarked sarcastically:
“That some talent he has to borrow money from Monk - first world talent.”
ilfishing was more interested to know if the loan is interest-free:
“Is this interest-free loan? Good to know this fact, if yes, on what basis the loan is given to the MP?”
Scandals about PAP leaders are far and few because the mainstream media which is largely controlled by the government is not allowed to pry into their personal lives.
The scandal only came to light because of a trial hearing involving Ren Ci’s ex CEO Ming Yi who was falsifying the charity’s accounts and lying to the investigators.
As the second largest charity in Singapore after the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), Ren Ci runs a hospital and medical centers for the chronic sick.
It is funded almost entirely by public donations with occasional contributions from the Ministry of Health. Before his fall from grace, Ming Yi was a highly respected Buddhist monk in Singapore who risked his life in dangerous stunts including walking from a tightrope down from Suntec City a few years ago to raise funds for Ren Ci.
In the aftermath of the NKF saga, many Singaporeans will undoubtably feel hurt and betrayed by the dirt which has been dredged up in the Ren Ci case so far.
While there may be no criminal wrongdoings in Dr Ong taking a loan from Ren Ci, it is morally wrong for him to knowingly accept the money which is meant to help the needy patients. Neither is it good corporate practice for a staff to borrow money from the charity.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has always praised the PAP MPs as the best talents Singapore can ever produce and therefore deserving of their exorbitant salaries which are fueling widespread resentment in the face of the current economic downturn.
Dr Ong will be hard pressed to a satisfactory explanation to the public about the loan which will probably sound the death knell for his unremarkable political career. It may also be his last term as a MP for Kampong Ubi given the impeccable record MM Lee demands from his MPs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27122.1
The Ren Ci fiasco took an unexpected twist today when it was revealed in the court by Ming Yi that he approved loans to several of its staff including is Chief Operating Officer Dr Ong Seh Hong who borrowed a stunning sum of $60,000. (read article here)
Dr Ong Seh Hong is the PAP MP for Kampong Ubi ward under Marine Parade GRC. He was in the spotlight lately over the Geylang Serai market food poisoning outbreak which took away the lives of two residents living in his constituency.
He has declined to comment on the matter on the grounds of the ongoing trial.
Within minutes of the news release on the Channelnewsasia online portal, the major internet chatrooms are abuzzed with the loan Dr Ong had taken from Ren Ci.
In less than a hour since the post first appeared on CNA forum, it has attracted over 2,000 views.
Many cannot understand why a doctor and a MP has to borrow money from a monk. Some questioned if the loan is interest-free.
Wrote “18″ on CNA forum:
“It is a public fund & not Ah Gong or your $$ cannot any how loan la… If it is a listed company, sure close shop one…..”
Another forumer remarked sarcastically:
“That some talent he has to borrow money from Monk - first world talent.”
ilfishing was more interested to know if the loan is interest-free:
“Is this interest-free loan? Good to know this fact, if yes, on what basis the loan is given to the MP?”
Scandals about PAP leaders are far and few because the mainstream media which is largely controlled by the government is not allowed to pry into their personal lives.
The scandal only came to light because of a trial hearing involving Ren Ci’s ex CEO Ming Yi who was falsifying the charity’s accounts and lying to the investigators.
As the second largest charity in Singapore after the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), Ren Ci runs a hospital and medical centers for the chronic sick.
It is funded almost entirely by public donations with occasional contributions from the Ministry of Health. Before his fall from grace, Ming Yi was a highly respected Buddhist monk in Singapore who risked his life in dangerous stunts including walking from a tightrope down from Suntec City a few years ago to raise funds for Ren Ci.
In the aftermath of the NKF saga, many Singaporeans will undoubtably feel hurt and betrayed by the dirt which has been dredged up in the Ren Ci case so far.
While there may be no criminal wrongdoings in Dr Ong taking a loan from Ren Ci, it is morally wrong for him to knowingly accept the money which is meant to help the needy patients. Neither is it good corporate practice for a staff to borrow money from the charity.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has always praised the PAP MPs as the best talents Singapore can ever produce and therefore deserving of their exorbitant salaries which are fueling widespread resentment in the face of the current economic downturn.
Dr Ong will be hard pressed to a satisfactory explanation to the public about the loan which will probably sound the death knell for his unremarkable political career. It may also be his last term as a MP for Kampong Ubi given the impeccable record MM Lee demands from his MPs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27122.1
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approves several loans to staff
Former Ren Ci CEO Ming Yi approves several loans to staff
By Liang Kaixin, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 16 April 2009 2106 hrs
 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: The sixth day of the trial against former Ren Ci CEO, Shi Ming Yi, threw light on the way staff loans were granted, even though the hospital did not have a formal policy on it.
The court on Thursday heard that Ming Yi had approved several loans to various staff. Among them, was Dr Ong Seh Hong who is currently the community hospital's chief operating officer and clinical director of Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre.
Dr Ong is also a Member of Parliament for Marine Parade GRC. When contacted by Channel NewsAsia, the MP said he is unable to comment as the trial is still ongoing.
Testifying in court, Ren Ci's former human resource manager, Joyce Teng Lee Foong, said the staff loan was made to Dr Ong when he first joined the hospital in 2000.
The S$60,000 loan is understood to be the largest sum approved by Ming Yi. It is not known whether the loan has been repaid.
The court also learnt that Ming Yi's former aide, Raymond Yeung, was offered an employment contract in 2001, despite his unsuccessful application for an employment pass.
Ming Yi subsequently granted Yeung a S$50,000 loan, even though the latter remained without an employment pass until 2004. This was recorded on Ren Ci's books as a loan made to Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre.
At issue now is whether Yeung, who is an Australian citizen and only became a Singapore Permanent Resident in 2006, had received the loan as a legitimate Ren Ci employee.
The trial continues.
- CNA/so
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27121.1
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Ming Yi's former aide confesses to a cover-up
Ming Yi's former aide confesses to a cover-up
By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 14 April 2009 0717 hrs
 | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: He claimed trial confidently when his criminal hearing began two weeks ago.
Now, the fourth day of the hearing against former Ren Ci Hospital chief Shi Ming Yi brought the revelation that his former aide Raymond Yeung had confessed to investigators months ago about borrowing S$50,000 from the charity for personal use - and lying about it.
The prosecution called to the stand on Monday a new witness, Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) officer Tan Fong Chin, who had recorded an admission from Yeung about approaching Ming Yi for a loan "for some personal expenses in Hong Kong" arising from financial difficulties.
Yeung had actually wanted to pay for the renovation of a good friend's flat in the Chinese territory, where he used to stay whenever he visited, according to the statement taken in March last year. But he apparently did not tell the monk this.
Then began an intricate tale of cover-up, going by the confession.
Yeung had suggested using the Mandala Buddhist Cultural Centre's name to borrow the money. Ming Yi supposedly agreed and approved a payment voucher.
But the Australian national "forgot to record this amount" in Mandala's accounts as planned. When audit inquiries into Ren Ci's finances began in 2006, it was Yeung's idea to say the money was used to pay a company called Jing Yi for wood to carve statues.
He "begged" Ming Yi to help him cover up the matter. Yeung said in the statement: "He did scold me for not recording the loan properly, but he did agree to help me."
Yeung evidently approached the brother of the owner of Jing Yi to draft a delivery letter so that he could account to the auditors about the loan. He also "begged" one of the two registered owners of Mandala, Mr Wee Beng Seng - who is a former Ren Ci board member - to help him go along with the story. He claimed that the latter agreed, but also "scolded" him.
But Yeung told the CAD officer there was "no intention to cheat any party of this S$50,000".
He further told Mr Tan he was unaware if Ren Ci forbade loans to non-employees, but felt that as he was not yet officially employed by Ren Ci, it was "inappropriate" to borrow money from the charity.
"I decided to record the amount as a loan to Mandala because I helped out regularly in the running of Mandala," Yeung said in his statement. The Singapore permanent resident only got his employment pass in the third quarter of 2004. At the time of the loan in May that year, Ming Yi apparently paid his salary.
When asked by the investigator why he repaid the loan only in 2007, Yeung had attributed it to "tight" cash flow because his stock investments were "stuck, as the prices were down". He evidently sold some of his shares in Hong Kong to repay the loan.
While Mr Tan has been cross-examined by counsel from both sides, Yeung has yet to take the stand to be questioned about the allegedly conspiracy to forge the Ren Ci payment voucher by falsifying accounts and giving false information to the Commissioner of Charities.
Meanwhile, the court granted an application by Ming Yi's lawyers to return the monk's passport so he can pay respects to his mentor who died in Kuala Lumpur. He will be back when the hearing resumes Wednesday. - TODAY
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26881.1
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Ming Yi fiasco: a sombre lesson in a system which relies on “trust”
The Ming Yi fiasco: a sombre lesson in a system which relies on “trust”
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I read in the Straits Times that the management committee of one of Singapore’s largest charities - Ren Ci did not know how much they were paying their chief executive. (read article here)
They could have asked, admitted Ren Ci Hospital’s committee member Chan Ching Oi, but they did not.
Instead, they let its CEO and founder Ming Yi decide on what he deemed to be a ‘fair’ salary, Mrs Chan said on the witness stand yesterday, while testifying on the third day of a criminal trial against the Buddhist monk.
Ren Ci is the second largest charity in Singapore which was set up by the charismatic Ming Yi in 1991.
How can a charity which deals with millions of dollars of donations from the public be so sloppy and careless when it comes to corporate governance?
Mrs Chan’s lame defence that Ren Ci’s focus in the first decade had been to ‘get things done’, with less emphasis on corporate governance issues does not exonerate her or fellow directors on the management committee from blame.
As much as Ming Yi is culpable for the mess Ren Ci is in now, the directors should be held responsible for being negligent in the discharge of their duties and failure to detect deficiencies within the system.
Mrs Chan, who has been Ren Ci’s honorary secretary since it started in 1994, admitted she did not know how much Ming Yi’s salary was and that the management did not pry into it.
She said the committee trusted Ming Yi would give himself a reasonable salary, pegged to that of other hospital CEOs and also based on the scope of work undertaken by him for the hospital.
Ren Ci’s management committee might have refrained from asking Ming Yi to reveal his salary out of respect for him. He was after all a highly venerated buddhist monk in Singapore before the fiasco broke out.
Ren Ci’s donors, patients, staff and directors all trusted Ming Yi. He had worked tirelessly to build Ren Ci to its present state from nothing. His name was synonymous with Ren Ci and he was its largest fund raiser, having risked his life performing dangerous stunts in charity shows. Who would expect him to raise fix his own salary and to raise it arbitrarily without discussing with anybody?
The Ming Yi fiasco has proven to Singaporeans again beyond doubt that a system which relies on trust alone is a faulty one open to abuse. When there are no checks and balances in the system, a powerful, charistmatic or influential leader will be given a blank cheque to run the organization without having to account to anybody. And that lies the real danger. Can we expect human beings to check on themselves?
Had Ren Ci instituted a proper system to ensure its CEO answer to the Board of Directors, Ming Yi would not have been tempted to make such a blunder in the first place. He should know his actions were wrong, but he still went ahead because nobody would find out.
When it comes to managing the nation’s treasury which is a million times more than Ren Ci’s funds, all more should there be stringent measures put in place to ensure that the people in charge of it are held accountable.
No man is above Singapore, even if he is the nation’s founding father who had made tremendous contributions to its growth and development. Can our present system stand up to scrutiny?
Our two sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and GIC are supposed to manage our country’s reserves. They are owned by the Ministry of Finance.
Both funds are run by a Board of Directors like any other corporate companies. However, we have no idea about the following:
1. Who is responsible for deciding the pay and bonuses of these directors and executives?
2. What are their salaries, bonuses and perks?
3. Do these executives hold directorships in other companies?
These are legitimate questions which every Singaporean ought to ask the government. Unfortunately, it is unlikely we will obtain an answer from the Minister of Finance Tharman who appears to favor a system based on “trust”.
Let us recap this exchange between Inderjit Singh and Tharman on 5 February 2009 in Parliament on the hasty approval of the use of our reserves by the President:
Inderjit Singh:
What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”
Tharman:
“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”
Does Mr Tharman have trust in the individuals who are in charge of Temasek and GIC now? Having trust in one another is a matter of personal conviction. It should not be confused with accountability and transparency.
As the minister in charge of managing the nation’s treasury, Minister Tharman should know that “trust” is not enough to ensure that our precious reserves are properly managed.
A system which does not hold leaders accountable for their actions is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode upon us. Who can promise that the leaders in the future will be as honest and incorruptible as the present generation?
Human nature is unpredictable. People do change. Rules and regulations can be bent at will easily too. Only a system having multiple layers of checks and balances will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of one person or group which will keep possible abuses to a minimum.
There is no reason why Temasek and GIC cannot subject themselves to external audits. In fact, the Ministry of Finance should engage a reputable accounting firm to audit their accounts on a yearly basis and publish the report online for the public to see.
Ren Ci had taught us another sombre lesson in the fallacy that “trust” in individuals alone will make the government act responsibly. Trust must be based on having adequate checks and balances in the system to hold the executive accountable for its actions without which it is merely a hollow word with no significance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26262.1
I was absolutely dumbfounded when I read in the Straits Times that the management committee of one of Singapore’s largest charities - Ren Ci did not know how much they were paying their chief executive. (read article here)
They could have asked, admitted Ren Ci Hospital’s committee member Chan Ching Oi, but they did not.
Instead, they let its CEO and founder Ming Yi decide on what he deemed to be a ‘fair’ salary, Mrs Chan said on the witness stand yesterday, while testifying on the third day of a criminal trial against the Buddhist monk.
Ren Ci is the second largest charity in Singapore which was set up by the charismatic Ming Yi in 1991.
How can a charity which deals with millions of dollars of donations from the public be so sloppy and careless when it comes to corporate governance?
Mrs Chan’s lame defence that Ren Ci’s focus in the first decade had been to ‘get things done’, with less emphasis on corporate governance issues does not exonerate her or fellow directors on the management committee from blame.
As much as Ming Yi is culpable for the mess Ren Ci is in now, the directors should be held responsible for being negligent in the discharge of their duties and failure to detect deficiencies within the system.
Mrs Chan, who has been Ren Ci’s honorary secretary since it started in 1994, admitted she did not know how much Ming Yi’s salary was and that the management did not pry into it.
She said the committee trusted Ming Yi would give himself a reasonable salary, pegged to that of other hospital CEOs and also based on the scope of work undertaken by him for the hospital.
Ren Ci’s management committee might have refrained from asking Ming Yi to reveal his salary out of respect for him. He was after all a highly venerated buddhist monk in Singapore before the fiasco broke out.
Ren Ci’s donors, patients, staff and directors all trusted Ming Yi. He had worked tirelessly to build Ren Ci to its present state from nothing. His name was synonymous with Ren Ci and he was its largest fund raiser, having risked his life performing dangerous stunts in charity shows. Who would expect him to raise fix his own salary and to raise it arbitrarily without discussing with anybody?
The Ming Yi fiasco has proven to Singaporeans again beyond doubt that a system which relies on trust alone is a faulty one open to abuse. When there are no checks and balances in the system, a powerful, charistmatic or influential leader will be given a blank cheque to run the organization without having to account to anybody. And that lies the real danger. Can we expect human beings to check on themselves?
Had Ren Ci instituted a proper system to ensure its CEO answer to the Board of Directors, Ming Yi would not have been tempted to make such a blunder in the first place. He should know his actions were wrong, but he still went ahead because nobody would find out.
When it comes to managing the nation’s treasury which is a million times more than Ren Ci’s funds, all more should there be stringent measures put in place to ensure that the people in charge of it are held accountable.
No man is above Singapore, even if he is the nation’s founding father who had made tremendous contributions to its growth and development. Can our present system stand up to scrutiny?
Our two sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and GIC are supposed to manage our country’s reserves. They are owned by the Ministry of Finance.
Both funds are run by a Board of Directors like any other corporate companies. However, we have no idea about the following:
1. Who is responsible for deciding the pay and bonuses of these directors and executives?
2. What are their salaries, bonuses and perks?
3. Do these executives hold directorships in other companies?
These are legitimate questions which every Singaporean ought to ask the government. Unfortunately, it is unlikely we will obtain an answer from the Minister of Finance Tharman who appears to favor a system based on “trust”.
Let us recap this exchange between Inderjit Singh and Tharman on 5 February 2009 in Parliament on the hasty approval of the use of our reserves by the President:
Inderjit Singh:
What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”
Tharman:
“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”
Does Mr Tharman have trust in the individuals who are in charge of Temasek and GIC now? Having trust in one another is a matter of personal conviction. It should not be confused with accountability and transparency.
As the minister in charge of managing the nation’s treasury, Minister Tharman should know that “trust” is not enough to ensure that our precious reserves are properly managed.
A system which does not hold leaders accountable for their actions is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode upon us. Who can promise that the leaders in the future will be as honest and incorruptible as the present generation?
Human nature is unpredictable. People do change. Rules and regulations can be bent at will easily too. Only a system having multiple layers of checks and balances will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of one person or group which will keep possible abuses to a minimum.
There is no reason why Temasek and GIC cannot subject themselves to external audits. In fact, the Ministry of Finance should engage a reputable accounting firm to audit their accounts on a yearly basis and publish the report online for the public to see.
Ren Ci had taught us another sombre lesson in the fallacy that “trust” in individuals alone will make the government act responsibly. Trust must be based on having adequate checks and balances in the system to hold the executive accountable for its actions without which it is merely a hollow word with no significance.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26262.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)