Jump to content

limbssg

SRC Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    589

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by limbssg

    Warning! another Windows virus

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    PC users have been urged to scan their computers before 3 February to avoid falling victim to a destructive virus.

    On that date the Nyxem virus is set to delete Word, Powerpoint, Excel and Acrobat files on infected machines.

    Nyxem is thought to have caught out many people by promising ###### to those who open the attachments on e-mail messages carrying the virus.

    Anti-virus companies have stopped lots of copies, suggesting it had infected a large number of computers.

    NYXEM VIRUS FILE TARGETS:

    DMP - Oracle files

    DOC - Word document

    MDB - Microsoft Access

    MDE - Microsoft Access/Office

    PDF - Adobe Acrobat

    PPS - PowerPoint slideshow

    PPT - PowerPoint

    PSD - Photoshop

    RAR - Compressed archive

    XLS - Excel spreadsheet

    ZIP - Compressed file

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4661582.stm

    My reaction after reading KPMG NKF Report

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    Minister backs NKF's 'sound record' in using funds

    The Straits Times, 20 April 2004

    By Wong Sher Maine

    THE National Kidney Foundation (NKF) spends more than 80 per cent of its funds on its beneficiaries, which is within the guidelines set for charities, said Minister Lim Hng Kiang (Prime Minister's Office).

    Mr Lim, in giving his support to the NKF yesterday, noted that it spent 56 per cent of its money on beneficiaries and put 26 per cent aside into its reserves.

    This 'puts the NKF on quite a sound record', said Mr Lim, who is also the Second Finance Minister.

    NKF's reserves of $189 million, enough to fund its programmes for two to three years, had sparked controversy recently as many people asked the charity body to explain how it spends the millions it raises.

    Some people also urged NKF to hold back its fund-raising efforts in order not to crowd out the smaller charities.

    But Mr Lim pointed out that it had to raise tens of millions of dollars a year because it was 'very, very expensive' to treat a kidney patient with dialysis.

    The procedure of cleaning the impurities from the blood of a patient with failing kidneys costs $25,000 to $30,000 a year, which works out to around $60 million annually for its more than 2,500 patients.

    Also, when the NKF takes on a patient, it is committed to him for life, he said as he applauded its medical record, adding that it is 'better than world standards, so patients... live much longer'.

    This commitment also means it made sense to put some of its money in reserves, Mr Lim said in reply to a call by Nominated MP Braema Mathi for more accountability and transparency in how charities spend money.

    However, he sympathised with its 'dilemma' in whether to disclose the salary of its chief executive.

    'If they don't, then I think there will be critics who say they are not transparent. If they disclose, I think there will also be critics who will say that whatever they pay will be too high.

    'So, I think they are caught between a rock and a hard place.'

    Mr Lim also defended the 30 per cent cap on expenses used for fund-raising, saying it helped the smaller charities.

    They run up higher overheads in fund-raising and would be hit if the cap was lowered, he said.

    On the controversial issue of sharing its database of donors with its partners, Mr Lim saw 'nothing objectionable' as NKF had declared that the data would be given only if the donor agreed.

    On aquariums and plasma TV sets at its dialysis centres, he said they helped keep patients occupied during their treatment and added: 'We do have aquariums and TV sets also in our blood donation centres.'

    Mr Lim does not see fund-raising as 'a zero sum game', maintaining that there is room for big and small charities.

    Singaporeans have big hearts, and 'if you convince them of the worthiness of your causes, Singaporeans will open up their wallets'. He also urged the smaller charities to pool their efforts in fund-raising to 'get a bigger share of the pie'.

    My reaction after reading KPMG NKF Report

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    Time is GMT + 8 hours

    Posted: 20 December 2005 1853 hrs

    NKF report: Most Singaporeans upset but would donate again

    By May Wong, Channel NewsAsia

    SINGAPORE : The report on the practices of the former management of the National Kidney Foundation has drawn strong reactions from Singaporeans.

    Yes, they are upset by the findings, but 7 in 10 of those interviewed by Channel NewsAsia also say they will resume donations to the NKF now that the facts are out.

    Many say the auditor's report gave them a better understanding of how the organisation had been spending the funds raised.

    And they are confident the new management team will exercise more responsibility and accountability.

    The auditors' revelation of many discrepancies at NKF shocked many Singaporeans.

    One of their findings was that there wasn't an effective hierarchy of power.

    Power was centred on one man -- former CEO TT Durai.

    "You would think they would have counter-checking where you would have different managers covering different department and not just reporting to just one person. Something is bound to happen," said one person interviewed.

    "I think it's shocking that one man should hold so much power and running such a big organisation, so certainly, governance is an important thing that all organisations should look at," another said.

    The other concern of Singaporeans was that only 10 cents of every dollar raised went to patient care subsidy.

    "I think public confidence will definitely be affected because whatever they contribute, it's only 10 percent," said one Singaporean.

    "My first reaction was disgust because I feel that people who really need the funds are now affected," another said.

    "After all these charity shows every year how many millions they've been getting in their reserves and yet so little amount goes to the real people who need it," said a third person.

    As for donating to NKF, many are willing to give the new management team a chance.

    "Everybody makes mistakes, so we give them second chance," one person said.

    "The public needs to look forward to the future, there's still a lot of sick people out there," said another person.

    Speaking to more than 20 Singaporeans, it is clear that many are glad the activities of the NKF under the previous management are now out in the open.

    Some are clearly upset with the findings, while others say it is time to close this chapter and move on.

    But many also hope other charities will learn a lesson or two from this experience. - CNA /ct

    7 nameless singaporeans??

    or 7 fictitious ppl? :erm:

    My reaction after reading KPMG NKF Report

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    we've just seen chapter 1, will the rest of the story be revealed? seriously, I doubt so....

    written by CEO of Temasek Holdings this July 2005,

    Well, birds of a feather flock together....

    NKF deserves continued support

    Monday • July 18, 2005

    Ho Ching

    I write in my personal capacity.

    I have been a long-time admirer of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF).

    The NKF has been outstanding in supporting kidney and other patients. They and their supporters have been tireless not just in raising funds. They have played a key role in providing life saving dialysis services for kidney patients and more.

    They also counsel and sometimes cajole or even berate patients and their families to take responsibility for themselves and make an effort to live.

    Patients and their families, including their children, are encouraged to work together to contribute to their own support, and not give up.

    This helps them retain their self-respect and live their lives confidently as full members of society. I cheer the NKF for this enlightened philosophy.

    Taking on a dialysis patient is almost like adopting a chronically and critically ill child. You take responsibility not just to give money at the spur of the moment in a flash of sympathy, or to organise dialysis sessions for the week in a spurt of enthusiasm.

    You know that it is a serious life-long commitment of support. You know that any interruption of that support means fear, a loss of hope, and a death sentence of sorts. Many long-time Giro donors understand this.

    The NKF has wisely built up strong reserves over the years. It is a sensible and responsible approach. The NKF's fears are understandable. No one likes to have the dreadful responsibility of deciding which patients should live when money dries up in an economic downturn.

    What if 10 per cent or 20 per cent of their patients or their patients' breadwinners lose their jobs in an extended downturn? Surely, you hope to continue dialysis for them even if they cannot co-pay their part?

    I would like to recommend that the NKF consider building and managing its reserves as an endowment. It also needs a sufficient buffer to weather a deep recession.

    Perhaps this was what it had been trying to do. Perhaps the prolonged years of difficulties during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s and the earlier brink of the 1985 recession have spurred the frenetic pace of fund raising in recent years.

    But this funding model needs to be properly modelled, analysed and communicated.

    When the NKF completes its review and puts together its plans, do share them. I am sure Singaporeans and many others share a chord of sympathy for your cause.

    On the issue of CEO pay, I believe that even charities ought to be managed professionally. How else can we extend high quality and impactful services including specialist educational and therapy support to those in need? After all, we do not expect CEOs of publicly-funded hospitals to be poorly paid, do we?

    Indeed, the NKF is more like a community hospital with multiple centres for high-quality, life-long critical care. It operates and manages dialysis centres to provide vital life-saving services at the highest safety levels. It does this with a heart, looking after the emotional and psychological well--being of its patients, too. Taken as a whole, the NKF has certainly done very well for its patients.

    True, there will be volunteers, much admired and respected, with independent means who could help charities without having to take a single cent in salary.

    There are also others — much loved and lauded — who for religious reasons or perhaps in memory of a parent, child or friend, would give selfless service to others. Society owes them all a debt of gratitude and applauds their spirit of charity.

    But we should not then believe that all those involved in charitable causes should in turn be charitable cases themselves.

    Skilled specialists and experienced managers would soon turn to other careers and job opportunities if they cannot earn a living commensurate with their skills and ability. And we would all be the poorer for it as services drop in quality or wither away.

    Sometimes, in a life-threatening illness, all the money in the world will not be able to bring a loved one back.

    Mr Durai has helped make a difference in the NKF where medical science has offered a lifeline, though at a cost of tireless fund raising for life time dialysis support. I would not begrudge Mr Durai a proper and well-earned compensation and bonus. He probably earned less than what he would have earned if he had continued in his profession as a lawyer.

    Yes, some of the things that Mr Durai has allegedly done rather raise a questioning eyebrow or two. Some may have crossed the line of proper conduct in respect of conflicts of interest as well. If so, they should be corrected.

    It is also important to put in place a set of practical governance guidelines to minimise conflicts of interest, especially for an institution of public trust.

    While the leadership of a CEO is critical to shape and drive any organisation, it is equally important that the board balances its support and guidance for its CEO, with its fiduciary duty. It has to serve as an impartial guardian of stakeholder interest in a public institution.

    As a civilised society, we should not lightly condemn anyone in the court of public opinion without the benefit of due process and the right to a fair hearing. Even murderers have that right.

    If there has been corruption or misuse of funds, then let the relevant authorities investigate and take the case through due process for a fair and proper judgment. There may have been errors of judgment. Most of us can accept and forgive this.

    On the other hand, we should resolutely guard against those with serious faults of character and not put them into positions of trust. But let's be fair and keep an open mind, and give the benefit of doubt until the full facts are known.

    These deliberations and decisions have important long-term considerations and impact. They should be taken calmly and steadily, away from the acid of hate and anger of betrayal.

    Understandably, many feel betrayed. They feel they have been deceived into making donations of hard-earned money. However, this is no excuse for vandalising the NKF facilities, or heaping abuse on NKF staff. Two wrongs won't make a right.

    Let us not forget there are real patients who continue to need dialysis support. I urge the staff of NKF to continue to support them well, and not let this wave of fury shake them from their mission and professionalism to serve their patients well.

    I am sure it would be a tremendous comfort to both the patients and their caregivers if the rest of us can keep calm and give them our moral support.

    Finally, whatever the transgressions or shortcomings, I want to put on record my deep gratitude for Mr Durai and the NKF and their supporters, including numerous donors, media artistes and volunteers as well as board members and patron.

    Together, they have been tireless in their efforts and contributions all these years to make a difference in the lives of many kidney patients in need.

    I do hope that every one of us, including Mr Durai and the NKF, will emerge the stronger, wiser and better from this serious and unfortunate setback.

    I am also grateful to all the volunteers and professionals working in the various other voluntary welfare organisations. They too have given tireless and dedicated service of time, effort, money, love and emotions, to the young and old, to those sickly and in need, in their respective worthy causes.

    Whatever their faults and foibles, the volunteers, staff and professionals in our VWOs have collectively given hope to many amongst us, and made this island a better place.

    In turn, I hope Singaporeans and my fellow men will join me too in supporting them, and show them our generosity and warmth of the human spirit.

    Many drops an ocean make, and many hands will lighten the load. On my part, I will continue to donate to the NKF and other favourite charities.

    Ho Ching, the executive director of Temasek Holdings, sent this letter in her private capacity

    Sg involved with dr*gs?

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    saw this at some other website, it is a letter by Chee Soon Juan sent to Today and Straits Times:

    I am not surprised that the Government-controlled media has again portrayed me as a “traitor” out to “undermine” Singapore. This is exactly the tactic the press is adopting with the flurry of letters published. (24 Nov 2005)

    It merely confirms my suspicion that the Government cannot answer the questions and arguments that I and other Singaporeans have raised about the execution of small-time drug couriers. As a result, it resorts to labeling me as a traitor in the belief that if you smear the messenger, you don’t have to address the message. It’s an age-old tactic.

    Singapore is reported to be the biggest business partner of Burma with US$1.5 billion worth of investments. Former US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Gelbard stated that “since 1998 over half of [the investments from] Singapore have been tied to the family of narco-trafficker Lo Hsing Han.''

    There are reports that Lo Hsing Han now operates a deepwater port in Rangoon and a highway from the center of Burma's poppy–growing region to the China border, facilities well-suited for exporting drugs.

    Remember, the drugs that flow from Burma are ones that our youth consume. If the PAP is really concerned about the scourge of drug abuse, why did it do business with a notorious drug lord and, hypocritically, take the moral high ground by executing drug couriers many of whom are Singaporeans.

    Let me ask the questions that I have been asking since 1997: Will the Government open its books so that we can verify if our GIC funds are still invested in projects linked with Lo Hsing Han? What steps has the Government taken to pressure the Burmese regime to crackdown on drug kingpins like Lo? Why does our Government continue to trade with the Burmese junta when it has been shown that the military has close ties with narco-producers like Lo?

    In addition, Singapore has been fingered in the laundering of Burma’s drug money. Bruce Hawke, an expert on narco-trafficking in Burma, wrote: “The entry [of drug money] to the legitimate global banking system is not Burma but Singapore.” Is this true?

    I have been raising these questions since 1997 but each time the local media assiduously blacks them out. Other arguments against the mandatory death penalty for drug peddlers raised by people like Dr Anthony Yeo, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, Mr M Ravi, Mr Alex Au, Mr Sinapan Samydorai, and Brother Michael Broughton have similarly been censored.

    The same arguments were raised when a Singaporean, Mr Shanmugam s/o Murugesu, was executed in May this year. I brought up the Singapore-Burma affair then when we were fighting to save Mr Shanmugam as I am doing now for Mr Nguyen Van Tuong.

    The only reason why this issue has gained more prominence now is because the Australian media, which unlike its Singapore counterpart are not controlled by the state, have seen it necessary to highlight it.

    Criticising our government for killing small-time drug peddlers while doing business with drug lords is necessary. Whether it is a Singaporean or an Australian who is going to dangle at the end of the rope is immaterial. A life is a life and if we are going to take it, let us be absolutely clear of the excruciating hypocrisy that currently exists.

    Ms Siow Jia Rui argues that Singapore’s laws must be allowed to “run their course” and that “no other country has a right to interfere.” If that is the case then why was the charge for Ms Julia Bohl reduced after the German ambassador and government had mounted a diplomatic campaign on her behalf, meeting several senior Singaporean ministers in the process. Within months several of the charges were dropped and the amount of drugs she was accused of carrying was reduced from 687g to 281g. She escaped the gallows and served about three years for her crime. Is this not outside interference in Singapore’s justice system?

    Ms Siow continues that laws in Singapore are “applied fairly across the board to Singaporeans and foreigners alike.” The life of Julia Bohl, a German, was spared because of pressure from the German Government. What about the life of Mr Shanmugam, a Singaporean who served in the army and did Singapore proud by winning medals in ski competitions? Ms Bohl served three years in prison but Mr Shanmugam was hanged. Is a Singaporean’s life so cheap compared to a foreigner’s?

    I have no doubt that when Singaporeans come to hear both sides of the debate, a debate that the media is determined to quash, they will reject the hypocrisy and discrimination of the PAP Government.

    CHEE SOON JUAN

    Secretary-General

    Singapore Democratic Party

    bidding for zoos

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    I feel that the primary objective of SRC is to promote marine hobby and allows interaction between reefers. Not for pple to make $$$ from livestocks and equipments.

    If there is really a need for seller to put up a bidding for some kind of rare item, it is better to conduct in private, thru PM or emails.

    Buangkok MRT may open in Jan 2006

    in General Reefkeeping_

    Posted

    there are 2 groups of pple who can't be trusted:

    Lawyers

    Politicians

    we are buy flats which are artificially inflated so that "they" can make obscene profits and everyone unknowingly become their slaves. Guess who set the selling price of new flats? Do u think the pricing is really the result of supply and demand? Some pple told me the cost of a flat is only $40-50k to build....

×
×
  • Create New...