Church to co-own Suntec
-
Originally posted by Dondontan:
Sad that church is treat as such. Someone was arguing that did Jesus chased the business doing in or outside the church. If I did not read wrongly the bible says that Jesus claimed that was the place for worship and chased them out. So clearly stated yet want to find fault, damn it that goongoonmad!Are you a christian?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Are you a christian?
No. I am still learning about christianity and buddhism. -
i understand from some friends that chc build schools in other countries and name it after sun ho (sun ho school, something like that). friends criticised chc for using church goer's donations to build schools but name after her. what do you guys have to say about this ?
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
i understand from some friends that chc build schools in other countries and name it after sun ho (sun ho school, something like that). friends criticised chc for using church goer's donations to build schools but name after her. what do you guys have to say about this ?
well, what do you expect ?
the CHC is basically a tool of that shameless christian-pretending couple to fleece money from those mindless goons that go to their church every Sunday !
but those kids will worship horses at the end of the day...........thanks to horse-face Sun wHOre.............
sounds like the bitch is wearing the trousers in their marriage....................
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
i understand from some friends that chc build schools in other countries and name it after sun ho (sun ho school, something like that). friends criticised chc for using church goer's donations to build schools but name after her. what do you guys have to say about this ?
is this confirmed or make believe??
-
looks like that shameless CHC pastor-wife extortion team's greed knows no bounds..............they're starting to spread their parasitic tentacles abroad liao..............
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
is this confirmed or make believe??
i heard it from friends. 2nd thought. who cares under whose name as long as the church goers do not mind and most importantly it benefits the poor.
-
Season greeting from Asiaone Forum
Information creeping out, points to the scenario that there is no $310m aquisition of substantial share holding of suntec convention centre. Suntec Reit is a public listed company and they are compelled by shareholders' interest to report any news surrounding their asset sale as it affects the share price of the REIT. The news has been released by CHC side that must have embarrased the lsited company.
Someone in the forum pasted the press report from the chinese papers. Suntec made a press qualification disputing the substantial share sale deal circulated by CHC. They said the sale was "not big" and they still mantain control.
So the logical conclusion is that CHC signed a long term rental agreement with Suntec not an outright purchase of a controlling stake. The "sale" does not make sense because the seller will expect the total money and CHC do not have the $310m. You do not have to pay too much in rental agreements. With this CHC has to be careful in its fundraising effort - It cannot call it a "Buidling Fund" becasue the money will be expensed out (paid out) not into a building asset. If there a small asset portion, then the fund raising effort has to be 2 "bags", one goes in an "church operating fund" and the other bag is an "asset building fund". A charitable orgainsation cannot get a collection under "building fund" and then use the money for operating expenses. Annoucing the move to Suntec is correct. Annoucing that they have invested $310m on a controlling stake in a company that owns the convention centre stands to be clarified. The seller has already clarified that it is not what was annouced by CHC. I believe this is the crux of the government query right now. -
i was right lor, the pastor con those goons into funding his 310 million pipe-dream when the money involved is a lot less...............will the goons ask pastor to refund their donations ?
-
Originally posted by tanhsyidfbcbfrcbreb:
Season greeting from Asiaone Forum
Information creeping out, points to the scenario that there is no $310m aquisition of substantial share holding of suntec convention centre. Suntec Reit is a public listed company and they are compelled by shareholders' interest to report any news surrounding their asset sale as it affects the share price of the REIT. The news has been released by CHC side that must have embarrased the lsited company.
Someone in the forum pasted the press report from the chinese papers. Suntec made a press qualification disputing the substantial share sale deal circulated by CHC. They said the sale was "not big" and they still mantain control.
So the logical conclusion is that CHC signed a long term rental agreement with Suntec not an outright purchase of a controlling stake. The "sale" does not make sense because the seller will expect the total money and CHC do not have the $310m. You do not have to pay too much in rental agreements. With this CHC has to be careful in its fundraising effort - It cannot call it a "Buidling Fund" becasue the money will be expensed out (paid out) not into a building asset. If there a small asset portion, then the fund raising effort has to be 2 "bags", one goes in an "church operating fund" and the other bag is an "asset building fund". A charitable orgainsation cannot get a collection under "building fund" and then use the money for operating expenses. Annoucing the move to Suntec is correct. Annoucing that they have invested $310m on a controlling stake in a company that owns the convention centre stands to be clarified. The seller has already clarified that it is not what was annouced by CHC. I believe this is the crux of the government query right now.wow, how can chc anyhow announced. next time i will first put a ? on everything they announce. isn't religious group can only speak the truth ?
-
Originally posted by Fairyfairy86:
wow, how can chc anyhow announced. next time i will first put a ? on everything they announce. isn't religious group can only speak the truth ?
It was out in the news last week Suntec stated that the amount is not what the CHC claimed to be.Questionable.
-
What's the latest news on this ?
So many twists and turns.
-
u will never know
-
How many gold taps build in suntec now ?
-
none...........gold taps and toilet bowls only at pastor's house mah.
-
Church member critical of City Harvest Church’s investment in Suntec
In Main Stories, TOC Stomp, Top Story • 3,781 views • 55 Comments
City Harvest Church member Simon Teoh, an investment banker, is critical of where the $310 million investment by City Harvest Church into Suntec will go.He wants to know how much would be spent on the lease and how long it would last.
Troubled by the church’s response not to answer such questions on the grounds of a non-disclosure agreement with the consortium. Mr Teoh has called for more accountability and transparency from the Church.
He wrote in to the Commissioner of Charities asking for the confidentiality clauses to be rescinded and that City Harvest Church would amend its Constitution so major business deals can be put to a vote among ordinary church members.
We publish the entire letter from Mr Simon Teoh to the Commissioner of Charities here.
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing with respect to the City Harvest Church investment and expenditure of $310 million for the purchase of shares in a company which owns 80% of Suntec Convention Centre and the rental of exclusive areas of the same (plus related moving and renovation costs). This was reported in the Straits Times twice over the last two weeks, including the recent queries raised by your good office.
As a member of the public and the church, I like to highlight to the Commission that todate, members (both non voting and voting) of the church have not been apprised by the Management Board of the church (“the Board”) of the salient terms of the $310m planned expenditure/investment.
Instead, the Board is pressing ahead with utilising the church’s Building Fund (totalling $65 million as end Oct 2009) and committing the church to large future liabilities ($245 million, being the difference of $310m and $65m in the Building Fund) without consulting the members/executive members at the recent AGM. No EGM has been scheduled and I am led to believe that the deal is closed.
In addition, over the last two weeks, the Board has been seeking financial commitments/pledges from its 30,000+ members to raise monies to meet the said liabilities. I do not think this is ethical, especially considering the large number of minors and vulnerable members (eg old, uneducated) in the church.
The excuse given at the recent AGM and in the public sphere for the lack of disclosure is that the Board is bound by confidentiality clauses in an agreement with the Sellers and / or Suntec management. I believe that as a large, public organisation, the Board should not have agreed to such clauses in the first place.
Although the Board is authorized as per the church’s constitution (which I only recently learnt) to commit to any expenditure it deems fit, I believe this “carte blanche” authority and the Board’s poor judgement in agreeing to the confidentiality terms with the Seller runs counter to best practice standards of disclosure and transparency as per the Commission’s code of governance for charities and IPCs (Code).
I quote section 1.3 and 8 of the Code (emphasis made are mine):
Section 1.3: Accountability to Donors
“General Principle: The charity and its fund raisers should be accountable to their donors for the donations received
1.3.1 The Charity and its fund raisers should ensure that donors received informed and ethical advice about the charity, intended use of donation, value and tax implications of potential donations”
Section 8: Disclosure and Transparency
“General Principle: As the charity operates with public support through both donations and the use of volunteers, it should be transparent in its operations to maintain the integrity of serving for public trust and community good instead of personal gain. As such, the charity should demonstrate its openness to the public by providing the public with information about its mission, structure, programmes, activities, performance and finances.”
I love my church but am puzzled by the lack of transparency and accountability by the Board who is tasked to look after the members’ collective interest. I am not suggesting any impropriety but I believe in transparency and accountability, which protects and promotes public confidence.
I humbly urge the Commission to balance the impact on public interest and the public’s confidence in Singaporean charities verses the Board’s desire to complete the deal and require the church’s Board to seek the approval from the deal’s counterparties to mutually rescind the confidentiality clauses so salient terms can be disclosed.
Secondly, I hope that the Commission will also request the church’s Board to undertake a review of its Constitution to find ways to promote more accountability and transparency to its members. For example, to make it a requirement for material proposals such as material investments and expenditure (say for sums greater than $0.5 million or $1 million) and detailed historical financial accounts be disclosed and be put to a vote by its ordinary members.
I am confident that you and members of the public will agree that $310 million investment/expenditure affecting 30,000+ members of the public are significant numbers/figures that need to be protected through appropriate disclosure and joint decision making.
I look forward to your action in the name of public interest.
Best regards
Simon Teoh
-
so those mindless goons at CHC are starting to wake up ? and starting to see the real face of their pastor, Dong Kee.................of course they know the horse-face Sun Whore very well...............
-
Originally posted by As romanista2001:
so those mindless goons at CHC are starting to wake up ? and starting to see the real face of their pastor, Dong Kee.................of course they know the horse-face Sun Whore very well...............
If this turns more serious, the National Church Council will step in.Amazing grace leads to this? Amazing grace how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me .. . . ...
-
It's only a matter of time before that CHC member got kicked out of his church for this...
-
Hello, I found this discussion on google and thought I should say something...
Actually the views from the Temasek review are not exactly accurate and many comments are misinformed. When I read the posts it was filled with so many inaccurate things about my church and my pastor and his wife. I have been in the church for many years already (my Poly classmate first brought me there because he tell me there got alot of pretty gals - you know, young men... ). But really, if not for them, I will have left school and gone to sell pirated VCD long ago... now I'm in my mid-30s already, and my wife, in-laws and my parents all happilly attending church there.
I don't expect to change your views, but I hope you all will give us the benefit of doubt - Being there for so long, they really are not what the papers or some of you say they are...
Can I clarify some of the things with all of you?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
They are doing god's work.
Gamblers who finish gambling at Genting can come over to Suntec to atone for their sins. Near enough.
Marina Bay Sands nearer
-
Originally posted by RoyFang:
It's only a matter of time before that CHC member got kicked out of his church for this...
salah liao..............maybe that fellow trying to overthrow Dong Kee and become new pastor..............
anyway, good that some people there finally realize they've been had.....................
-
- March 30, 2010 12:34 AM
Simon said...
XH,
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my letter. Please allow me to respond:
Firstly, the church is a society of members AND a charity. As a registered charity, it is accountable to the members of the public who are exposed to the church's fund raising activities on the internet and at weekend services via our open door policy. And as a church, we want to be the light to impact the marketplace and grow our membership. So we have to care what others think.
Regarding the non disclosure agreement (NDA), in my experience in negotiating more than 30, I have walked away if it restrains me from doing what is necessary for the good of my company and our shareholders. NDAs, as you had erudiated, are necessary when negotiations are taking place. It usually expires upon deal signing.
If it is a material transaction (like ours), a listed company would not have sign one that survives post signing because it will need to provide information to its shareholders in order to seek their approval. Neither would a government agency (unless due to national security) in matters of material expenditure because it is accountable to the parliament (ie people).
I have been intimated by senior pastors on one reason why the seller does not want disclosure. Without breaching confidentiality, I can however say (in my opinion) that the reason is not prima facie a good justification for denying our members the salient terms of the deal. What are the salient terms I'm talking about? Here're some for starters:
1. How the $310 million is spent:
a. Cost of acquisition of shares, % stake owned, and what options held (if any)
b. Cost of rental p.a. and for how many years with what options to renew
c. Estimated costs of renovations, moving and deposit
2. Quantum of savings or additional expenses compared to Expo lease terms (similar size basis)
3. Funding arrangements (eg level of external borrowings, period and size of installments)
4. Historical and projected financials of Suntec Convention Centre including earnings per share
Why are these relevant to you and me? Let me give you one example:
@ Breakdown of the $310 million
In previous building fund campaigns called “Arise and Build” ("A&B"), it is my impression that the funds raised was to be used to procure the purchase and/or construction of building facilities to house the congregation. The benefits of ownership and control were often stressed, explicitly or implicitly.
However, I am now led to believe that the existing building fund’s monies will instead be used to acquire a minority stake in a company which owns 80% of Suntec Convention Centre, and future A&Bs be used to pay for rental costs of leasing certain areas of Suntec Convention.
Let me use two extremes as examples:
1) If most of the $310 million is used to acquire shares that do not yield control or majority ownership of the Convention Centre, can this be deemed a breach of understanding that donors have when they donated in previous A&B campaigns?
2) If most of the $310 million is spent on future rental costs, are donors understanding that the building fund was to be used to secure ownership be breached?
I often use listed company disclosure and approval requirements as a good example, not because the church is a listed company, but because the marketplace / public deem such disclosure standards to be best practice and the first line of defence to protect minority shareholders and members of the public from abuses or improprieties of the management.
This is in line with Paul example to be in line with the standards of man, not only of God when managing money (2 Cor 8:20-21).
You may have the benefit of 10 years of experience in the church to trust your leaders without question. But, please learn to spare a thought for the newbies, vulnerable (minors, elderly, less educated, etc), non Christian friends who come to visit, etc. who do not have the benefit and depth of your past experience and trust.- March 30, 2010 7:26 PM
XH said...
Dear Simon, thanks for your well thought out response. I do not deny that the church is a charity. However, people choose which charity they want to give to and as I said, no one has been compelled to give to the charity should they be uncomfortable or unconvinced about its deployment of proceeds. You talk about being concerned about what others think. Surely, you could have been more constructive by seeking out the leadership rather than make this less-than-private confrontation with the church which naturally cause members to question your agenda - although you have clearly stated that you have done this because you love the church. You do not speak for all the members. Again, I say, giving to any charity is a matter of choice. Just because we make online donations available for the convenience of our members (many of whom are overseas) and that our church is well attended by walk-ins from the public does not mean that people give with their eyes close. And let's be frank, the first thing people give to when they come to church for the first few times will hardly be to the building fund.
In fact, the church has segregated its general fund (tithes and offerings) from the building fund and even in its financial reporting and at the point of giving, members new and old, are very carefully told that the general fund is used for the church operations while the building fund is for its said use.
You use an example of a listed company and I understand that your background as an investment banker in ECM or DCM probably necessitates your use of such NDAs. You have your views as to the best standards of disclosure by the church to match that of a listed company but I have my views too - which is that these are 2 very different organizations and face different sensitivities and obstacles that even you as an investment banker and I as a finance professional might not understand. The NDA is not indefinite: it will cease after 2 years. Then you will have all the answers you need.
Your whole argument, while well-thought out, is premised on your "impression" that the A&B is for ownership and control. 2 years ago, the church had already begun looking for JVs, partnerships and other ventures to co-own a stadium or audi that can sit 10000 to 15000 people. There was a resolution.
Also, I see you have diligently studied our church's financial statements. Surely, you would have learnt that the church uses its building fund monies to pay the Expo rental and keeping its tithes and offerings focused on the works of the charity? It has been the case since we moved to Expo.
I wonder why securing ownership is the be-all and end-all for your contribution to the building fund. For many of the members, we do not see it that way. We love our church and are willing to give to the building fund. So in the absence of your premise of control and ownership, which might have been of your own accord, you cannot ascribe blame to the church.
Again, giving is a matter of freewill. Any charity will tell you that.- March 30, 2010 10:53 PM
XH said... Actually, if I may probe. How many A&Bs have you been a part of? I think that will lend some credit to your statement: "In previous building fund campaigns called “Arise and Build” ("A&B"), it is my impression that the funds raised was to be used to procure the purchase and/or construction of building facilities to house the congregation."
- March 30, 2010 11:55 PM
Simon said... Dear XH,
You speak well and mean well. May I request you respond with the same sincerity and courtesy that I'm according you and move out of anonymity?
It's important to be accountable to one another in what we say. This is the same principal about transparency in managing other people’s money. We have to account and be transparent to one another when we commit large sums of money.
Let me give you an analogy: Does the church encourage a husband to spend the family silver without consulting the wife? No. So, as believers, we are one big family so let's be accountable to one another.
Your free will offering argument is irrelevant. It's extremely a poor defence for the likes of NKF, Ren Ci, etc. Free will or otherwise, charities are accountable to their donors for past donations and future solicitations. That’s what people want and that’s what the Commissioner of Charities want as described in the Code of Governance.
I've negotiated NDAs as a principal, not as a ECM/DCM professional. Yes, there may be other considerations involved, but the one that has been intimated to me by our leaders does not cut any ice. I'm happy to share that with you in confidence offline. You have my permission to get my email add from the blog owner.
Please counter my points with pertinent facts, or employ arguments that show my logic is wrong.
I quoted an example why it is important to disclose certain salient terms to donors so that they know, as a form of check and control, the money contributed goes into expenses that they had earmarked for.
Making moral judgments about the irrelevance of “securing ownership as raison d’etre for people’s contribution” is not a rebuttal. Rather, you should argue that i) the salient facts I’d quoted do not serve as good checks and controls, or ii) checks and controls are wrong in church governance.
Talking about financial statements, you proved the point that what we have on line is at too high a level. For example, where can one find that the current EXPO lease is paid out of the building fund (rather than the general operating fund)? Perhaps, you can post the statements with notes online for all to see?
I will conduct a poll in my cell this week and see how many people know this. We can exchange the results with those from your cell.
Regarding the purpose of the building fund and A&Bs, the impression created every year has been to buy or build God a physical house. This came from talking to members, pictures of stadiums, land and buildings that were projected, sermons given, etc.
Even the Harvest Times, the church's newsletter says in Issue 33 (2008): "Out of their driving desire to build God an iconic stadium in the marketplace, for the marketplace and to penetrate the marketplace, the members of City Harvest Church had pledged more than S$26m"
Did the JVs, partnerships, ventures you talked about include "no board seat", "no management involvment" like in the Suntec deal? What we now have is a long term lease plus some passive shares. I don't call this a JV or partnership.
I personally have no issue with leases but we should be told (2nd example of salient terms) if the rental portion from the $310 million will last 10, 20, 50 or 78 years.
If you do a poll, most people, especially the vulnerable (ie the youth), think it's at the upper end. That's, perhaps inadvertently created. But if there's good transparency and we give our people the facts, we can correct these misconceptions.
Lastly, i will not indulge in your name calling as you were not one of the 4 senior CHC staff i met last week (ie you're not in the loop).- March 31, 2010 1:45 AM
Simon said... XH, I've been through three A&Bs, including this year's.
- March 31, 2010 1:46 AM
XH said... I hope you respect my reasons for remaining anonymous in the public domain. I apologize if you deem it a form of disrespect and a lack of sincerity.
I have re-read my post and do not know what name calling you are alluding to in the last paragraph of your 1.45am posting. If I have been rude, I apologize.
I actually think that of the 4 points of disclosure of salient terms, only point 1 is reasonable. The Board, the voting members and the auditors are all apparatus of control in this charity. I personally think that to equate good checks and control to your disclosure requirements are too onerous. But again, that is my view and you have yours. I trust that the management has worked in the best interest of the church in securing this deal. It is their church too. Perhaps you find this level of trust naive but I think as a member of this society, I give with my eyes opened.
Sincerely, the impression you have is not the impression I have about the shape or the form the venture should take place in and I think for good commercial reasons, the lease structure should not be revealed.
Quote: "Talking about financial statements, you proved the point that what we have on line is at too high a level. For example, where can one find that the current EXPO lease is paid out of the building fund (rather than the general operating fund)? Perhaps, you can post the statements with notes online for all to see?"
- On this point, I agree. I think you will not have a problem getting the financial statements and notes from the church and I will leave it to the church to decide if they will post the full FS online. That's not a call for me to make on behalf of the church.
And the fact you have been through 3 A&Bs does lend credence to your statement. Thanks - it was important at least for me to know that before commenting any further. That's all I have to say with regards to this matter.- March 31, 2010 1:39 PM
Simon said... XH,
I accept both your apologies. I hope you understand that it's difficult to appreciate or understand your need to remain anonymous if you don't share what those are. I pray it is not "fear". I'm happy to discuss further offline if that helps.
I hate to belabour the point: If one cannot be accountable for what one says online, one loses moral right to make any judgment or comment regarding the importance of accountability to one another. what more in in matters of church finance.
I welcome you to elaborate why you think the other salient point examples that I had listed are onerous. I know you mean well, so if you really think i'm wrong, i am open to hear you out. Broad statements do you no justice.
It is clear to me that the voting members have failed as a check and control device in the system. One does not give carte blanche authority without the benefit of information to make informed decisions. If you were a director in a company, the EMs would be charged for failing their fiduciary duties. And thus, the power to vote should be removed from them and be given to ordinary members too.
Auditors are the final line of defence, not the first, as their work is "after the fact". Prevention is always better than the cure. - March 30, 2010 12:34 AM
-
So can anyone start a church with an investment arm now ?
-
u mean an investment company with a church arm?