To be content is to know God has supplied, is supplying, and will continue to supply, so that one could:
- be generous (manifested through giving and sharing) rather than be covetous (expressed through accumulating and hoarding); and
- be diligent (and exercise good stewardship) rather than complacent (and display laziness).
A person covets because of a poverty mindset - thinking he does not have enough. A person becomes complacent when he lacks godly wisdom - not understanding the greater purpose of prosperity. A person is content when he believes he is blessed with prosperity for a purpose - i.e. he possesses an abundance mindset and godly wisdom.
Covetousness and complacency are the two extremes. Contentment is the middle path. A contented person is neither covetous nor complacent. He enjoys and employs what he receives from God. He is blessed. And he is a blessing.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Antidote for online venom
Read the following article in today's Straits Time. Couldn't agree more with the writer's views.
Antidote for online venom
By Andrew Alexander
Anonymous online commentary has always been rowdy and raucous, especially when public figures are the targets.
"Excellent!" exulted a Washington Post commenter when conservative columnist Robert Novak died in August. "Hope he suffered."
When Senator Edward M. Kennedy died a week later, a commenter wrote: "They are going to have to bury him in a secret location to stop people from defecating on his grave."
And after that The Post reported last month that the wife and daughter of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid had been badly injured when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer, a commenter applauded: "I would dearly LOVE to shake the hand of the driver of the other vehicle."
People in public life come to expect despicable and hurtful comments. Most have developed thick hides.
But for average folks who agree to be featured in The Post, brutal online comments can be unexpected and devastating. Post reporters say increasing numbers are expressing regret that they cooperated for stories that resulted in vicious anonymous attacks.
"I think it's a major issue at The Post," said reporter Ian Shapira. "We just totally throw them to the wolves" if comments aren't moderated.
Style section reporter Ellen McCarthy, who writes the Sunday "On Love" feature on couples who wed, said she spends an "inordinate amount of my time on weekends" monitoring comments. Many are so cruel they get deleted. For example, one implored a bride to take out a life insurance policy on her new husband, suggesting his obesity would soon kill him.
Several other reporters said they routinely monitor comments after their stories appear in hopes of deleting inappropriate ones before they're spotted by news sources. They can be so venomous that religion reporter William Wan sometimes warns those he has written about to avoid looking at them. In a few cases, those who helped with stories have said "never again".
Readers regularly tell me The Post's online comment boards have become little more than cesspools of venom and twaddle. Many want an end to anonymous commenting, a step some Post staffers privately favour. That's not the answer.
For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.
While some readers complain they've had it with unruly online conversation, thousands have joined it. In a typical month, more than 320,000 comments are made in response to Post stories, columns and blogs. That's almost a third more than a year ago. The growth is critical to The Post's financial survival in the inevitable shift from print to online. The goal is to dramatically build online audience, and robust commenting is key to increasing visitors to the website.
When they register to submit comments, readers must agree not to post "inappropriate" remarks, including those that are hateful or racist, or those that advocate violence. The Post's website relies heavily on self-policing. Readers hit a "Report Abuse" button to flag potential violators. About 300 comments are deleted each day. But others slip through because the Post cant' scrutinise everything. So how to deal with bullies who break the rules?
The solution is in moderating - not limiting - comments. In a few months, The Post will implement a system that should help. It's still being developed, but the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different "tiers" based on their past behaviour and other factors. Those with track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered "trusted commenters". Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.
When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the "trusted" group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from "trolls", they'll need to click to access a different "tier".
I like the approach because it doesn't limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But "trusted commenters" will be easier to hear.
The write is The Washington Post's ombudsman.
Antidote for online venom
By Andrew Alexander
Anonymous online commentary has always been rowdy and raucous, especially when public figures are the targets.
"Excellent!" exulted a Washington Post commenter when conservative columnist Robert Novak died in August. "Hope he suffered."
When Senator Edward M. Kennedy died a week later, a commenter wrote: "They are going to have to bury him in a secret location to stop people from defecating on his grave."
And after that The Post reported last month that the wife and daughter of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid had been badly injured when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer, a commenter applauded: "I would dearly LOVE to shake the hand of the driver of the other vehicle."
People in public life come to expect despicable and hurtful comments. Most have developed thick hides.
But for average folks who agree to be featured in The Post, brutal online comments can be unexpected and devastating. Post reporters say increasing numbers are expressing regret that they cooperated for stories that resulted in vicious anonymous attacks.
"I think it's a major issue at The Post," said reporter Ian Shapira. "We just totally throw them to the wolves" if comments aren't moderated.
Style section reporter Ellen McCarthy, who writes the Sunday "On Love" feature on couples who wed, said she spends an "inordinate amount of my time on weekends" monitoring comments. Many are so cruel they get deleted. For example, one implored a bride to take out a life insurance policy on her new husband, suggesting his obesity would soon kill him.
Several other reporters said they routinely monitor comments after their stories appear in hopes of deleting inappropriate ones before they're spotted by news sources. They can be so venomous that religion reporter William Wan sometimes warns those he has written about to avoid looking at them. In a few cases, those who helped with stories have said "never again".
Readers regularly tell me The Post's online comment boards have become little more than cesspools of venom and twaddle. Many want an end to anonymous commenting, a step some Post staffers privately favour. That's not the answer.
For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.
While some readers complain they've had it with unruly online conversation, thousands have joined it. In a typical month, more than 320,000 comments are made in response to Post stories, columns and blogs. That's almost a third more than a year ago. The growth is critical to The Post's financial survival in the inevitable shift from print to online. The goal is to dramatically build online audience, and robust commenting is key to increasing visitors to the website.
When they register to submit comments, readers must agree not to post "inappropriate" remarks, including those that are hateful or racist, or those that advocate violence. The Post's website relies heavily on self-policing. Readers hit a "Report Abuse" button to flag potential violators. About 300 comments are deleted each day. But others slip through because the Post cant' scrutinise everything. So how to deal with bullies who break the rules?
The solution is in moderating - not limiting - comments. In a few months, The Post will implement a system that should help. It's still being developed, but the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different "tiers" based on their past behaviour and other factors. Those with track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered "trusted commenters". Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.
When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the "trusted" group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from "trolls", they'll need to click to access a different "tier".
I like the approach because it doesn't limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But "trusted commenters" will be easier to hear.
The write is The Washington Post's ombudsman.
Antidote for online venom
Read the following article in today's Straits Times. Couldn't agree more with the writer's views.
Antidote for online venom
By Andrew Alexander
Anonymous online commentary has always been rowdy and raucous, especially when public figures are the targets.
"Excellent!" exulted a Washington Post commenter when conservative columnist Robert Novak died in August. "Hope he suffered."
When Senator Edward M. Kennedy died a week later, a commenter wrote: "They are going to have to bury him in a secret location to stop people from defecating on his grave."
And after that The Post reported last month that the wife and daughter of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid had been badly injured when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer, a commenter applauded: "I would dearly LOVE to shake the hand of the driver of the other vehicle."
People in public life come to expect despicable and hurtful comments. Most have developed thick hides.
But for average folks who agree to be featured in The Post, brutal online comments can be unexpected and devastating. Post reporters say increasing numbers are expressing regret that they cooperated for stories that resulted in vicious anonymous attacks.
"I think it's a major issue at The Post," said reporter Ian Shapira. "We just totally throw them to the wolves" if comments aren't moderated.
Style section reporter Ellen McCarthy, who writes the Sunday "On Love" feature on couples who wed, said she spends an "inordinate amount of my time on weekends" monitoring comments. Many are so cruel they get deleted. For example, one implored a bride to take out a life insurance policy on her new husband, suggesting his obesity would soon kill him.
Several other reporters said they routinely monitor comments after their stories appear in hopes of deleting inappropriate ones before they're spotted by news sources. They can be so venomous that religion reporter William Wan sometimes warns those he has written about to avoid looking at them. In a few cases, those who helped with stories have said "never again".
Readers regularly tell me The Post's online comment boards have become little more than cesspools of venom and twaddle. Many want an end to anonymous commenting, a step some Post staffers privately favour. That's not the answer.
For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.
While some readers complain they've had it with unruly online conversation, thousands have joined it. In a typical month, more than 320,000 comments are made in response to Post stories, columns and blogs. That's almost a third more than a year ago. The growth is critical to The Post's financial survival in the inevitable shift from print to online. The goal is to dramatically build online audience, and robust commenting is key to increasing visitors to the website.
When they register to submit comments, readers must agree not to post "inappropriate" remarks, including those that are hateful or racist, or those that advocate violence. The Post's website relies heavily on self-policing. Readers hit a "Report Abuse" button to flag potential violators. About 300 comments are deleted each day. But others slip through because the Post cant' scrutinise everything. So how to deal with bullies who break the rules?
The solution is in moderating - not limiting - comments. In a few months, The Post will implement a system that should help. It's still being developed, but the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different "tiers" based on their past behaviour and other factors. Those with track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered "trusted commenters". Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.
When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the "trusted" group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from "trolls", they'll need to click to access a different "tier".
I like the approach because it doesn't limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But "trusted commenters" will be easier to hear.
The write is The Washington Post's ombudsman.
Antidote for online venom
By Andrew Alexander
Anonymous online commentary has always been rowdy and raucous, especially when public figures are the targets.
"Excellent!" exulted a Washington Post commenter when conservative columnist Robert Novak died in August. "Hope he suffered."
When Senator Edward M. Kennedy died a week later, a commenter wrote: "They are going to have to bury him in a secret location to stop people from defecating on his grave."
And after that The Post reported last month that the wife and daughter of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid had been badly injured when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer, a commenter applauded: "I would dearly LOVE to shake the hand of the driver of the other vehicle."
People in public life come to expect despicable and hurtful comments. Most have developed thick hides.
But for average folks who agree to be featured in The Post, brutal online comments can be unexpected and devastating. Post reporters say increasing numbers are expressing regret that they cooperated for stories that resulted in vicious anonymous attacks.
"I think it's a major issue at The Post," said reporter Ian Shapira. "We just totally throw them to the wolves" if comments aren't moderated.
Style section reporter Ellen McCarthy, who writes the Sunday "On Love" feature on couples who wed, said she spends an "inordinate amount of my time on weekends" monitoring comments. Many are so cruel they get deleted. For example, one implored a bride to take out a life insurance policy on her new husband, suggesting his obesity would soon kill him.
Several other reporters said they routinely monitor comments after their stories appear in hopes of deleting inappropriate ones before they're spotted by news sources. They can be so venomous that religion reporter William Wan sometimes warns those he has written about to avoid looking at them. In a few cases, those who helped with stories have said "never again".
Readers regularly tell me The Post's online comment boards have become little more than cesspools of venom and twaddle. Many want an end to anonymous commenting, a step some Post staffers privately favour. That's not the answer.
For every noxious comment, many more are astute and stimulating. Anonymity provides necessary protection for serious commenters whose jobs or personal circumstances preclude identifying themselves. And even belligerent anonymous comments often reflect genuine passion that should be heard.
While some readers complain they've had it with unruly online conversation, thousands have joined it. In a typical month, more than 320,000 comments are made in response to Post stories, columns and blogs. That's almost a third more than a year ago. The growth is critical to The Post's financial survival in the inevitable shift from print to online. The goal is to dramatically build online audience, and robust commenting is key to increasing visitors to the website.
When they register to submit comments, readers must agree not to post "inappropriate" remarks, including those that are hateful or racist, or those that advocate violence. The Post's website relies heavily on self-policing. Readers hit a "Report Abuse" button to flag potential violators. About 300 comments are deleted each day. But others slip through because the Post cant' scrutinise everything. So how to deal with bullies who break the rules?
The solution is in moderating - not limiting - comments. In a few months, The Post will implement a system that should help. It's still being developed, but the broad outlines envision commenters being assigned to different "tiers" based on their past behaviour and other factors. Those with track record of staying within the guidelines, and those providing their real names, will likely be considered "trusted commenters". Repeat violators or discourteous agitators will be grouped elsewhere or blocked outright. Comments of first-timers will be screened by a human being.
When visitors click to read story comments, only those from the "trusted" group will appear. If they want to see inflammatory or off-topic comments from "trolls", they'll need to click to access a different "tier".
I like the approach because it doesn't limit speech. Anonymous loudmouths can still shout. But "trusted commenters" will be easier to hear.
The write is The Washington Post's ombudsman.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Letter to ST forum in response to Andy Ho article titled “Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny”
Dear Editor,
I refer to the ST article by Andy Ho titled “Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny” dated 1 April 2010.
I believe the joint reply by IRAS, MCYS and URA in response to the forum letter by Mr Lester Lam on the same subject has clarified the official position of the respective authorities. Nonetheless, I think Andy’s effort to share further insights on the matter is commendable.
I find it unfortunate though, that Andy failed to make a distinction between churches that do not solicit funds from the general public with charities that do. By using terms such as ‘public charities’, ‘public policy’ and ‘public money’ in his discussion about churches, he might have caused some confusion among his readers who may be led to think that churches are involved in soliciting funds from the general public like charities such as Ren Ci Hospital and NKF, when in fact churches only receive tithes and offerings from their members. In this respect, churches are similar to private foundations whose funds come from select groups of individuals and families and not the general public.
As to whether the funds of a church and its related entities should be subject to taxation, I think a distinction should be made between income generated from business activities and the tithes and offerings received from church members. In view of the difference in their nature – one being commercial and the other being non-commercial, I believe the former should be subject to taxation but not the latter. In order to properly record and report the different forms of activities conducted by the church and its related entities, it is therefore crucial for churches to make sure their organisational structure and their accounting functions are suitably set up and adequately segregated. Having said the above, I reckon this is a matter best left to the relevant authorities to deliberate and decide upon.
With regards the motivation of the mega churches getting involved in commercial deals, I am of the view that they are not motivated by profits, but by the practical needs for larger venues to accommodate their growing congregations. In Singapore, land plots allotted for religious use are limited in availability and size – a typical plot is usually around 4,000 sq m in size, which is good for a 1,000 plus seat sanctuary. With such strict zoning of land usage in Singapore, mega churches are, in a sense, ‘forced’ to take the commercial path. How many of us would seriously regard committing funds into the building of a civic and cultural centre or the securing of some convention facilities as the best way to invest for profits? If the key objective were to be profits, I believe most of us would prefer to go for the many other options available.
It is also important for some of us to clear the misconception that the mega churches are constructing a church building, or converting existing commercial properties into premises exclusively for church use. The civic and cultural centre at one-north will be, and the Suntec Convention Centre will remain, open to and available for the public to use and enjoy. The mega churches in question will only be renting certain spaces at the respective venues when needed, not unlike what the smaller churches are doing on weekends all around Singapore – leasing the many hotel ballrooms and other commercial venues to hold their activities.
As for the issue on members’ voting rights, I believe that in large organisations, for practical and efficiency reasons, it is not uncommon to have a smaller group of voting members making decisions on behalf of the larger whole of all members. In Singapore, a church may set its own policies on membership criteria, privileges and voting rights and these are subject to approval by the Registrar of Societies. Setting the appropriate criteria for full voting membership is an important step to protect the vision and the finances of a church, or for the matter, any society or association.
Valid concerns and suggestions have been raised by various quarters in our community since City Harvest Church made their announcement on the Suntec deal. Let us trust the Commissioner of Charity and his team, whom I understand are looking into the matter, to carry out the necessary investigations and clarifications, and to enforce the appropriate measures to safeguard the best interests of everyone concerned.
Best regards,
Tan Lip Kee
------------------------------------------------------
The Straits Times – Review
Apr 1, 2010
Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny
By Andy Ho
A LOCAL megachurch announced recently that, for $310 million, it was becoming a co-owner of Suntec Singapore.
According to Reverend Kong Hee, who heads City Harvest Church, the megachurch will co-own a company that already owns, in aggregate, 80 per cent of Suntec. That company’s profits are, of course, taxed. Thus when the church receives its share of that after-tax income, it would be all kosher.
The church says it created a free-standing, for-profit corporate entity, which it wholly owns, to house its business operations. Still, in a partnership and other joint-venture arrangements, each partner is regarded as being fully involved in the underlying business. The church leadership is reported to have explained that co-ownership of Suntec means that ‘the rent we pay out (in renting space at Suntec) will be recovered by CHC (City Harvest Church) in the form of profits and dividends’.
Could this deal jeopardise the church’s tax-exempt status? The Commissioner of Charities is seeking clarifications from City Harvest on its business venture.
On his website, Reverend Kong lists his occupation as ‘businessman’ and says he has a doctorate in business from Seoul’s Hansei University – called Soonshin University before 1997 and Full Gospel Theological College in the 1950s. Reverend Kong also has a master’s degree and a doctorate in theology, both from an online school. One thus assumes that Reverend Kong, presumably having also been duly advised, would have been able to digest and grasp the tax issues involved.
Why the unease with a church going into business? At first blush, it seems unnecessary to prevent charities, churches included, from using the market as a source of funding. After all, no one would want to ban gift shops or restaurants at the Art Museum or the zoo, for instance.
In a 4-1 majority decision in the Commissioner of Taxation v Word Investments, the Australian High Court declared that ‘commercial activities and charitable status are not necessarily inconsistent’.
Still, many find commercial activity by charities odd or even unacceptable. If nothing else, their resources as well as the attention of their managers could be diverted from their core missions. Such charities may also come to be run by a set of managers motivated by market values, the opposite of the altruism that charities should exemplify.
Moreover, commercial activity can also morph into empire building for its own sake, with profits being ploughed back into the business instead of funding the charity’s non-business activities.
But these are issues that concern only the organisations themselves. The public policy issue here is whether charities that engage in substantial commercial activity should still retain their tax-exempt status and how they ought to be regulated.
The reason the public should be concerned is that tax exemption is, in effect, a government subsidy. When a church goes into business, the public dollar is effectively subsidising that activity. For example, because City Harvest is using tax-exempt money to buy its share of Suntec, the transaction is effectively being subsidised by public money.
Legal and taxation experts suggest that a corrective tax mechanism would be justifiable in such circumstances. After all, it is implicitly assumed that religious organisations cannot afford to pay taxes since their assets do not produce income streams.
But when a church engages in a massive commercial transaction, it shows that it clearly could have afforded those taxes. Thus, the government would be justified in recouping any uncollected tax.
Think of it as an exit tax imposed on the church for exiting its exclusively non-profit stance for a for-profit one, at least in part.
How should such churches be regulated henceforth?
At least two megachurches here seem to govern themselves more like private foundations than public charities. While a believer at a typical autonomous, non-denominational church here can opt to become a full voting member of his church, very few – say, 700 out of 30,000 in a megachurch that is an autonomous, non-denominational set-up – may be invited to become voting ‘executive members’.
Irked by the Suntec deal, investment banker Simon Teoh, who attends City Harvest, has written to the Commissioner of Charities. He alleges that the church’s 12-member management board went ahead ‘with utilising the church’s building fund ($65 million as of end-October 2009) and committing the church to large future liabilities…without consulting the members…at the recent AGM. No EGM has been scheduled’.
Thus, in effect, these megachurches govern themselves like private foundations. In Singapore, private foundations are lightly regulated compared to public charities since their funds come from wealthy individuals or families and not the public. But most private foundations are grant-making institutions. These churches, by contrast, not only make no grants but instead solicit funds from the public.
Once their business enterprises can regularly channel enough profits to them so that Sunday collections will no longer matter, the management boards of these megachurches will no longer be dependent on their members.
But citizens – or the relevant group of citizens, at least – should have a voice in the governance of such churches as long as they are still soliciting funds from the public.
So the Commissioner of Charities should consider if such churches should be regulated more closely. Certainly, their tax-exempt status is no sacred cow that cannot be slaughtered if a critical re-examination justifies doing so.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
I refer to the ST article by Andy Ho titled “Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny” dated 1 April 2010.
I believe the joint reply by IRAS, MCYS and URA in response to the forum letter by Mr Lester Lam on the same subject has clarified the official position of the respective authorities. Nonetheless, I think Andy’s effort to share further insights on the matter is commendable.
I find it unfortunate though, that Andy failed to make a distinction between churches that do not solicit funds from the general public with charities that do. By using terms such as ‘public charities’, ‘public policy’ and ‘public money’ in his discussion about churches, he might have caused some confusion among his readers who may be led to think that churches are involved in soliciting funds from the general public like charities such as Ren Ci Hospital and NKF, when in fact churches only receive tithes and offerings from their members. In this respect, churches are similar to private foundations whose funds come from select groups of individuals and families and not the general public.
As to whether the funds of a church and its related entities should be subject to taxation, I think a distinction should be made between income generated from business activities and the tithes and offerings received from church members. In view of the difference in their nature – one being commercial and the other being non-commercial, I believe the former should be subject to taxation but not the latter. In order to properly record and report the different forms of activities conducted by the church and its related entities, it is therefore crucial for churches to make sure their organisational structure and their accounting functions are suitably set up and adequately segregated. Having said the above, I reckon this is a matter best left to the relevant authorities to deliberate and decide upon.
With regards the motivation of the mega churches getting involved in commercial deals, I am of the view that they are not motivated by profits, but by the practical needs for larger venues to accommodate their growing congregations. In Singapore, land plots allotted for religious use are limited in availability and size – a typical plot is usually around 4,000 sq m in size, which is good for a 1,000 plus seat sanctuary. With such strict zoning of land usage in Singapore, mega churches are, in a sense, ‘forced’ to take the commercial path. How many of us would seriously regard committing funds into the building of a civic and cultural centre or the securing of some convention facilities as the best way to invest for profits? If the key objective were to be profits, I believe most of us would prefer to go for the many other options available.
It is also important for some of us to clear the misconception that the mega churches are constructing a church building, or converting existing commercial properties into premises exclusively for church use. The civic and cultural centre at one-north will be, and the Suntec Convention Centre will remain, open to and available for the public to use and enjoy. The mega churches in question will only be renting certain spaces at the respective venues when needed, not unlike what the smaller churches are doing on weekends all around Singapore – leasing the many hotel ballrooms and other commercial venues to hold their activities.
As for the issue on members’ voting rights, I believe that in large organisations, for practical and efficiency reasons, it is not uncommon to have a smaller group of voting members making decisions on behalf of the larger whole of all members. In Singapore, a church may set its own policies on membership criteria, privileges and voting rights and these are subject to approval by the Registrar of Societies. Setting the appropriate criteria for full voting membership is an important step to protect the vision and the finances of a church, or for the matter, any society or association.
Valid concerns and suggestions have been raised by various quarters in our community since City Harvest Church made their announcement on the Suntec deal. Let us trust the Commissioner of Charity and his team, whom I understand are looking into the matter, to carry out the necessary investigations and clarifications, and to enforce the appropriate measures to safeguard the best interests of everyone concerned.
Best regards,
Tan Lip Kee
------------------------------------------------------
The Straits Times – Review
Apr 1, 2010
Megachurches’ tax status bears scrutiny
By Andy Ho
A LOCAL megachurch announced recently that, for $310 million, it was becoming a co-owner of Suntec Singapore.
According to Reverend Kong Hee, who heads City Harvest Church, the megachurch will co-own a company that already owns, in aggregate, 80 per cent of Suntec. That company’s profits are, of course, taxed. Thus when the church receives its share of that after-tax income, it would be all kosher.
The church says it created a free-standing, for-profit corporate entity, which it wholly owns, to house its business operations. Still, in a partnership and other joint-venture arrangements, each partner is regarded as being fully involved in the underlying business. The church leadership is reported to have explained that co-ownership of Suntec means that ‘the rent we pay out (in renting space at Suntec) will be recovered by CHC (City Harvest Church) in the form of profits and dividends’.
Could this deal jeopardise the church’s tax-exempt status? The Commissioner of Charities is seeking clarifications from City Harvest on its business venture.
On his website, Reverend Kong lists his occupation as ‘businessman’ and says he has a doctorate in business from Seoul’s Hansei University – called Soonshin University before 1997 and Full Gospel Theological College in the 1950s. Reverend Kong also has a master’s degree and a doctorate in theology, both from an online school. One thus assumes that Reverend Kong, presumably having also been duly advised, would have been able to digest and grasp the tax issues involved.
Why the unease with a church going into business? At first blush, it seems unnecessary to prevent charities, churches included, from using the market as a source of funding. After all, no one would want to ban gift shops or restaurants at the Art Museum or the zoo, for instance.
In a 4-1 majority decision in the Commissioner of Taxation v Word Investments, the Australian High Court declared that ‘commercial activities and charitable status are not necessarily inconsistent’.
Still, many find commercial activity by charities odd or even unacceptable. If nothing else, their resources as well as the attention of their managers could be diverted from their core missions. Such charities may also come to be run by a set of managers motivated by market values, the opposite of the altruism that charities should exemplify.
Moreover, commercial activity can also morph into empire building for its own sake, with profits being ploughed back into the business instead of funding the charity’s non-business activities.
But these are issues that concern only the organisations themselves. The public policy issue here is whether charities that engage in substantial commercial activity should still retain their tax-exempt status and how they ought to be regulated.
The reason the public should be concerned is that tax exemption is, in effect, a government subsidy. When a church goes into business, the public dollar is effectively subsidising that activity. For example, because City Harvest is using tax-exempt money to buy its share of Suntec, the transaction is effectively being subsidised by public money.
Legal and taxation experts suggest that a corrective tax mechanism would be justifiable in such circumstances. After all, it is implicitly assumed that religious organisations cannot afford to pay taxes since their assets do not produce income streams.
But when a church engages in a massive commercial transaction, it shows that it clearly could have afforded those taxes. Thus, the government would be justified in recouping any uncollected tax.
Think of it as an exit tax imposed on the church for exiting its exclusively non-profit stance for a for-profit one, at least in part.
How should such churches be regulated henceforth?
At least two megachurches here seem to govern themselves more like private foundations than public charities. While a believer at a typical autonomous, non-denominational church here can opt to become a full voting member of his church, very few – say, 700 out of 30,000 in a megachurch that is an autonomous, non-denominational set-up – may be invited to become voting ‘executive members’.
Irked by the Suntec deal, investment banker Simon Teoh, who attends City Harvest, has written to the Commissioner of Charities. He alleges that the church’s 12-member management board went ahead ‘with utilising the church’s building fund ($65 million as of end-October 2009) and committing the church to large future liabilities…without consulting the members…at the recent AGM. No EGM has been scheduled’.
Thus, in effect, these megachurches govern themselves like private foundations. In Singapore, private foundations are lightly regulated compared to public charities since their funds come from wealthy individuals or families and not the public. But most private foundations are grant-making institutions. These churches, by contrast, not only make no grants but instead solicit funds from the public.
Once their business enterprises can regularly channel enough profits to them so that Sunday collections will no longer matter, the management boards of these megachurches will no longer be dependent on their members.
But citizens – or the relevant group of citizens, at least – should have a voice in the governance of such churches as long as they are still soliciting funds from the public.
So the Commissioner of Charities should consider if such churches should be regulated more closely. Certainly, their tax-exempt status is no sacred cow that cannot be slaughtered if a critical re-examination justifies doing so.
andyho@sph.com.sg
Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
