Wednesday, July 13, 2005
NKF boss earns $25,000 monthly
Source: http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,91366,00.html
Disclaimer: I do not condemn nor commend.
NKF boss earns $25,000 monthly
HE earns $25,000 a month.
And received 10 months' bonus in 2002 and 12 months' bonus in 2003 and 2004.
He also sometimes flies first class on business trips and had a $1,100 toilet bowl installed in his office bathroom.
He is Mr T T Durai, the chief executive officer of the National Kidney Foundation.
Mr Durai and the NKF are suing Singapore Press Holdings and The Straits Times' senior writer Susan Long for defamation.
NKF and Mr Durai have taken issue with an article by Ms Long, published on 19 Apr last year, which quoted a contractor saying that he had been asked to install in Mr Durai's office suite on the 12th floor of NKF's new building, 'a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a $1,000 gold-plated tap'.
Their case, argued by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, is that this allegation was baseless and had conveyed, in the 'most sensationalist and arresting terms' that NKF dishonestly frittered away donations on unnecessary luxuries for themselves.
Yesterday was the first day of the hearing before Justice Tan Lee Meng.
Mr Durai was grilled by SPH's lawyers from Drew & Napier, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who is being assisted by Mr Adrian Tan.
Their case is that NKF did order costly bathroom fittings and were installed, not in their new building, but in Mr Durai's temporary office.
And that the allegedly offending paragraphs must be read in context with the rest of the article which is about the controversy surrounding NKF, and its transparency, or lack of.
'SUPPRESSED INFORMATION'
Mr Singh said Mr Durai and the NKF had 'suppressed information' when, during the first exchange of court documents before the trial, NKF did not give the invoice of the 'expensive tap', which was relevant to the case.
It was only until the lawyers wrote to them again and asked for it, that they gave it to them. Mr Durai, however, denied it, saying that NKF does not suppress information, adding that he did not know which installation the lawyers were referring to as they had not asked about the 'original' fittings which have since been replaced.
To which, Mr Singh said: 'Let us talk about transparency. Forget transparency outside. Let us talk about transparency in this court.
'Here, everyone knows that we are talking about these fittings that are in issue. We asked you what these fittings were that were installed and you tell us about the replaced fittings, not the original one.
'And that, you tell the court, is an honest answer?'
Mr Durai: 'The way I looked at it: What were the fittings installed. If you had asked me the question 'What was originally installed?', my answer would have been different.'
Mr Singh: 'Were the fittings that are in issue installed? Yes or no?'
Mr Durai: 'Previously, yes.'
It turns out that the 'original' bathroom installations included a mixer tap which cost about $990, excluding the 10 per cent discount.
First-class travel a clever tactic?
SPECULATION over Mr T T Durai's first class travel habits have been going around for a while.
He has even successfully sued and obtained apologies and damages from two people in the past, for saying that he flies first class.
The NKF's position has always been that it pays for their senior executives' business-class travel from Singapore.
That's a perk. Their 'entitlement'.
But wait, there's a catch.
NKF's policy is that it pays for its senior staff, including Mr Durai, to fly business-class at Singapore Airlines' rates from Singapore.
But it has enabled Mr Durai to fly first class. How?
Clever tactics and 'a play with words'.
It seems that as long as Mr Durai didn't exceed SIA's published rate for their business-class tickets for a trip, he could go ahead and use his 'entitlement' to travel first class.
Mr Davinder Singh fleshed out this point in his cross-examination of Mr Durai in court yesterday.
Mr Singh said: 'Is it not your duty, as a trustee of people's money, to make sure you get the best value for money on a business-class seat, instead of deploying this clever tactic of using one of the highest published rates to get first class on another plane?'
Mr Durai tried to say again that it was a board decision, but when the judge told him to answer the question straight, he replied that it was.
Shock over his salary
THERE were gasps when Mr T T Durai revealed his salary.
Mr Singh said: 'So, for the past three years, you have earned about, what $1.8m?'
Mr Durai: 'Yes.'
Mr Singh: 'From the NKF?'
Mr Durai: 'Yes.'
Mr Singh: 'Should the man who earns $1,000 a month and takes out $50 from his pay packet thinking that he's going to save lives not know that that is the kind of money you earn?'
Mr Durai: 'There is nothing wrong with the money I earn.'
Mr Singh: 'I am not talking about anything wrong. Please do not get defensive.... $1.8 million. I wonder what is wrong....
'Should the man who takes $50 out of his $1,000 pay packet... thinking that he is going to save a fellow Singaporean, in the bed... should he not know that some of that money is going, or has gone into the $500,000, $600,000 pay package for you?'
Mr Durai: 'Surely he knows.'
Mr Singh: 'Tell me how does he know. Please show us the document to back up the statement you have made on oath.'
At this point, Mr Durai tried to explain that people donate money to the NKF's dialysis programme to save lives. But the judge cut him short.
- but it is a gem!
T.T. DURAI'S SALARY
A private man's $600,000 pay - is it of public interest?
SENIOR Counsel Davinder Singh spent some time probing chief executive officer T.T. Durai on the NKF's reluctance since 1999 to disclose the salaries of its senior people.
Mr Durai confirmed that the issue never went away, and that the organisation's position was that it would not disclose.
He said salaries are a very personal thing, and as a private person he did not want his disclosed.
Also, revealing top officers' pay would have made it difficult to recruit people.
He also saw no legal requirement to disclose his pay.
Mr Singh pointed out that even though there was no legal requirement to release all the information included in the NKF's investment report to the donors, that had been done.
Counsel said that the absence of legal obligations was therefore not an obstacle.
Mr Durai replied: 'It is a personal matter.'
Counsel remarked: 'I do understand some of that because that is why people travel first class and have a lavish suite for their privacy.'
He then asked Mr Durai if he thought the public ought to be told if a charity decided to pay its chief executive $25 million a year - funded by donations.
Mr Durai said at first that he could not comment. But asked repeatedly, he said it would be up to the board of directors. He also said he would go along with the decision not to disclose even if the $25 million was, as Mr Singh put it, 'grossly, grossly exorbitant'.
'I report to the board,' Mr Durai said.
Counsel then moved on to the issue of Mr Durai's pay.
* Davinder Singh: In your affidavit, you liken yourself to CEOs of companies and ministers in government, right? Would you agree with me that like ministers in the government, you are being paid out of people's money? Would you agree with me that ministers' salaries are transparent?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: Would you agree with me that CEOs of listed companies have their salaries published in the newspapers?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: And you have likened yourself to CEOs of public companies. Why are you not publishing your own information?
T.T. Durai: I like my salary to remain private. My board members know that. My senior colleagues know that.
* Davinder Singh: We all like our salaries to be private. But if it's funded by the public, which takes precedence? The right of the public to know how much of their money goes to you, or your preference for privacy?
T.T. Durai: I think it is for the board to decide. The public doesn't control the organisation.
* Davinder Singh: Exactly. Exactly. You see, Mr Durai, the public does not control, it doesn't have access to information. So doesn't that place on you a responsibility?
T.T. Durai: We comply with all the regulatory requirements. If the regulatory authorities imposed a condition that we have to disclose salaries, we would.
* Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, can you tell this court what your salary and bonuses were for 2002?
T.T. Durai: I was earning a monthly salary of $25,000.
* Davinder Singh: And your bonus?
T.T. Durai: Performance bonus was 10 months.
* Davinder Singh: Ten months' bonus! $250,000 bonus. This is for 2002.
T.T. Durai: I cannot recall the exact figure.
* Davinder Singh: So, if it is $25,000 a month, multiply that by 12, your total package was $550,000 in 2002.
T.T. Durai: I believe so.
* Davinder Singh: 2003, please?
T.T. Durai: You have the numbers. I don't have the numbers offhand.
* Davinder Singh: Tell us, please, so that we don't waste time.
T.T. Durai: About the same I think. I cannot tell you offhand now.
* Davinder Singh: About the same, meaning $550,000 or slightly higher?
T.T. Durai: About that.
* Davinder Singh: How many months' bonus did you get in 2003?
T.T. Durai: Twelve months.
* Davinder Singh: In 2004, what was the bonus?
T.T. Durai: Same bonus.
* Davinder Singh: Twelve months at $25,000 a month.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: So for the past three years you have earned about $1.8 million from the NKF.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: And the man who earns $1,000 a month who takes out $50 of his pay packet every month thinking that it is going to save lives, should he not know that that is the kind of money you earn?
T.T. Durai: There is nothing wrong with the money I earn.
* Davinder Singh: $1.8 million, I wonder what is wrong. $1.8 million. Should the man who takes $50 out of his pay packet of $1,000, leaving $950 for him, his wife and his children, with no savings, should he not know that some of that money is going or has gone into a $500,000 to $600,000 pay package for you?
T.T. Durai: Surely he knows.
* Davinder Singh: Tell me, how does he know?
T.T. Durai: Let me explain. People donate money to the NKF to run a dialysis programme that saves lives. We have built a dialysis programme. We run...
Judge: Please answer the question.
* Davinder Singh: You said: 'Surely he knows.'
T.T. Durai: No, I am saying a person who contributes to the foundation knows that there are people working in the institution.
Judge: No. The question is, should that person know that you are earning $500,000, $600,000 a year? It is a simple question.
T.T. Durai: No, your honour, I do not see a need for him to know.
* Davinder Singh: Thank you. It has nothing to do with privacy. It is about embarrassment, is it not?
T.T. Durai: No.
* Davinder Singh: You would lose all authority, all moral authority to look at him in his eyes, isn't that right?
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
* Davinder Singh: If he knew that you were flying first class on his money, you could not look him in his eyes, isn't that true?
T.T. Durai: It is not true.
* Davinder Singh: If he knew that his salary couldn't even buy the bathroom fittings in your private office suite, you couldn't look him in his eyes.
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
* Davinder Singh: We now understand why you say the $990 tap is not expensive. Well, coming from you at $600,000 a year, we now know why you say it is not expensive. But tell us, for that man with $1,000/$2,000, is it expensive?
T.T. Durai: Yes, he may consider it expensive.
* Davinder Singh: He may, or is it? Tell us the truth.
T.T. Durai: I cannot speak for him. It depends on the type of building, the use of the item.
* Davinder Singh: The man in his HDB one-room, two-room, three-room flat, earning a salary of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 - would he find that tap at $990 plus 10 per cent discount expensive?
T.T. Durai: He may consider it expensive, yes.
* Davinder Singh: He may, or will he?
T.T. Durai: If he is an educated person, if he knows the use of the particular office, for what purpose, he may probably think it is something reasonable.
_____
Disclaimer: I do not condemn nor commend.
NKF boss earns $25,000 monthly
HE earns $25,000 a month.
And received 10 months' bonus in 2002 and 12 months' bonus in 2003 and 2004.
He also sometimes flies first class on business trips and had a $1,100 toilet bowl installed in his office bathroom.
He is Mr T T Durai, the chief executive officer of the National Kidney Foundation.
Mr Durai and the NKF are suing Singapore Press Holdings and The Straits Times' senior writer Susan Long for defamation.
NKF and Mr Durai have taken issue with an article by Ms Long, published on 19 Apr last year, which quoted a contractor saying that he had been asked to install in Mr Durai's office suite on the 12th floor of NKF's new building, 'a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a $1,000 gold-plated tap'.
Their case, argued by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, is that this allegation was baseless and had conveyed, in the 'most sensationalist and arresting terms' that NKF dishonestly frittered away donations on unnecessary luxuries for themselves.
Yesterday was the first day of the hearing before Justice Tan Lee Meng.
Mr Durai was grilled by SPH's lawyers from Drew & Napier, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who is being assisted by Mr Adrian Tan.
Their case is that NKF did order costly bathroom fittings and were installed, not in their new building, but in Mr Durai's temporary office.
And that the allegedly offending paragraphs must be read in context with the rest of the article which is about the controversy surrounding NKF, and its transparency, or lack of.
'SUPPRESSED INFORMATION'
Mr Singh said Mr Durai and the NKF had 'suppressed information' when, during the first exchange of court documents before the trial, NKF did not give the invoice of the 'expensive tap', which was relevant to the case.
It was only until the lawyers wrote to them again and asked for it, that they gave it to them. Mr Durai, however, denied it, saying that NKF does not suppress information, adding that he did not know which installation the lawyers were referring to as they had not asked about the 'original' fittings which have since been replaced.
To which, Mr Singh said: 'Let us talk about transparency. Forget transparency outside. Let us talk about transparency in this court.
'Here, everyone knows that we are talking about these fittings that are in issue. We asked you what these fittings were that were installed and you tell us about the replaced fittings, not the original one.
'And that, you tell the court, is an honest answer?'
Mr Durai: 'The way I looked at it: What were the fittings installed. If you had asked me the question 'What was originally installed?', my answer would have been different.'
Mr Singh: 'Were the fittings that are in issue installed? Yes or no?'
Mr Durai: 'Previously, yes.'
It turns out that the 'original' bathroom installations included a mixer tap which cost about $990, excluding the 10 per cent discount.
First-class travel a clever tactic?
SPECULATION over Mr T T Durai's first class travel habits have been going around for a while.
He has even successfully sued and obtained apologies and damages from two people in the past, for saying that he flies first class.
The NKF's position has always been that it pays for their senior executives' business-class travel from Singapore.
That's a perk. Their 'entitlement'.
But wait, there's a catch.
NKF's policy is that it pays for its senior staff, including Mr Durai, to fly business-class at Singapore Airlines' rates from Singapore.
But it has enabled Mr Durai to fly first class. How?
Clever tactics and 'a play with words'.
It seems that as long as Mr Durai didn't exceed SIA's published rate for their business-class tickets for a trip, he could go ahead and use his 'entitlement' to travel first class.
Mr Davinder Singh fleshed out this point in his cross-examination of Mr Durai in court yesterday.
Mr Singh said: 'Is it not your duty, as a trustee of people's money, to make sure you get the best value for money on a business-class seat, instead of deploying this clever tactic of using one of the highest published rates to get first class on another plane?'
Mr Durai tried to say again that it was a board decision, but when the judge told him to answer the question straight, he replied that it was.
Shock over his salary
THERE were gasps when Mr T T Durai revealed his salary.
Mr Singh said: 'So, for the past three years, you have earned about, what $1.8m?'
Mr Durai: 'Yes.'
Mr Singh: 'From the NKF?'
Mr Durai: 'Yes.'
Mr Singh: 'Should the man who earns $1,000 a month and takes out $50 from his pay packet thinking that he's going to save lives not know that that is the kind of money you earn?'
Mr Durai: 'There is nothing wrong with the money I earn.'
Mr Singh: 'I am not talking about anything wrong. Please do not get defensive.... $1.8 million. I wonder what is wrong....
'Should the man who takes $50 out of his $1,000 pay packet... thinking that he is going to save a fellow Singaporean, in the bed... should he not know that some of that money is going, or has gone into the $500,000, $600,000 pay package for you?'
Mr Durai: 'Surely he knows.'
Mr Singh: 'Tell me how does he know. Please show us the document to back up the statement you have made on oath.'
At this point, Mr Durai tried to explain that people donate money to the NKF's dialysis programme to save lives. But the judge cut him short.
T.T. DURAI'S SALARY
A private man's $600,000 pay - is it of public interest?
SENIOR Counsel Davinder Singh spent some time probing chief executive officer T.T. Durai on the NKF's reluctance since 1999 to disclose the salaries of its senior people.
Mr Durai confirmed that the issue never went away, and that the organisation's position was that it would not disclose.
He said salaries are a very personal thing, and as a private person he did not want his disclosed.
Also, revealing top officers' pay would have made it difficult to recruit people.
He also saw no legal requirement to disclose his pay.
Mr Singh pointed out that even though there was no legal requirement to release all the information included in the NKF's investment report to the donors, that had been done.
Counsel said that the absence of legal obligations was therefore not an obstacle.
Mr Durai replied: 'It is a personal matter.'
Counsel remarked: 'I do understand some of that because that is why people travel first class and have a lavish suite for their privacy.'
He then asked Mr Durai if he thought the public ought to be told if a charity decided to pay its chief executive $25 million a year - funded by donations.
Mr Durai said at first that he could not comment. But asked repeatedly, he said it would be up to the board of directors. He also said he would go along with the decision not to disclose even if the $25 million was, as Mr Singh put it, 'grossly, grossly exorbitant'.
'I report to the board,' Mr Durai said.
Counsel then moved on to the issue of Mr Durai's pay.
* Davinder Singh: In your affidavit, you liken yourself to CEOs of companies and ministers in government, right? Would you agree with me that like ministers in the government, you are being paid out of people's money? Would you agree with me that ministers' salaries are transparent?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: Would you agree with me that CEOs of listed companies have their salaries published in the newspapers?
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: And you have likened yourself to CEOs of public companies. Why are you not publishing your own information?
T.T. Durai: I like my salary to remain private. My board members know that. My senior colleagues know that.
* Davinder Singh: We all like our salaries to be private. But if it's funded by the public, which takes precedence? The right of the public to know how much of their money goes to you, or your preference for privacy?
T.T. Durai: I think it is for the board to decide. The public doesn't control the organisation.
* Davinder Singh: Exactly. Exactly. You see, Mr Durai, the public does not control, it doesn't have access to information. So doesn't that place on you a responsibility?
T.T. Durai: We comply with all the regulatory requirements. If the regulatory authorities imposed a condition that we have to disclose salaries, we would.
* Davinder Singh: Mr Durai, can you tell this court what your salary and bonuses were for 2002?
T.T. Durai: I was earning a monthly salary of $25,000.
* Davinder Singh: And your bonus?
T.T. Durai: Performance bonus was 10 months.
* Davinder Singh: Ten months' bonus! $250,000 bonus. This is for 2002.
T.T. Durai: I cannot recall the exact figure.
* Davinder Singh: So, if it is $25,000 a month, multiply that by 12, your total package was $550,000 in 2002.
T.T. Durai: I believe so.
* Davinder Singh: 2003, please?
T.T. Durai: You have the numbers. I don't have the numbers offhand.
* Davinder Singh: Tell us, please, so that we don't waste time.
T.T. Durai: About the same I think. I cannot tell you offhand now.
* Davinder Singh: About the same, meaning $550,000 or slightly higher?
T.T. Durai: About that.
* Davinder Singh: How many months' bonus did you get in 2003?
T.T. Durai: Twelve months.
* Davinder Singh: In 2004, what was the bonus?
T.T. Durai: Same bonus.
* Davinder Singh: Twelve months at $25,000 a month.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: So for the past three years you have earned about $1.8 million from the NKF.
T.T. Durai: Yes.
* Davinder Singh: And the man who earns $1,000 a month who takes out $50 of his pay packet every month thinking that it is going to save lives, should he not know that that is the kind of money you earn?
T.T. Durai: There is nothing wrong with the money I earn.
* Davinder Singh: $1.8 million, I wonder what is wrong. $1.8 million. Should the man who takes $50 out of his pay packet of $1,000, leaving $950 for him, his wife and his children, with no savings, should he not know that some of that money is going or has gone into a $500,000 to $600,000 pay package for you?
T.T. Durai: Surely he knows.
* Davinder Singh: Tell me, how does he know?
T.T. Durai: Let me explain. People donate money to the NKF to run a dialysis programme that saves lives. We have built a dialysis programme. We run...
Judge: Please answer the question.
* Davinder Singh: You said: 'Surely he knows.'
T.T. Durai: No, I am saying a person who contributes to the foundation knows that there are people working in the institution.
Judge: No. The question is, should that person know that you are earning $500,000, $600,000 a year? It is a simple question.
T.T. Durai: No, your honour, I do not see a need for him to know.
* Davinder Singh: Thank you. It has nothing to do with privacy. It is about embarrassment, is it not?
T.T. Durai: No.
* Davinder Singh: You would lose all authority, all moral authority to look at him in his eyes, isn't that right?
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
* Davinder Singh: If he knew that you were flying first class on his money, you could not look him in his eyes, isn't that true?
T.T. Durai: It is not true.
* Davinder Singh: If he knew that his salary couldn't even buy the bathroom fittings in your private office suite, you couldn't look him in his eyes.
T.T. Durai: That is not true.
* Davinder Singh: We now understand why you say the $990 tap is not expensive. Well, coming from you at $600,000 a year, we now know why you say it is not expensive. But tell us, for that man with $1,000/$2,000, is it expensive?
T.T. Durai: Yes, he may consider it expensive.
* Davinder Singh: He may, or is it? Tell us the truth.
T.T. Durai: I cannot speak for him. It depends on the type of building, the use of the item.
* Davinder Singh: The man in his HDB one-room, two-room, three-room flat, earning a salary of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 - would he find that tap at $990 plus 10 per cent discount expensive?
T.T. Durai: He may consider it expensive, yes.
* Davinder Singh: He may, or will he?
T.T. Durai: If he is an educated person, if he knows the use of the particular office, for what purpose, he may probably think it is something reasonable.
_____
