kjks
Today, 07:46 AM
Indeed well paid. But not obscenely paid. Even in 'private sector' the calls for less obscene pay is also valid. Why should CEOs of banks be paid such obscene salaries?
Church leaders should be paid say, 30% to 50% more than the average salary of their congregation. Then of course we will have pastors only preaching and scaring the very rich!
Christ resist all temptation during the 40 day fast ........ that is the example to follow. How much was Paul and Peter paid?
jchlee
Today, 09:40 AM
of course, spiritual leaders and charity leaders should be paid reasonably well. Well enough to provie them with a sufficiently comfortable lifestyle so that they will not give in to temptations or have to worry about their livelihood.
however, there is a gulf between reasonable and the obscene. i would like to believe that these religious leaders or charity leaders chose this path due to a sincere and honest desire to serve the community and NOT because the job pays half a million a year.
frankly, when they spend their time on such spiritual and/or community events, what use do they have for half a million dollars? Take it to their graves???
A more appropriate way to look at this would be, if the establishment bears the costs of living such as accomodation, a car for daily transportation needs, etc, these would amount to no more than perhaps 10K-15K a month. add maybe 5K for other living expenses or needs, this amounts to no more than 20K a month. in a year, it would be half the 500K that was reported.
I believe many, if not all readers would agree that 20K a month puts you in a more than decent standard of living. especially when more than half of singaporeans are earning below the 100K per annum threshold.
in this case, it is my view that the 500K amount is definately excessive.
steamroller
Today, 10:04 AM
When spiritual leader takes $500,000 to $550,000 from the donations it is considered perfectly transparent and OK. How come when TT Duri took $600,000 a year it was considered too much?
We always forget that salary is paid for work done with economic value in a business entity. The amount is propotionate to the contributions of its generated values. The society is too shy to put a cap of public fund be it in the form of listed company or charity.
When money comes from church members to be used for charitable purposes why should church leaders take so much if church leaders truly believe in God and doing is work.
mbkho
Today, 10:30 AM
jchlee, I fully agree with you. Siddharth seems to have confused the issue by assuming a all or nothing approach. Poorly paid or well paid. The thing is, we are talking charitable organisation. So paying the head of the organisation something reasonable and using the excess for charitable purposes is in line with the objective of "charity". If such head can drive a Nissan Sunny, live in a nice HDB flat, afford to take the family on a few vacations - approximate to any middle class family - that very acceptable. In contrast, why does the head need a sum of money that enables buying a Ferrari, 4 Seasons condo and 1st class air tickets for all the expensive vacations to St Moritz and Tahiti...?
Another fallacy in Siddharth's letter - just because the head is paid (I won't say poorly) a reasonable amount, that does not mean that the job will be poorly done. His argument is non sequiter.
mbkho
Today, 10:40 AM
Another point, just because the "commercial" and "business" focused lawyers, doctors, bankers are paid handsomely cannot justify why the charitable worker should similarly be paid handsomely. Morally, to do charity is to do good for others for the sake of helping others - it is a calling, it is not for profit. By extension of Siddharth's reasoning, "charity" will be subverted such that charitable work will (only) be done (well) if the charitable worker is paid well. And so, if we don't pay them handsomely, they will stop helping the unfortunate and/or do a lousy job helping the unfortunate? This is a dangerous and slippery slope that must be avoided at all costs - linking charity to money income of the charitable worker (in the name of "attracting talent" which would otherwise go somewhere else - a familiar argument which is completely inapplicable to charities).
Wonder if Adam and Clemen are part of their congregation?:p
