Ms Ng Zi Yun: CHARITY AND RELIGION Top dollar for top talent: Why not?

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

April 9, 2009
CHARITY AND RELIGION
Top dollar for top talent: Why not?

I REFER to the vigorous discussion about the salaries earned by the heads of charitable and religious organisations, which was sparked by the report, 'Medical charities the best paymasters' (March 30).
Donations and tithes are used to benefit the needy, and donors to churches or temples do not and should not expect to receive monetary dividends in return. People give because they want to. They believe that their donation will benefit someone somewhere who needs it more than they do.

I agree that religious organisations are not wealth-generating engines. But if a larger amount of donations collected benefits more people as a result, there is nothing wrong if religious organisations work towards obtaining more.

What is more important is for charitable and religious groups to have a sound system to manage their funds.

For instance, New Creation Church has a council and a remuneration committee to review and approve annual staff salary adjustments and bonus payments. The head of the church does not decide his pay; the council and the committee make that decision unanimously.

Critics have zeroed in on the absolute pay of the heads of medical charities and large religious groups, rather than view it in a fairer context, that is, as a percentage of total revenue.

It does not mean that needy church members are getting less, simply because the leaders are getting a lot.

Surely, the size of a leader's salary is justifiable if he attracts a lot more revenue than if he were not part of the organisation.

In the case of New Creation Church, its pastor Joseph Prince's salary amounts to less than 1 per cent of total revenue, which is not a lot if one considers that he attracts more than 50 per cent of the church's income.

He has donated $563,360 to the building project at Buona Vista, which is essentially more than what he reportedly draws in a year.

Ng Zi Yun (Ms)

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Business and religion: Where do you draw the line?

I READ with interest the recent spate of news with regard to calls for greater transparency in how charities are run, the raising of $19 million for a new complex by New Creation Church and the subsequent revelation that one of its staff was paid a $500,000 salary.
More should be done to look at how charities and religious organisations are run, together with 'concessions' given to them in terms of whether they are allowed to pursue commercial interests.

I cite New Creation Church in particular because I am a Christian and this was one church I attended at the encouragement of friends.

I am appalled by the amount of money paid to one staff member, presumably its senior pastor. While I can see the logic and rationale behind the need for larger premises for the growing congregation, I cannot rationalise why there is a need to go into a joint venture to build a commercial mall.

My interest in New Creation Church led me to find out more about it, and I must say some of things I came across on its website surprised me:

- The church has a 'business arm', Rock Productions, of which Senior Pastor Joseph Prince and senior leaders of the church are majority shareholders. A check with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority revealed more surprises, with Rock Productions stated to have $103 million in paid-up capital.

- Rock Productions also owns and manages Marine Cove. In addition, a childcare centre and a travel agency are registered under the ownership of Mr Prince and New Creation Church.

- The church has 'membership cards' that are given to donors according to the amount of money donated to the church. For instance, if you donate a certain amount in US dollars, you are given a 'partner' card that entitles you to a number of 'benefits', including DVDs of Mr Prince's sermons.

As the recent revelation of the senior pastor's salary has also become a matter of public interest, it would be helpful if the church could clarify the following:

- Detailed clarification on the stakes owned by Mr Prince and senior leaders of the church in Rock Productions and any other affiliated commercial entities, and where the money for the setting up of these commercial entities comes from?

- How are members of the remuneration council selected or elected, and what are the processes pertaining to the determination of Mr Prince's salary, with those of senior management?

- How are profits made by Rock Productions and the other commercial entities of New Creation Church ploughed back into the church?

- Other than the external auditors appointed by the church, who else is on the audit committee of the church, and how many are independent non-members of the church?

- What are the legal concessions given by the Commissioner of Charities with regard to religious organisations and charities owning commercial entities, and what are the guidelines to ensure proper governance?

I have posed these questions to senior members of the church.

Among the responses by some church members is that such matters are the sole business of the church, and that so long as the members are willing to give, the public has no right to interfere in the affairs of the church.

I beg to differ because a church is a public space, if you are to believe in the Christian spirit of welcoming anyone who is interested. That said, there are non-members of New Creation Church like me who give donations to the church as offerings, and I am sure I am not the only one. Surely then, there is an interest to know where the donations actually go?

I have great respect for Mr Prince in terms of his preaching and what he has done for his congregation. However, I am seeking clarity in terms of accountability and governance with regard to money matters.

While I applaud the church for its innovation in raising funds and its efforts to be self-sustaining, I cannot help but wonder where one draws the line between commercial profit and the conventional definition of a non-profit organisation.

Bruce Chan

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Wrong to use donated funds for investments

I REFER to Thursday's letter by Ms Ng Zi Yun, 'Top dollars for top talent: Why not?'
I disagree with her views on donated funds, that 'if a larger amount of donations collected benefits more people as a result, there is nothing wrong if religious organisations work towards obtaining more'.

I wish to stress the intrinsic principle of charity and the true spirit of religion. Why is it morally wrong to divert donated funds to obtain more? The simple reason is that to gain more, you need to risk funds in commercial undertakings. Who is to guarantee that such investments will not result in losses of donated funds?

The management council and remuneration committee in a religious organisation should be more stringent in their fiduciary duty to use donated funds solely for the underprivileged and the needy, and discern against any risk, waste or excess.

We should not be hoodwinked into accepting the skewed argument that the huge pay packages of charity and religious leaders are an insignificant percentage of total revenue. The key words are not 'earned revenue', but 'publicly donated funds'.

The generosity of donors to charity and religious groups is targeted for only one purpose: to spread donations to benefit the poor. That is why donors expect no returns. No one should change this objective.

It is wrong to invent new concepts to justify the time-honoured practice of charity and religion. On that principle, I urge lawmakers to bar commercial activities and put a cap on the remuneration of top office-holders in charge of donated funds.

Paul Chan