The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) was part of a controversial topic in Singapore in the early 2000s and has already made headlines without the best reasons. Despite its notable contributions to helping kidney patients and the needy, persistent problems befell the NKF, inadvertently leading to its downfall. The fundamental issues causing the majority of the controversy were the NKF's transparency to the public and its weak accountability for matters within its governance structure. The Executive Committee (EC) that was established was given full authority to manage the affairs of the NKF. It was made known that the EC automatically approved all proposals made by members rather than through collective decision-making. The ideology that all proposals made were in the best interest of the NKF and therefore do not require proper review, is wrong. By doing so, this potentially means that Council members would proceed with what they wanted without much consideration or opposition. This would not always necessarily lead to the most optimal outcome in the management of NKF without a thorough evaluation of each proposal. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay The EC should have examined each proposal in detail to see if there is anything that could be improved, or s There is a better alternative to maximize profits for NKF. If all proposals are accepted by default, the objective of creating the EC would make no sense when it was supposed to be a decision-making body in the management of the NKF. With the aim of strengthening NKF's governance structure, an independent Audit Committee (AC) was established to improve its internal control system. The Audit Committee was to regularly review existing audit plans and internal control systems every three months. However, the Board meetings were inconsistent and did not fulfill their role of conscientiously monitoring the NKF. When NKF's internal auditors recommended the implementation of certain internal control measures, EC and AC did not support their implementation for unknown reasons. It is indeed ironic that there are intentions to improve the administrative processes of the NKF but the various recommendations made are not adopted. Therefore, it is questionable whether senior management really wants to improve the situation or whether all these efforts were just a facade. Disregarding maintaining strict internal controls, this could potentially be a failure to provide greater transparency in its governance and thus provide loopholes to exploit vulnerabilities in NKF's processes for personal gain. As such, the NKF's limited resources may be used less efficiently and its performance may not have been fully optimized to provide the best welfare for its beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Financial Committee (FC) set up by the EC to oversee all major financial decisions also lacked transparency in its work. The FC president claimed to have lost all data from the minutes of FC meetings. Such a simple mistake made by the boss without any precautionary measures in place is definitely unbecoming of someone in a high position. In this case, critical information discussed regarding NKF's financial decisions would be inadvertently hidden from the public. It would be irresponsible to answer to the main stakeholders of,.