By Bhaskaran Kunju (Temasek Review)
April 5th, 2010
Last July as part of an article on the new batch of incoming Nominated Member of Parliaments (NMPs), I wrote on the background of each of the candidates, including former national swimmer Joscelin Yeo. I highlighted the achievements and credentials they possessed that were of relevance for the task ahead of them in being an NMP.
As Ms Yeo’s credentials in communal contributions were relatively low and solely centred on her work with her cell group at New Creation Church (NCC), I also discussed the activities of the church.
I wrote, “New Creation Church should be of some familiarity to the general public, having made the news for the wrong reasons several times over the past few years. The Church, run by Pastor Joseph Prince, made headlines as recently as March of this year when it raised $19 million in under 24 hours, for the construction of its new premise at Buona Vista, despite the ongoing recession.
News of the premise and its planned construction was first reported in the Straits Times in September 2007, when a $660 million deal was struck with CapitaLand to build an all-encompassing lifestyle hub called, The Integrated Civic, Cultural, Retail & Entertainment Hub @ Vista Xchange, one-north, or Integrated Hub @ one-north in short. A year later the Church increased its stake by investing a further $220 million in the project.
It is an astronomical sum of money that is virtually unheard of for any religious organisation to be in possession of. In October 2007 The Straits Times also reported that the church was one of 7 religious groups to have auditors check on them as part of a ‘governance review’ by the Commissioner of Charities (COC), for having an annual income of over $10million. New Creation Church had been the highest earner with $42.8 million.
In addition to that The Straits Times also reported in March this year, that one employee of the church was paid between $500 001 and $550 000 in the last financial year. Though it was not confirmed if the employee in question was Pastor Prince, the founder and leader of the church, it did however quote the church as saying it “recognize(s) and reward(s) key contributors to the church and Senior Pastor Prince is the main pillar of our church’s growth and revenue’.
It should be of no surprise then that the activities of the Church have received public attention and drawn criticism. Several members of the Church have also left the congregation, feeling disillusioned by the business aspects of the organisation. The Church in fact even has a financial arm called Rock Productions, to oversee its business dealings. Apart from the one-north project, the church already owns and operates Marina Cove in East Coast Park.
I MUST state that it will be unfair to judge Ms Yeo’s capabilities as an NMP based on her affiliations. It is also unlikely that she was nominated based solely on her commitment to her church activities. Her sporting achievements and standing with the public would have played a far greater part in her selection.
However it does raise the legitimate question of whether a member of an organisation that has an ethos of extravagant practices of affluence, beyond that of any religious organisation, could reach out to the average Singaporean; even more so when taking into consideration that her only known service to the community has been within the realms of said organisation. The relevance of her nomination is thus debatable.”
The rest of the article can be read here (http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/07/16/a-look-at-the-new-batch-of-nmps)
On January this year City Harvest Church (CHC) announced a S$310 million expansion plan for a new home for its congregation. A January 18 report in the Straits Times titled “City Harvest’s expansion plan” mentioned the construction of a new building on purchased land in the central area. The building would supposedly house eateries, and other amenities as well as a 12,000-seat auditorium.
Either the plans were changed or the news was erroneously reported, as in early March the church announced its stake in Suntec Singapore for the same amount of capital. Suntec came under new ownership just last year when it was bought by ARA Asset Management via its ARA Harmony Fund in a joint venture. The Suntec Reit group holds 20 percent ownership while the majority share is owned by a consortium company. CHC’s stake in Suntec comes from its buying of a substantial share into the consortium company. The exact details of the shareholdings are not revealed due to legalities.
CHC’s move is understandable from an economical point of view as it would be more viable to acquire a stake in the property instead of continuously leasing it. But the exact details of the financial margins are not available for a comparative analysis and we can only rely on claims issued by the church.
But CHC and NCC aren’t the only religious institutions that have come under fire. In late February of this year, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) started an inquiry into the management of Sri Siva Krishna Temple at Marsiling Rise. The inquiry was launched after a complain by the Hindu Endowment Board over the temple’s management of its finances and violations over Management Committee member elections. The temple’s annual donations is estimated at S$350, 000 a year.
The COC just two weeks ago also announced a similar inquiry into the business dealings of CHC in Suntec.
CHC’s financial activities seems to pale in comparison to the activities of NCC, but it is still a sign of growing affluence of religious institutions in Singapore.
The acquisition of a significant piece of commercial real estate naturally surprised many and set off a string of news reports and letters to various forums. Churches come under the Charities Act in Singapore and their income is tax exempt. One writer to the Straits Times Forum pointed out that donors to churches do not enjoy tax exemption themselves as churches are registered as charities but not as Institutions of a Public Character.
So while the general public has been upset by the financial motives of the church for skewing the line between religion and business as well as stretching the goodwill of the law for financial pursuit, CHC faithful have been unperturbed and even celebrated the recent acquisition.
The methods adopted by CHC and NCC are not necessarily blasphemous and their pursuit of material wealth under the guise of religion is a form of ideology called Prosperity Gospel or Prosperity Ideology. It is a belief that prosperity in the form of material riches will be blessed upon those who follow the words of Jesus Christ.
That aspect alone should put in focus why the reactions between the general public and the followers of CHC are so contrasting and also why such churches are having such a strong following in Singapore – the promise of fortune and prosperity. Which would also explain why donation figures for both churches are that high as the ideology of ‘you get what you give’ is subtly preached.
Despite its popularity, Prosperity Gospel is not widely recognised as a separate denomination or an accepted ideology. It has its critics among Christians and Non-Christians alike for its interpretation of the Bible. Matthew Kang, a deacon and Honorary Secretary of NCC as well as Director of Rock Productions, has readily quoted the bible in backing up the business dealings of the church in interviews with The Straits Times.
Singaporeans, or rather Asians in general, regardless of ethnicity are highly superstitious and religious, and place strong emphasis on prosperity and accumulation of wealth, more so than most cultures in other parts of the world. So a Church that not only preaches material wealth for the blessed but also has acute financial capabilities of its own is a beacon for those who have been predisposed to such a materialistic culture.
A closer look at the profile of CHC’s congregation provides some clues as well. According to the statistics from the church’s website, 13.8 %, the largest proportion, of its salaried members of the congregation are from the Financial and Insurance industry. In terms of types of occupation, 41.8% are Associate Professionals and Technicians, 20.7% are Professionals and 14.9% are Legislators, Senior Officials and Managers among the congregation. Thus more than three quarters of its members are of relatively well to do income brackets.
The significance of these data lies in how people start seeking soteriological reasons for existence when they have achieved as much as they want to or are nearing their sense of achievement in terms of materialistic pursuit. Conversely it also can be explained by Max Weber’s theory on how religion serves as a concurrent motivator for financial pursuit as financial success is used as an indicator of how blessed the individual is by God.
CHC’s largest age group at 40.5% is from the 25-45 bracket, an odd and wide margin of grouping. Some reports have suggested that most of its congregation is under the age of 30, which would explain the age brackets as it makes the congregation appear more balanced. The next two largest groups are Young Adults (it defines young adults very narrowly as just 20-24) at 18.3% and Youths or teenagers at 18.9%.
CHC has been criticised in the past for it’s relentless recruitment of teenagers into its congregation. On a personal basis, when I was in Secondary School in the late 90s to early 2000s, nearly every one I knew in my all boys school was either attending or had been approached to join the church. The bait wasn’t religion but rather the ‘cool’ aspect of the church.
Teenagers being impressionable are easily taken in by such messages and with the added incentive of socialising and fraternizing with teenagers of opposite sex throw in, it is no surprise the church has a large teenage following. Needless to say none of the people I knew who attended CHC then are attending the church anymore, most having left as they matured.
Of course the reasonings provided above do not form the basis for all membership to CHC or NCC, but rather, serve as an explanation as to why membership figures are so high to begin with.
What the general public is ultimately worried about is how much power these organisations are wielding and is it too much, to the extent that their influence extends beyond their congregation that it affects society at large. Last year’s leadership tussle at AWARE was instigated by members of a small obscure congregation, but they had enough power and influence to take over.
So wealth is not necessarily an indicator of power for religious institutions. It is rather who the personalities are behind the curtain that makes the difference. Are they only interested in preaching the Bible? Or are they interested in power, influence and expansion?
For CHC it is difficult to deny that the latter is not part of their motives. CHC founder Pastor Kong Hee was quoted in the Straits Times on January 18 about the imminent move to Suntec, “Finally, we will have a church in the marketplace, for the marketplace, to penetrate the marketplace.” That statement could easily serve as a catalyst for concern.
Another reason for the strong public reaction is the tax exemption of income earned by organisations that come under the Charitable Act.
Both Channel NewsAsia (March 21 “City Harvest Church board in discussion over S$310m Suntec stake”) and The Straits Times (March 20 “Charity commissioner questions City Harvest”) reported that no new separate company was established for the business dealings. But the church has clarified on its website that the Suntec acquisition is run by a newly setup “special purpose investment holding company” that “does not have charitable status and is not entitled to any tax or other concessions”.
But the investment company receives remittance from the income of the church, which is still enjoying benefits as a charitable organisation and the same argument also applies to NCC’s dealings under Rock Productions.
The actions of these organisations are not illegal or corrupt. So a COC inquiry is ultimately fruitless as the business dealings are done within the confines of the law, albeit stretched to its limits. But the question of ethics does arise.
For example $500 000 being siphoned under the table by a pastor is downright illegal, but if the same act is done above board as salary and full accounted for then it is no longer illegal, just morally and ethically objectionable and these forms of objections do not have much legal basis as the acts, after all, have been legally accounted for.
So the only means of regulations will be to look into amending and tightening the existing laws on religious institutions and business dealings to keep up with their progressions. One thing that can definitely concluded from these news reports over the years is the growing affluence of religious organizations in Singapore.
But in dealing with such matters utmost sensitivity has to be exercised so as not to be seen as encroaching on personal beliefs of individuals and upsetting them. Religion is a sensitive topic especially in multi-cultural Singapore. It could easily turn into an ‘them and us’ scenario which could breed cynicism on both sides of the argument and complicate the matter.
April 5th, 2010
Last July as part of an article on the new batch of incoming Nominated Member of Parliaments (NMPs), I wrote on the background of each of the candidates, including former national swimmer Joscelin Yeo. I highlighted the achievements and credentials they possessed that were of relevance for the task ahead of them in being an NMP.
As Ms Yeo’s credentials in communal contributions were relatively low and solely centred on her work with her cell group at New Creation Church (NCC), I also discussed the activities of the church.
I wrote, “New Creation Church should be of some familiarity to the general public, having made the news for the wrong reasons several times over the past few years. The Church, run by Pastor Joseph Prince, made headlines as recently as March of this year when it raised $19 million in under 24 hours, for the construction of its new premise at Buona Vista, despite the ongoing recession.
News of the premise and its planned construction was first reported in the Straits Times in September 2007, when a $660 million deal was struck with CapitaLand to build an all-encompassing lifestyle hub called, The Integrated Civic, Cultural, Retail & Entertainment Hub @ Vista Xchange, one-north, or Integrated Hub @ one-north in short. A year later the Church increased its stake by investing a further $220 million in the project.
It is an astronomical sum of money that is virtually unheard of for any religious organisation to be in possession of. In October 2007 The Straits Times also reported that the church was one of 7 religious groups to have auditors check on them as part of a ‘governance review’ by the Commissioner of Charities (COC), for having an annual income of over $10million. New Creation Church had been the highest earner with $42.8 million.
In addition to that The Straits Times also reported in March this year, that one employee of the church was paid between $500 001 and $550 000 in the last financial year. Though it was not confirmed if the employee in question was Pastor Prince, the founder and leader of the church, it did however quote the church as saying it “recognize(s) and reward(s) key contributors to the church and Senior Pastor Prince is the main pillar of our church’s growth and revenue’.
It should be of no surprise then that the activities of the Church have received public attention and drawn criticism. Several members of the Church have also left the congregation, feeling disillusioned by the business aspects of the organisation. The Church in fact even has a financial arm called Rock Productions, to oversee its business dealings. Apart from the one-north project, the church already owns and operates Marina Cove in East Coast Park.
I MUST state that it will be unfair to judge Ms Yeo’s capabilities as an NMP based on her affiliations. It is also unlikely that she was nominated based solely on her commitment to her church activities. Her sporting achievements and standing with the public would have played a far greater part in her selection.
However it does raise the legitimate question of whether a member of an organisation that has an ethos of extravagant practices of affluence, beyond that of any religious organisation, could reach out to the average Singaporean; even more so when taking into consideration that her only known service to the community has been within the realms of said organisation. The relevance of her nomination is thus debatable.”
The rest of the article can be read here (http://www.temasekreview.com/2009/07/16/a-look-at-the-new-batch-of-nmps)
On January this year City Harvest Church (CHC) announced a S$310 million expansion plan for a new home for its congregation. A January 18 report in the Straits Times titled “City Harvest’s expansion plan” mentioned the construction of a new building on purchased land in the central area. The building would supposedly house eateries, and other amenities as well as a 12,000-seat auditorium.
Either the plans were changed or the news was erroneously reported, as in early March the church announced its stake in Suntec Singapore for the same amount of capital. Suntec came under new ownership just last year when it was bought by ARA Asset Management via its ARA Harmony Fund in a joint venture. The Suntec Reit group holds 20 percent ownership while the majority share is owned by a consortium company. CHC’s stake in Suntec comes from its buying of a substantial share into the consortium company. The exact details of the shareholdings are not revealed due to legalities.
CHC’s move is understandable from an economical point of view as it would be more viable to acquire a stake in the property instead of continuously leasing it. But the exact details of the financial margins are not available for a comparative analysis and we can only rely on claims issued by the church.
But CHC and NCC aren’t the only religious institutions that have come under fire. In late February of this year, the Commissioner of Charities (COC) started an inquiry into the management of Sri Siva Krishna Temple at Marsiling Rise. The inquiry was launched after a complain by the Hindu Endowment Board over the temple’s management of its finances and violations over Management Committee member elections. The temple’s annual donations is estimated at S$350, 000 a year.
The COC just two weeks ago also announced a similar inquiry into the business dealings of CHC in Suntec.
CHC’s financial activities seems to pale in comparison to the activities of NCC, but it is still a sign of growing affluence of religious institutions in Singapore.
The acquisition of a significant piece of commercial real estate naturally surprised many and set off a string of news reports and letters to various forums. Churches come under the Charities Act in Singapore and their income is tax exempt. One writer to the Straits Times Forum pointed out that donors to churches do not enjoy tax exemption themselves as churches are registered as charities but not as Institutions of a Public Character.
So while the general public has been upset by the financial motives of the church for skewing the line between religion and business as well as stretching the goodwill of the law for financial pursuit, CHC faithful have been unperturbed and even celebrated the recent acquisition.
The methods adopted by CHC and NCC are not necessarily blasphemous and their pursuit of material wealth under the guise of religion is a form of ideology called Prosperity Gospel or Prosperity Ideology. It is a belief that prosperity in the form of material riches will be blessed upon those who follow the words of Jesus Christ.
That aspect alone should put in focus why the reactions between the general public and the followers of CHC are so contrasting and also why such churches are having such a strong following in Singapore – the promise of fortune and prosperity. Which would also explain why donation figures for both churches are that high as the ideology of ‘you get what you give’ is subtly preached.
Despite its popularity, Prosperity Gospel is not widely recognised as a separate denomination or an accepted ideology. It has its critics among Christians and Non-Christians alike for its interpretation of the Bible. Matthew Kang, a deacon and Honorary Secretary of NCC as well as Director of Rock Productions, has readily quoted the bible in backing up the business dealings of the church in interviews with The Straits Times.
Singaporeans, or rather Asians in general, regardless of ethnicity are highly superstitious and religious, and place strong emphasis on prosperity and accumulation of wealth, more so than most cultures in other parts of the world. So a Church that not only preaches material wealth for the blessed but also has acute financial capabilities of its own is a beacon for those who have been predisposed to such a materialistic culture.
A closer look at the profile of CHC’s congregation provides some clues as well. According to the statistics from the church’s website, 13.8 %, the largest proportion, of its salaried members of the congregation are from the Financial and Insurance industry. In terms of types of occupation, 41.8% are Associate Professionals and Technicians, 20.7% are Professionals and 14.9% are Legislators, Senior Officials and Managers among the congregation. Thus more than three quarters of its members are of relatively well to do income brackets.
The significance of these data lies in how people start seeking soteriological reasons for existence when they have achieved as much as they want to or are nearing their sense of achievement in terms of materialistic pursuit. Conversely it also can be explained by Max Weber’s theory on how religion serves as a concurrent motivator for financial pursuit as financial success is used as an indicator of how blessed the individual is by God.
CHC’s largest age group at 40.5% is from the 25-45 bracket, an odd and wide margin of grouping. Some reports have suggested that most of its congregation is under the age of 30, which would explain the age brackets as it makes the congregation appear more balanced. The next two largest groups are Young Adults (it defines young adults very narrowly as just 20-24) at 18.3% and Youths or teenagers at 18.9%.
CHC has been criticised in the past for it’s relentless recruitment of teenagers into its congregation. On a personal basis, when I was in Secondary School in the late 90s to early 2000s, nearly every one I knew in my all boys school was either attending or had been approached to join the church. The bait wasn’t religion but rather the ‘cool’ aspect of the church.
Teenagers being impressionable are easily taken in by such messages and with the added incentive of socialising and fraternizing with teenagers of opposite sex throw in, it is no surprise the church has a large teenage following. Needless to say none of the people I knew who attended CHC then are attending the church anymore, most having left as they matured.
Of course the reasonings provided above do not form the basis for all membership to CHC or NCC, but rather, serve as an explanation as to why membership figures are so high to begin with.
What the general public is ultimately worried about is how much power these organisations are wielding and is it too much, to the extent that their influence extends beyond their congregation that it affects society at large. Last year’s leadership tussle at AWARE was instigated by members of a small obscure congregation, but they had enough power and influence to take over.
So wealth is not necessarily an indicator of power for religious institutions. It is rather who the personalities are behind the curtain that makes the difference. Are they only interested in preaching the Bible? Or are they interested in power, influence and expansion?
For CHC it is difficult to deny that the latter is not part of their motives. CHC founder Pastor Kong Hee was quoted in the Straits Times on January 18 about the imminent move to Suntec, “Finally, we will have a church in the marketplace, for the marketplace, to penetrate the marketplace.” That statement could easily serve as a catalyst for concern.
Another reason for the strong public reaction is the tax exemption of income earned by organisations that come under the Charitable Act.
Both Channel NewsAsia (March 21 “City Harvest Church board in discussion over S$310m Suntec stake”) and The Straits Times (March 20 “Charity commissioner questions City Harvest”) reported that no new separate company was established for the business dealings. But the church has clarified on its website that the Suntec acquisition is run by a newly setup “special purpose investment holding company” that “does not have charitable status and is not entitled to any tax or other concessions”.
But the investment company receives remittance from the income of the church, which is still enjoying benefits as a charitable organisation and the same argument also applies to NCC’s dealings under Rock Productions.
The actions of these organisations are not illegal or corrupt. So a COC inquiry is ultimately fruitless as the business dealings are done within the confines of the law, albeit stretched to its limits. But the question of ethics does arise.
For example $500 000 being siphoned under the table by a pastor is downright illegal, but if the same act is done above board as salary and full accounted for then it is no longer illegal, just morally and ethically objectionable and these forms of objections do not have much legal basis as the acts, after all, have been legally accounted for.
So the only means of regulations will be to look into amending and tightening the existing laws on religious institutions and business dealings to keep up with their progressions. One thing that can definitely concluded from these news reports over the years is the growing affluence of religious organizations in Singapore.
But in dealing with such matters utmost sensitivity has to be exercised so as not to be seen as encroaching on personal beliefs of individuals and upsetting them. Religion is a sensitive topic especially in multi-cultural Singapore. It could easily turn into an ‘them and us’ scenario which could breed cynicism on both sides of the argument and complicate the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment