Sir, I have three points to propose to MCYS to better the social service sector in Singapore. They are to do with:

(1) Essential services;

(2) Cost of governance; and

(3) Volunteerism rate.

First, on essential services. In most countries, the state considers services to do with health, education and security to be "essential services", usually performed and managed directly by government or government-linked agencies. It is not so in Singapore, as charities take on quite a host of activities, like community hospitals, early intervention and even special schools.

Sir, in the "outsourcing" of services to the charity sector, I suggest MCYS or PMO take the lead in developing a decision-making matrix on what might be considered "essential services" and what should be undertaken by state or charity. We must make sure that there is "mindful" instead of "mindless" outsourcing decisions.

Let me give one example. For many years, families and professionals were always speculating on services and service providers in the disability sector. Many made ill-informed decisions and inaccurate comments which led to wastage and negativity. A couple of years back, a very critical one-stop Disability Information and Referral Centre (DIRC) was set up to provide comprehensive information regarding all forms of disability services and service provider data like waitlists, fees and so forth - very important information. This important function was unfortunately outsourced to a charity organisation. Because that particular VWO does not have the clout or the influence to mandate other service providers to update it constantly, this centre has been under performing through no fault of the charity organisation or its staff - not excellent services, not very useful to the community it is meant to serve. This was clearly a function that is best run by one of the Government or Government-linked departments, which has a more direct access to data submitted and more authority to get updated information.

Sir, I ask that more mindful thought be given to what constitute essential services.

My next topic, Sir, is regarding cost of governance in VWOs, as mentioned by some of my colleagues here. It is a right direction to upgrade governance standards - no qualms about that. The Charity Act and the Charity Commissioner have their part to play. But this begs the question - who should pay for the cost of governance?

I ask, Sir, because the cost of governance cannot be loaded fully onto the VWOs. Many donors or funders pride themselves in funding only services that directly impact beneficiaries. This is a catch-22 situation. The bigger the operations, the higher the risks and the greater the need for a chief executive, auditors and a competent financial professional. And yet few funders want to pay for these costs.As a result, the VWOs spend their time trying to raise funds and less time is available for governance matters.

Sir, I propose that the Ministry and the agencies, like the NCSS, the Charity Commissioners and even NVPC examine the traditional funding mindset and help to co-fund the chief executive, the auditor, accountant or chief financial officer in some of the bigger VWOs. Before telling especially the bigger VWOs to shape up, value-add by footing the bill for some of these costs of governance for those which are larger than, say, $5 million in revenue or operating expenditure, and especially those performing essential services that the state decides not to take on.

The Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society is one example. The Moral Society runs a host of community services, including the Ang Mo Kio Community Hospital, Early Intervention Centre, counselling centres and the like. The CEO of this $30 million operation receives a monthly salary of $7,100 - I would say a charity pay for an operation of this size. We cannot afford the sorely needed financial chief nor internal auditor to oversee this vast operation. And the same can be said of many large VWOs. It will then make sense for Government or enlightened donors to defray some of these costs of governance. Sir, I hope the Ministry will be able to facilitate that.

The third area I am concerned about is the volunteerism rate in Singapore. The volunteerism rate in Singapore has hovered around 15%. This is much lower than that in developed countries, such as the United States, Japan, Britain and Canada. My prophecy is that things will get worse, as it is getting very difficult to get competent and committed professionals to sit on the boards of VWOs or to be volunteers.

I ask the Charity Commissioner and all the appointed sector auditors to help the VWOs and be careful not to end up witch-hunting and dampening the spirit of volunteerism amongst the professionals. If anyone were to look hard enough, I am certain you will find something that is out of line in most of the 2,000 VWOs in Singapore.

Sir, the Charity Act alone nor the Charity Commissioner and all their auditors may not be able to prevent the NKF-type frauds from happening again. Those of us who have sat on even corporate boards know that there is no way a director can know in-depth the business operations of a firm through quarterly board meetings - not even when you are in a Audit Committee. Only attracting and retaining the right executives and volunteers, with both character and competence, can we prevent another NKF saga.

Sir, let us not discourage them. Help us. Be careful not to witch-hunt.