http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=2469#respond
Spiritually or materially rich?
By Lester Lim ⋅ April 9, 2009
“Everything in moderation,” counseled Aristotle.
Much discussion has occurred recently regarding the revelation of the pay-scales of several religious and charity figureheads. Particularly, topping the pay-scale is the $500,000 annual salary paid to an undisclosed individual of the New Creation Church. Venerable Ming Yi, the former head of the Ren Ci charity organization, draws home a relatively meager salary of $16,000 a month, a fact disclosed during the processes of his recent trial.
Indeed, the familiar ring of “pegging income” to the highest earning CEOs or executives comes sounding again. Detractors argue that there is nothing really wrong in paying these religious/charity figureheads a 6 figure annual salary, given the amount of extensive contributions they make to the organization. Without these individuals, they contend, the organization in question may potentially profit only a smidgen of what they do now. Furthermore, within the broader context of the multi-million net worth of these organizations, what these individuals ultimately take home may only be less than 1 percent of its total worth.
These declamations may be specious however, on several counts.
Firstly, it is not entirely clear how one may quantitatively arrive at a conclusion that in the absence of these individuals, the organization in question may profit only a fraction of what they do now. It may not be an exaggeration to say that charity or religious organizations that have a predilection to pivot their success upon one particular individual should seriously reconsider their approach. As history has shown, most poignantly in the case of NKF, when too much power is concentrated in the hands of one particular individual, issues of accountability and transparency may manifest, even with an auditing presence. Coming from either a charity or religious background, the organization must have strength in depth that will enable them to splay their individual roles and responsibilities as evenly as possible. One individual should not make or break the success of a church or charity.
The issue at hand here is not justifying the pay of these individuals within the broader context of the ultimate net-worth of the organization as a whole. This misses the point altogether. The fact is that religious and charity organizations are inherently different from the fundamental purpose of multi-national co-operations, as well in terms of how they both operate and function. While the multi-national co-operations are intrinsically profit-driven, the same cannot be said of religious organization or charities. A CEO of a multi-billion company may justify his high-paying wages from the company’s extensive yearly profits, but such a justification may be in tatters when applied equally to a religious or charity figurehead.
Austerity is a common thread through most religions. Jesus had famously said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Buddha was known to renounce his worldly life as a wealthy prince for that of an ascetic. Although donations and tithes are given in accordance to one’s own volition, it is to the purpose of a church or charity in which these donations are made, not to a particular individual. A salary is derived in part from these donations to ensure that the individual who run the organization are not shortchanged financially, but this does not immediately warrant them getting paid an equivalent amount of salary of the top CEOs in the country.
A salary cap should be imposed on the individual figureheads of religious or charity organizations to ensure that their salaries are kept in check. While a religious or charity organization may claim to spearhead altruistic motivations, it is ironical that their figureheads need to have gold-plated bathrooms or to be paid in the extremes. The retort that a good part of their salary goes back into the organization through their own donations begs the question: why not simply skip the complexities and direct that portion of his salary straight into increasing the organization’s budget?
The salaries of certain religious or charity figureheads may be initially beyond the ken of the individuals who commit to a regular donation to these organizations; but now that it is known clearly to the general public, it is indeed seriously time to question if the emphasis of these organizations is on being spiritually or materially rich.
----------------------------------------
Latest Updates At Singapore News Alternative:
1. Capitaland To Halt Bahrain Raffles City Project As Outlook Remains Grim
2. PREVIEW-Singapore economy may have shrunk 8.8 pct in Q1
3. Singapore's born-again Christians thrive
4. SIA Blames Indian Travel Agents Association For Breakdown In Talks
5. Singapore to revise down 2009 GDP outlook - PM
6. Indian Travel Agent Association To Drop Spore As Tourist/Biz Destination If Talk With SIA Fails
7. More Overseas Patients Seen At SGH Pain Centre
.
Spiritually or materially rich?
By Lester Lim ⋅ April 9, 2009
“Everything in moderation,” counseled Aristotle.
Much discussion has occurred recently regarding the revelation of the pay-scales of several religious and charity figureheads. Particularly, topping the pay-scale is the $500,000 annual salary paid to an undisclosed individual of the New Creation Church. Venerable Ming Yi, the former head of the Ren Ci charity organization, draws home a relatively meager salary of $16,000 a month, a fact disclosed during the processes of his recent trial.
Indeed, the familiar ring of “pegging income” to the highest earning CEOs or executives comes sounding again. Detractors argue that there is nothing really wrong in paying these religious/charity figureheads a 6 figure annual salary, given the amount of extensive contributions they make to the organization. Without these individuals, they contend, the organization in question may potentially profit only a smidgen of what they do now. Furthermore, within the broader context of the multi-million net worth of these organizations, what these individuals ultimately take home may only be less than 1 percent of its total worth.
These declamations may be specious however, on several counts.
Firstly, it is not entirely clear how one may quantitatively arrive at a conclusion that in the absence of these individuals, the organization in question may profit only a fraction of what they do now. It may not be an exaggeration to say that charity or religious organizations that have a predilection to pivot their success upon one particular individual should seriously reconsider their approach. As history has shown, most poignantly in the case of NKF, when too much power is concentrated in the hands of one particular individual, issues of accountability and transparency may manifest, even with an auditing presence. Coming from either a charity or religious background, the organization must have strength in depth that will enable them to splay their individual roles and responsibilities as evenly as possible. One individual should not make or break the success of a church or charity.
The issue at hand here is not justifying the pay of these individuals within the broader context of the ultimate net-worth of the organization as a whole. This misses the point altogether. The fact is that religious and charity organizations are inherently different from the fundamental purpose of multi-national co-operations, as well in terms of how they both operate and function. While the multi-national co-operations are intrinsically profit-driven, the same cannot be said of religious organization or charities. A CEO of a multi-billion company may justify his high-paying wages from the company’s extensive yearly profits, but such a justification may be in tatters when applied equally to a religious or charity figurehead.
Austerity is a common thread through most religions. Jesus had famously said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Buddha was known to renounce his worldly life as a wealthy prince for that of an ascetic. Although donations and tithes are given in accordance to one’s own volition, it is to the purpose of a church or charity in which these donations are made, not to a particular individual. A salary is derived in part from these donations to ensure that the individual who run the organization are not shortchanged financially, but this does not immediately warrant them getting paid an equivalent amount of salary of the top CEOs in the country.
A salary cap should be imposed on the individual figureheads of religious or charity organizations to ensure that their salaries are kept in check. While a religious or charity organization may claim to spearhead altruistic motivations, it is ironical that their figureheads need to have gold-plated bathrooms or to be paid in the extremes. The retort that a good part of their salary goes back into the organization through their own donations begs the question: why not simply skip the complexities and direct that portion of his salary straight into increasing the organization’s budget?
The salaries of certain religious or charity figureheads may be initially beyond the ken of the individuals who commit to a regular donation to these organizations; but now that it is known clearly to the general public, it is indeed seriously time to question if the emphasis of these organizations is on being spiritually or materially rich.
----------------------------------------
Latest Updates At Singapore News Alternative:
1. Capitaland To Halt Bahrain Raffles City Project As Outlook Remains Grim
2. PREVIEW-Singapore economy may have shrunk 8.8 pct in Q1
3. Singapore's born-again Christians thrive
4. SIA Blames Indian Travel Agents Association For Breakdown In Talks
5. Singapore to revise down 2009 GDP outlook - PM
6. Indian Travel Agent Association To Drop Spore As Tourist/Biz Destination If Talk With SIA Fails
7. More Overseas Patients Seen At SGH Pain Centre
.
