Reveal Your Income, $$$ Pastors!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Why such leaders should reveal income
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->LAST Thursday, the Commissioner of Charities made known to the public a good initiative introducing measures of accountability and transparency in the report, 'Watchdog finds four areas for improvements'.
If there is any reason for its implementation, it is for the good of all.
Is it religiously and morally justifiable to remunerate religious and charity leaders from donations relatively on par with the remuneration of captains of commerce and industry?
The perceived morals of religious and charity groups is at an all-time low now. This is due to the misdeeds of a handful of religious and charity leaders.
It is good and just to weed out pilferers and plunderers in mega organisations. What prompted them to deviate from the original, sacrificial nature of remuneration to a secular standard of reward has contributed to their offences and consequent fall from human favour.
It is unbecoming of religious leaders to 'exact' heavily from the tithe and offerings of the church, so that they can own luxurious houses and limousines, pay for first-class flights and more, while their congregation slog it out to meet their family needs and scrimp to pay church tithes and offerings.
We must consider the large sums donated to these mega churches by thousands of donors of all income groups, who do so because they want their contributions spent on proper and justifiable causes.
Hence, publishing the gross remunerations and personal assets of all mega religious and charity leaders, as brought up by Mr George Lim's four-fold proposal in his letter last Saturday, ('Publish the incomes and assets of leaders'), is not only fair and proper, but also, more importantly, tangible, moral and ethical.
Leaders are morally obligated to disclose their earnings as they are living on public donations. Donors have the right to know. James Tan

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Funding: 'Religious and charity organisations should not be run as flourishing enterprises with endless funding.'

</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I AGREE with Mr George Lim's letter last Saturday. ("Publish the incomes and assets of leaders") and share his sentiments that it would be a cognitive disconnect and social incongruence for religious leaders to lead a luxurious life.


The four proposals are concrete steps to transparency in governance. I feel grey areas need to be addressed, too. Looking from different perspectives, I propose clear-cut directives to prohibit donation money to be channelled to investments or businesses. Commercial activities are fundamentally contrary to the objectives of donations and contradictory to the spirit of charity.

Religious leaders should abstain from diverting donation money to other activities and concentrate diligently on disbursing the funds to needy beneficiaries. Where is the need to increase yield when donations come in millions?

Strict rules should be in place to prohibit charity organisations to channel donation money for investments or business in any form. When the fund runs low, appeal for more donations. Reserves should be parked as fixed deposits in banks. Period.

Business holdings and commercial interests of religious leaders are private and need not be made public if they receive no remuneration or benefits in kind from the charity. But if they do, for the sake of accountability and transparency, whatever they receive from the charity should be made known to the public.

Cut off commercial activity in charity organisations and you don't have 'conflict of interest' from related parties.

The worshippers and donors are not "stakeholders" of the funds in the hands of the keepers. The only noble duty of the custodians (servants of God) is to disburse the money to the needy and less fortunate. Nothing else.

Religious and charity organisations should not be run as flourishing enterprises with endless funding. For true transparency, remove investment, loans and commercial activity from all charity organisations.
Paul Chan

Peesai Inc., Church Inc.​

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Big business now: 'I am awestruck at the payscale of local church pastors. These churches are now like mega corporations.'

</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- 4 or less paragraphs so show all paragraphs first before showing the media and bkstry and stuffs --><!-- story content : start -->I REFER to the report, "Seven major religious groups with annual incomes of over $10 million each and who heads them" (Sept 11). I am awestruck at the payscale of local church pastors. Many are paid more than chief executive officers (CEOs) of business entities. These churches are now like mega corporations. The question, however, is whether church pastors can justifiably draw huge salaries from the tithes and offerings which are meant for God's work. As a former City Harvest Church and Faith Community Baptist Church goer, I have given my fair share of offerings, hoping to see that 90 per cent of the money could be spent doing God's work. Little did I realise that much of it has been used to fuel the lavish lifestyles of the church founders.
<!-- story content : start -->To circumvent the misappropriation of donors' funds, there should be clear guidelines on what church pastors should be paid and the ceiling for their salaries and allowances. From what I understand, these churches make it mandatory "in the name of God" for all true Christians to contribute 10 per cent of all their earnings to be pledged as tithes for the church. I remember these church leaders telling me that one would be "robbing God" if 10 per cent is not rightfully returned into God's kingdom (based on the scripture of Micah). However, the grey area is that the Bible did not specify what percentage the church leaders should draw from the collections. It is then up to the authorities to determine what is the ceiling that church pastors should draw in remuneration. Many mega church leaders feel that it is their right as God's ambassadors and spiritual leaders to command high salaries for doing the ultimate, which is God's work, but do they actually have a God-given right to exploit that? To draw a salary of $2 million a year would be considered excessive for a pastor who draws from funds given by the public, but to draw $20 million to $35 million per annum is ridiculous.
<!-- story content : start -->Chi Han-Hsuan
http://law.nus.edu.sg/alumni/alumni_directory.asp?Year=2000
<TABLE style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=3 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=350>CHI HAN-HSUAN</TD><TD width=680>LL.M.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[makapaaa]

Now u understand why I say my ministers are underpaid. *hee*hee*​

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Reelin' and reli-rockin': What rock concerts have in common with some places of worship

</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->RECENTLY, some religious groups have embarked on ambitious plans to equip places of worship with the latest in audio-visual equipment. What was once only a feature of a pop or rock concert at the Indoor Stadium, can now be easily found at places of worship. Such equipment does not come cheap and is usually used exclusively by top performing artists and premier audio-visual equipment rental companies around the world.
Some places of worship have become venues of opulent entertainment. It is not enough to have a band on stage singing hymns - we need huge screens to accompany them in the background. We need multiple camera set-ups that capture the stage from all angles for the convenience of the worshippers. We need to have high-definition cameras that capture the action in the highest resolution.
But will these audio-visual aids make us more pious?

=> Feel good feeling can psycho the goons to part with the money more readily?

Audio-visual aids are used at concerts for practical reasons. Screens are used as means of image magnification, so that those with lower tier seats can still enjoy a close-up view of their idols.

Multiple camera set-ups are used as the audience is a paying crowd, and it would be unscrupulous if they were presented with only a one-sided view from a single camera angle. I could certainly list more, but to sum it up: the end justifies the means in the commercial world.

In places of worship, we give our tithes and donations trusting they are used to further the cause of our beliefs and helping the impoverished among us here or farther abroad.

=> Sounds like lotsa lost sheep in Peesai?

High-tech, high-end, gleaming new technology does not further these causes. More stringent and intelligent use of the funds raised should be the order of the day. Boon Xu

 

[sleaguepunter]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Reelin' and reli-rockin': What rock concerts have in common with some places of worship

</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->RECENTLY, some religious groups have embarked on ambitious plans to equip places of worship with the latest in audio-visual equipment. What was once only a feature of a pop or rock concert at the Indoor Stadium, can now be easily found at places of worship. Such equipment does not come cheap and is usually used exclusively by top performing artists and premier audio-visual equipment rental companies around the world.
Some places of worship have become venues of opulent entertainment. It is not enough to have a band on stage singing hymns - we need huge screens to accompany them in the background. We need multiple camera set-ups that capture the stage from all angles for the convenience of the worshippers. We need to have high-definition cameras that capture the action in the highest resolution.
But will these audio-visual aids make us more pious?

=> Feel good feeling can psycho the goons to part with the money more readily?

Audio-visual aids are used at concerts for practical reasons. Screens are used as means of image magnification, so that those with lower tier seats can still enjoy a close-up view of their idols.

Multiple camera set-ups are used as the audience is a paying crowd, and it would be unscrupulous if they were presented with only a one-sided view from a single camera angle. I could certainly list more, but to sum it up: the end justifies the means in the commercial world.

Do you know how easy to earn church money? Most churches dont have controls implement, often buy stuffs on the impulse. Those that control the finanicals of the churches are usually being curry favour by businessmen. So many occassion brought stuffs that are above market price or no much use to the church. Without the industry know how, the churches often become ROBERT HEAD when come to service contract.