The National Kidney Foundation (NKF) was part of a controversial topic in Singapore in the early 2000s and previously made headlines for not the best reasons. Despite his notable contributions in helping kidney failure patients and those in need, there were perennial problems plaguing NKF that inadvertently caused its downfall. The fundamental issues from which most of the controversy stemmed were NKF's transparency to the public and its poor accountability for issues within its governance structure. The Executive Committee (EC) that was established was given total power to manage the affairs of the NKF. It has been made known that the EC automatically approves any proposal made by members rather than through a collective decision-making process. The ideology, according to which all the proposals put forward were in the best interests of the NKF and therefore did not require due diligence, is incorrect. In doing so, this potentially means that Council members would proceed with what they want without much consideration or opposition. This would not always necessarily lead to the optimal result 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The EC should have examined each proposal in great detail to see if there is anything that could be improved or if there is a better alternative maximizing the benefits for NKF. If all proposals were accepted by default, the purpose of establishing the EC would be meaningless when it should be a decision-making body in the NKF government. In an effort to strengthen NKF's governance structure, an independent audit committee (AC) was established to improve its internal control system. The AC should have regularly reviewed existing audit plans and internal control systems every three months. However, the AC meetings were inconsistent and did not fulfill their role in keeping NKF in check dutifully. When NKF's internal auditors recommended the implementation of some internal control measures, both the EC and the AC did not support their implementation for unknown reasons. It is indeed ironic when there are intentions to improve the administrative processes of the NKF but the various recommendations made are not adopted. Therefore, it has become questionable whether the upper management really wants to improve the situation, or whether all these efforts were just a facade. Without taking into account maintaining strict internal control, this could perhaps be a mistake to have greater transparency in its governance and thus provide loopholes to exploit vulnerabilities in NKF's processes for personal gains. Therefore, there may be less efficient use of NKF's limited resources and its performance may not have been fully optimized to provide the best welfare to its beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Financial Committee (FC) established by the EC to oversee all major financial decisions also lacked transparency in its line of work. The FC president claimed to have lost all records of FC meeting minutes. Such a simple mistake made by the boss without any precautionary measures is highly unbecoming for someone holding 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 respond to NKF's key stakeholders, who are the donors who financially support the,.