Letters - HRDF should do away with its board

"HRDF clarifies payments to board of directors" (Letters, Jan 13) refers. This is the sort of reply many bodies which do not need to "earn" but merely "collect" revenues use to justify high payments.
They call it benchmarking. Remuneration is benchmarked but are quantity and quality of work benchmarked?
Have you heard of government bodies saying they benchmarked with private entities and found their managers not working as hard or their KPIs not as difficult? Of course not. So why benchmark only remuneration.
In the private sector, usually, directors of holding companies who sit on the board of subsidiaries do not collect additional pay or fees as that is covered under the main company's remuneration.
Similarly, government officers who are paid for their day job should not be given directors' fees to sit on a board as appointees on behalf of the government. They can only do one job at a time so if they are attending board meetings they are not doing their normal job so no need to pay double. Is their normal salary cut when they attend board meetings?
HRDF just collects funds from employers, no need to have so many directors or pay them market rates as they are not doing anything market-wise to increase revenue.
Another reason given by many government entities is that the funds are not taxpayers' but come from their own reserve. Hello! All monies are from taxpayers. Whether it is collection from companies, direct grants from government or income from surplus funds reinvested, it is all taxpayers' monies.
There is no need for a board of directors, HRDF just needs a management team and a supervisory body which in this case is the Ministry of Human Resources. Surplus funds should be turned over to the federal government.
Benchmarked
Kuala Lumpur