NKF Saga and Homosexuality

The Recent NKF Saga strikes me as controversial. Of course, since this blog is about me dedicating to the gay side of my life, I will not be talking so much about what my feel of the issues in the press.

What I would like to talk about is what I feel, are the politicians' and citizens' perspectives.

First of all, NKF, in recent years, has become a "professional" body raising funds for charitable causes. By "professional" I mean that NKF has become a business outfit, whose "revenue" is donations from the public, and the "profits" are entirely for subsidizing kidney patients. Their business objectives become (1) To increase revenue, (2) Increase reserves so that during economic downturns, they can tap on their reserves to continue helping patients.

I think I can add in here, my opinion, that I think it is all fine. Thus, getting paid "market rate" for all the staff (CEO, and ground crew included) is OK by my standards (but then, what kind of moral standards do I have ?).

My only problem is that the "bonus" is a bit too much, with ground crew getting about 6-months bonus, and CEO getting 12-months. Unless, of course, it can be proven that their pay are "below market rates" thus the need for higher than normal standards.

I am not going to debate that part here. What I am here about is what I gathered from the "public outcry".

Most of the people I spoke with, and many of the comments I have heard from various media, led me to believe that a great marjority still holds the notion that people working in these welfare and charity outfits, should be "volunteers" and should not even be getting market-rate pay.

That people who work for such organization, should be more compassionate, and have "moral obligations" to fulfil.

Thus, the transformation of NKF into a business-like outfit, using "tactics" to raise so much money, becomes immoral or somehow not right. Even though, in some countries, such "busines" models have been used.

Our Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan's asked (during the press conference announcing the resignation of NKF CEO and Board) that whether we still want our VWOs to operate in the traditional mode and not being able to solicit as much funding, got to me.

Judging by Mrs. Goh's comments on the now-famous "peanut" implications, and even our PM Lee Hsien Loong's comments gave me similar message. Many ministers also added their comments.

Their message is , in my own words :

Our conservative society still views VWOs as being run by volunteers and that NKF's way of business model (thus business-like pay to all the staff) doesn't sit well with our people. That the old methods cannot raise enough money to help the needy/patients.

I get the feeling that they are trying to tell us that it is OK to treat it like a business. (And my own opinion also concurred with them.)

I get the feeling that they are out on a small little campaign to try to educate the public that even if this model doesn't sit well with our conservative majority, we need to be open about it and urge the public to try to shed the older, conservative notion that VWOs should be voluntary.

I think this is a good move. But what has it got to do with homosexuality ?

I think the government has done exactly the opposite of what they did with NKF. How so ?

First, the obvious stand that homosexuality is a western influence and our conservative majority is against it.

Second, that we shouldn't push the public to accept these things, and that the laws will change alongside public opinion.

Third, that I haven't really seen evidence of the government objectively try to survey or find out exactly how many are these so called "conservative majority". Or do they take it that as long as there is ONE person out there who views homosexuality as immoral, it is then the society that is not progressing ?

Fourth, that the govenment doesn't take a stand to try to educate the ignorant or the conservative citizens that they should be "open" and that homosexuality is not evil or harmful or anything ? That they insists that it is not the government's job to educate the public about homosexuality, that it is their job to implement what the people wants.

So, how is this NKF saga contradicting ?

First, NKF's "business model" was also taken from the West. Why is not judged as "immoral" ?

Second, of their little nudge (though subtle) in trying to get people to calm down and look at the overall picture of NKF's objectives.

Third, that they feel NKF is not wrong in their adoption of running it like a business model, and that the public should be open. The only thing that was wrong is the transparency. They feel that members of the public should be open to new ways of running VWOs.

Fourth, that they are, in their little own ways, trying to move the conservative people to accept the new ways.

Some might argue : Isn't the current situation just the same ? That NKF CEO and Board are stepping down due to public pressure ? Aren't the government behaving in the same way ?

Obviously not. The stepping down is "voluntary" in trying to rescue NKF's image. It is not a legal requirement. That no one in power has said NKF should be back to the old and conservative way of being staffed by volunteers drawing miserable allowances.

But no one has asked for NKF to be back to the old days. Not true. I have just watched Channel News Asia's episode, hosted by Melvin Yong. There was a representative from Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society has stated that opinion, that many people still feel it is not right for VWOs to be run like a business by professionals. From the way he said it, I could sense that he himself is the conservative type.

Short of shouting "Down with NKF" on national TV, I get the feeling that he is trying to say "This is what you get, for trying to run it like a professional outfit" because he was constantly trying to clarify that many VWOs out there are very different from NKF, and that they still do not feel comfortable in trying to emulate NKF's way to soliciting funds.

So there you have it, in a nutshell. 2 separate issues. Both are "controversially ahead of its time", but one received a subtle nudge to move the society forward into acceptance, the other recieved a retardation in movement and has remained outlawed.

I leave you with one quotation from an article interviewing our PM Lee Hsien Loong :

Asked if rules governing VWOs should be tightened, Mr Lee said the rules had been reviewed recently, and no changes are expected for now.

He added that too many checks could also make it onerous for someone wanting to do good.