<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Wrong to use donated funds for investments
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->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
