April, claiming that "the NKF did not help the poor and needy, paid its staff unrealistically high bonuses" and discouraged members of the public from donating. She later also published a public apology on local broadsheets The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao, while paying a total of S$50,000 in damages. 48 additional workers who forwarded the same e-mail were also sued by the organisation, but the suit was later dropped in consideration that they would face possibly extenuating financial circumstances. Days since the 2007 civil suit began, there have been calls by the public to redress the grievances of the three abovementioned whistle-blowers. In 2001, the National Council of Social Service refused to renew the NKF's "Institution of Public Character" (IPC) status (which allows it to collect tax-free donations), citing that subsidy figures had been inflated, staff costs had increased by 30% and a "disproportionate" amount of money was spent on fundraising. Concerns were first raised by both by the Health Ministry and NCSS two years prior. However, the former decided to intervene in January 2002 and reinstated the NKF's IPC status for a full three years. NKF v. SPH Allegations in article The Straits Times published an editorial "NKF: Controversially ahead of its time?" on 19 April 2004, written by senior correspondent Susan Long. This article became the subject of the dispute, and eventually the lawsuit that led to the scandal. Durai and NKF challenged the first six lines of the article, which claimed that a retired contractor (who declined to - and cannot - be named, for fear of being sued) had 'lost it' when he was asked to install "a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl and a (S$1,000) gold-plated tap" in Durai's office. The tap was said to have been replaced later with a different material. NKF shortly issued a letter of demand for an apology, retraction, and payment of damages from the paper's publisher, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), within 24 hours. Four days after the article's publication, NKF and Durai served a writ on Long and SPH for defamation, demanding S$3.24 million in damages. They claimed that the six paragraphs in the article insinuated the mismanagement of donors' funds, that the installations were scaled down only due to the contractor's protests, and that it had avoided providing further details on that matter. The proceedings The trial began on 11 July 2005, with Long and