If I was among the National Kidney Foundation Singapore staff when Mr T T Durai returned from court after pulling out of a law suit he had initiated on his own account and on behalf of NKF as its chief executive officer, I would have joined in the standing ovation they gave him.

After all, without his efforts in suing Singapore Press Holdings, I, a befuddled though fairly regular donor to NKF of many years, would have remained in the dark as to what exactly happened to the many dollars I have given to this charity.

At last light has dawned though what was revealed in two days of court hearing this week still leaves many gaps to be filled. Now that he and his board are stepping down, their successors should have no reservation about giving a show and tell about what went on before, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan�s injunction against going into �history� notwithstanding.

My ignorance about how much NKF collects, spends and squirrels away from the donation pie is mostly my fault. This is because while I want to help those I perceive to be less fortunate than I am, I am reluctant to get too close, as heart-breaking tragedies make me uncomfortable.

So, I am a perfect target for those tear-jerking letters describing unimaginable misfortunes that dog NKF beneficiaries. I speed read their tragic accounts without too much absorption or analysis and sign a cheque to assuage the guilt I feel at my own lucky escape from the caprice of fate.

I quickly switch channels whenever the image of one of their saddest cases flash on the TV screen but to compensate for my refusal to hear out yet another gut wrenching hard luck slice of life, I quickly make that donation phone call.

As an adult donor, I know that not every cent I hand over goes to the beneficiary. I accept this as a �charge� I have to pay to do a little good without getting involved. An organised and efficient charity like NKF saves me from this hassle and I don�t expect a free lunch, even, or especially when it is a charity.

Yet where do I draw the line on how much I should allow what I give to be �taxed� to spare me the pain of direct contact with a less fortunate fellow citizen?

For many, the line clearly stops at expensive bathroom fittings. Even Mr Durai himself must have thought so too, because he pursued what he perceived was the moral high-ground with SPH and one of its writer over an article published last year alluding to gold-plated taps in his office bathroom.

His pay and perks, the fleet of cars at his disposal, the business dealings he has with a former NKF staff and later board member and his first-class air travel were even harder to swallow for the vast majority of NKF donors, judging from the sheer anger that has been vented at the man and the organisation.

But let�s face it: NKF had become a business in nearly all but name, even though most of us continue to think of it as a voluntary welfare organisation. The signs were all there.

Look at the way the charity has been calling its beneficiaries �clients� which reflects a with-profit relationship, not a charitable one.

Look also at the stacks of vouchers claiming to be worth hundreds of dollars for each set that keep coming to me from NKF as �an appreciation of your support.� If the vouchers are indeed worth the amounts claimed, why not channel the money back to NKF? Then there are the mega prizes in glitzy TV shows to seduce the donation dollar.

The revelations teased out of Mr Durai in court finally confirmed this transformation, especially his $25,000 per month pay and the 12-month bonus. But I am not outraged. Surely someone who has stomach enough to face the hopelessly sick and hopelessly poor for 37 years deserves to be very well rewarded?

And while I think former NKF patron Mrs Goh Chok Tong�s �peanuts� description of the $600,000 package as unwise and maybe inexpedient given that matters to do with the high pay of public figures are always a political hot potato, I also want to applaud her for her honesty and her loyalty.

Where I do draw the line, however, is the dialysis patient numbers that were brought up in court. The numbers were not new but given at different times, their significance didn�t sink in, at least where I was concerned.

But when rolled out together � Ministry of Health figures for 1999 were 1,414 and for 2003, 1512 while NKF had last year stated in one instance that it had 2,000 patients and in another 3,000 patients � they tell me that there must be a sickening "mistake" somewhere.

Mr Durai told SPH�s defence counsel that the number should be 2,000. But is it? Could it be lower than even 2,000? In my view, unless there has been a quantum leap in kidney failures in recent years, the growth rate between 2003 and today shouldn�t be markedly different from the change between 1999 and 2003 when under 100 more sufferers went onto the NKF programme in 2003.

The increase over four years was just 98 patients, giving an average increase of 24.5 patients per year. Now, the current figure cited in court suggests the recent increase has been phenomenal: 488 extra patients over two years, or 244 more per year, 10 times that of the earlier period discussed. Can this be true? Especially when NKF's coverage fell to 44% of the global figure!

Unlike Mr Durai, I don�t find these discrepancies in the least immaterial. Given NKF�s facility with databases in tracking past donors and would-be donors that must run into hundreds of thousands, I find it incomprehensible how he and other NKF representatives were so imprecise when it came to numbers of patients receiving treatment.

I wish public outrage had focussed on this issue rather than on his pay or the massive NKF reserves. Now that the public will has been done with the impending exit of the CEO and his board, I hope more energy will be directed at the elastic patient numbers. (Parliament was told on July 20 that the patient numbers are 1,800)

This is because the money given to NKF is for its patients. If their numbers are faulty, then our generosity has been misled and NKF has been obtaining donations under false premises, even if there was no concerted intention to mislead

I know the world has changed and Singapore has changed too, to adapt to changing circumstances. But I hope my country hasn�t changed so much that it becomes comfortable about those who are cavalier with public trust.