pot calling the kettle black

Spotted in today's Strait's Times:

"Just 1% of alumni donate to NUS

AN APPEAL to National University of Singapore (NUS) alumni for funds to help its needy students has fallen on deaf ears.

Only 1,452 alumni, or one in 100 graduates, responded to the university's first call for donations last year.

The amount raised - $966,709 - fell far short of the more than $2 million the university wanted, to fund bursaries for an estimated 1,500 undergraduates.

The university launched its first annual giving drive in September last year, by sending out appeal letters to 150,000 former students.

The 1 per cent response rate pales in comparison to the relative generosity of American university alumni - four in 10 graduates from private universities such as Harvard and Yale open their chequebooks.

But Mr Chew Kheng Chuan, director of NUS' development office, which heads the annual drive, said the university was grateful for every donation.

NUS has not studied the reasons for the response, but Mr Chew said one reason could be the lack of a tradition of giving to universities here.

'A common question we face is, Why should I give? Isn't this the Government's responsibility?' he said.

Government funding here is generous - about 70 per cent of the cost of educating a student comes from public funds, he explained.

But that little extra in private funding would allow NUS to give its students an edge - through programmes such as those which offer stints at overseas colleges to hone students' entrepreneurial skills.

'In today's competitive world, that extra edge can make all the difference,' he said.

Alumni like Mr Adrian Seet, 36, do not buy that argument.

The business graduate, who is running a family travel business, said: 'I feel strongly that the Government should pay for the fees and the extras of the needy students.

'After all, these are the elite of Singapore.'

Others, like Mr Mervyn Sek, 27, disagreed.

The trainee teacher gave $1,500 last year - enough to fund one bursary. This year he has pledged another $2,000.

Mr Sek, who involved himself in over 40 clubs and student groups while studying at NUS, said: 'NUS helped me discover myself and my true potential. I hope through my donation, other students too will be able to seize the many opportunities that NUS provides.'

NUS alumnus Professor Saw Swee Hock, 75, who is a professorial fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies, donated the largest sum of $256,000 - enough for 20 student bursaries this year and another 12 in perpetuity.

Mr Chew said his office had refined its fund-raising strategy to tug harder at the heart and purse strings of its alumni.

Last month, it sent out appeal letters to 170,000 alumni, and followed up by getting its current students to call potential donors.

Last year, it employed a direct marketing company to do the calling.

Another first this year - some of last year's donors got to meet the bursary recipients over tea.

So far this year, 1,006 graduates have made donations since the drive was launched last month.

Mr Chew also explained why the university specifies the use of the funds; in this case, for student bursaries.

'It is important that they know that the money they give goes to a specific cause,' he said."


Why are they asking alumni to give generously for bursaries, instead of looking into the mirror and dipping into its own coffers first?

I went to UCC for a show on Saturday night, and was amazed by the changes which had taken place in NUS. Spanking new buildings. A full-sized music conservatory. Renovations everywhere.

No offence to music-lovers or musicians, but do we really have that many music students here to justify a full conservatory? Look at the law school - S$4 million (or thereabouts) spent on renovating the law library, and within a year or two, they abandon it to move to bukit timah. The "brand new" library now lies vacant, a hollow reminder of the sheer waste of money.

If NUS expects its alumni to give generously to the needy students, they first have to stop their own opulent spending and wastage. The present situation is akin to a rich tycoon appealing for donations to feed its pets, because his own money has to go towards beatifying his home, and building dog runs, and new kennels. The food? Nope, that's for the public to contribute.

Even in asking for donations, there is wastage. "Last month, it sent out appeal letters to 170,000 alumni...", "Last year, it employed a direct marketing company to do the calling." 170,000 letters at 22 cents each - that's $37,400! Granted, Singpost probably charges a discounted rate for them, but still, it would not be a small amount. And paying a direct marketing company? That can probably fund one or two students already? All this money could have gone to the needy students, instead of making a big display of asking alumni to help.

I believe many would feel the same as I do. There is no point in telling me to fork out money to help the needy students, when you are not leading by example. And no, it does not help that your 170,000 letters are telling us that "the money they give goes to a specific cause". I would rather have a situation where NUS funds the bursaries fully, regardless of its upgrading plans or renovations or relocations. If you are short of money, the bursaries come first. Then you may send me a letter to say that you have not enough money, because X dollars was used to pay for needy students.

The difference is that it should not be the needy students who are subjected to the whims and fancies of the donors. If I choose not to donate, it should be the university that "suffers", and NOT the needy students.

If I see that the university had the compassion to fund all the bursaries, then I might take out my chequebook to help. But if they are washing their hands with gold taps, and asking me to do the funding of students, then please, just save your postage fees and go buy a nice painting or something. At least the needy students will have something to look at since they have no textbooks.