PAP's Top Dollar For Top Talent, Charities and Religious Orgs too?

[Serpico]

Home > ST Forum > Story
April 7, 2009
PAYING CHARITY AND RELIGIOUS CHIEFS
It can't be about top dollar for top talent

THE special report, 'Medical charities the best paymasters' (March 30), stating pay brackets of up to $300,000 for heads of medical charities and up to $550,000 for chiefs of large religious groups, reveals some missing links in the good governance of publicly donated funds to these organisations.
The idea of paying huge salaries obtained from donations to one 'guardian' of the funds is hard for ordinary donors to grasp. While public donors cannot do much to limit such large outflows, lawmakers can.

The usual checks may not apply in a sector that has 2,000 charity groups and hundreds of millions of dollars in public donations. But some mandatory safeguards should be built into the system to reflect the altruistic motives behind such expressions of public good.

One question that begs an answer is whether charity chiefs and religious leaders of large organisations require such large financial packages to live comfortably.

We must appreciate the difference between funds contributed by shareholders for businesses and funds donated by the public to benefit the underprivileged and needy.

The objective of contributed capital is to make profits via dividends for shareholders. The purpose of publicly donated funds, on the other hand, is to help beneficiaries.

Donors receive no dividends. The fiduciary duty of top officers in commercial firms requires them to answer to shareholders, while guardians of charity organisations do not do so.

Hence, we should bar donated funds from commercial activities and make no apology to restrict emoluments of office- holders. Top money for top talent does not apply to guardians of publicly donated funds.

Charity and religious organisations are not wealth-generating engines. It is against the principle of charity and spirit of religion if office-holders reward themselves excessively from donated funds meant for targeted beneficiaries.

The Government should define the dichotomy between 'conscripted funds' for businesses and 'donated funds' for charities, and put a cap on remunerations of top office-holders in charge of donated funds.


Paul Chan

 

[Serpico]

Home > ST Forum > Story
Paying monks contradicts Buddhist code

AS A Buddhist group of 3,000 members, we are concerned when we hear of monks and nuns who have chosen the path of a renunciant only to accept a salary or payment for services rendered. Receiving a salary or payment is not in keeping with the spiritual pursuits of a renunciant, a path these individuals have chosen to take of their own free will.
The Buddhist code of discipline states that monks and nuns cannot accept money for themselves, or instruct someone else to keep it for them to spend as they like or to invest in businesses, financial instruments or properties. They are also not allowed to buy and sell things for themselves using money.

The intent of the rules was to set renunciants apart from the majority of people, and thus, become a constant reminder to all that a life based on materialism is not the only way to live.

If an organisation wishes to appreciate a monk's or nun's contribution, the honorarium or donation should be made to the monastery or supporting organisation.�

As some argue that times have changed and that monastics must adapt, we should pose the question: Is it not better to be an exemplary Buddhist by observing the five precepts of not harming, lying, stealing, consuming intoxicants and committing adultery than to be a less than exemplary monastic who is unable to adhere to the monastic code?

It is timely for Buddhists to take stock of how we need to support our monks and nuns to help them stay on the spiritual path while they serve the community. It is also important that monastics must not be above being questioned or challenged whenever they deviate from the code of discipline they have chosen to live by.

Over time, monastic groups have relaxed many Buddhist rules and like all things, left unchecked, the relaxation may have gone a step too far, to the point where there is little difference between some monastics and lay-Buddhists.

Angie Monksfield (Ms)
President, Buddhist Fellowship Singapore