City Harvest Church, the law courts and the abstract arena of trust

Forgive me, Lord, for I have sinned! Nope, it should actually say, "The Lord seeks forgiveness from City Harvest Church (CHC) for I, the Lord, have sinned!" At least if one follows the pastor of CHC, then it is perfectly normal for God to apologize for His behaviour to humans.

One does not have to be a theologian of the status of St. Thomas Aquinas or Al-Ghazzali to understand it does not seem right for God to apologize to His subjects. Whether we refer to the Jewish, Sikh, Muslim, Christian or any other religion's Supreme Being, it is generally humans who ask for forgiveness ... not the other way around.

Humans succumb to temptation. Humans do bad deeds. Humans think bad thoughts. Humans seek mercy for sins. For many, to speak of a God with flaws is tantamount to blasphemy.

'God the Father' by Cima da Conegliano (circa 1515)

Still, as a mortal, it is not my place to judge others, especially in matters of personal faith. So, if the leader of the CHC believes God has wronged him and God should apologize, then more power to the reverend. We all believe in our own God(s) – and fight our own demons (in this life and more).

However, religious leaders play to a gallery. They are not alone. They speak to a flock. Their each word is scrutinized. They are opinion formers who speak to thousands weekly. Thus, when a religious leader even indirectly implies that humans are somehow not responsible for personal actions, it seems inappropriate.  

Yes, it is a slippery road I am taking: 'freewill versus destiny.' Squaring the 'freewill versus destiny' circle is not my intention here – nor am I capable of resolving the centuries old debate. Nonetheless, the (earthly) legal framework of laws and courts created by humans rests squarely on the assumption humans are accountable for our deeds. And, if we abuse public trust or harm others, we must face the consequences.

Legal technicalities may win cases in law courts but the yardstick applied to maintain trust in the real world is more stringent. Thus, while the CHC court case continues and no verdict has yet been pronounced, in my books the CHC has already lost an important battle: the claim to have behaved in a morally correct manner.

But then I am neither judge nor theologian, simply a blogger with views on right and wrong.

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com. 

The Sun Sets on City Harvest Church?

Two years ago I published a post (reproduced below) suggesting financial transparency for charities like the City Harvest Church (CHC) must be improved. Unfortunately, it seems my concerns were warranted.

Recently, several senior members of CHC, including founder Kong Hee, have been arrested by Singapore's authorities on charges of misusing CHC funds to promote the singing career of Kong Hee's wife (Sun Ho).

"The COC's Inquiry revealed misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the Charity, particularly in relation to the funds that were in the Building Fund which had been raised and earmarked for specific purposes. Financial irregularities of at least $23 million from the Charity's funds have been discovered. These funds were used with the purported intention to finance Ho Yeow Sun's secular music career to connect with people. There was a concerted effort to conceal this movement of funds from its stakeholders." (COC Statement.)

I am encouraged by the Singaporean authorities desire to make the management of CHC charity accountable for their alleged breach of public trust. In the event that wrongdoing is established, it is essential that exemplary punishments be handed out to those responsible for the serious misdeeds.

I await the legal proceedings with baited breath! 

______________________ 

Singapore's City Harvest Church, a few spiritual and material lessons

I am not surprised that the City Harvest Church (CHC) saga is back in the news. Modern religious leaders who combine worldly enterprises with spiritual undertakings always raise my suspicions.

Singaporeans should be glad that the authorities are investigating possible misuse of funds by the church and some of its leaders. If CHC has nothing to hide then the investigation becomes a routine affair. On the other hand, if wrong doing is uncovered then the government must send a clear signal to all charities that the exploitation of public trust is a serious offense.

No doubt, all religious undertakings must have worldly trappings to survive: places of worship, salaries for staff and so on. But it is hard for me to believe that a church which commits SGD 2.9 million towards charitable work on donations of SGD 86 million is fully committed to its community roots. CHC spent more on 'Christian Television Broadcast and Mass Media, Church Television Ministry and Internet Broadcasting' in 2008 - 2009.

There are two issues that demand further analysis: the scope of allowable relationships between non-profit entities and allied profit making entities, and the moral problem regarding the involvement of a 'spiritual' leader in business enterprises.

The CHC is involved in several business transactions, including the purchase of Suntec City. The Suntec transaction brings up many questions.

1. Is the purchase of commercially oriented convention centres in line with CHC's approved purposes?
2. Are there independent checks to ensure that public donations are not channelled to finance commercial ventures, whether indirectly through special purpose vehicles or directly through CHC?
3. How are profits distributed to stakeholders, i.e. will Reverend Kong Hee and his close associates receive an unreasonably large amount of the profits?
4. What percentage of the revenue will accrue to CHC and for what activities will the money be used, e.g. to purchase more churches and establish television channels?

Clearly, many questions about CHC's activities remain unanswered. Only a thorough investigation will satisfy a public legitimately hungry for answers.

I hope the Singapore authorities will not only be transparent with their findings but also act on them. If changes to regulations governing religiously inspired organizations are necessary, they must be made urgently.

The moral issues raised by the CHC episode are more personal in nature.

I do not believe that a man of religion should be so blatantly involved in commercial enterprises. Yes, devoting one's life to religion does not automatically mean leading a monk's life but accumulating (and not spending) excessive wealth also raises serious questions about the person's commitment to social welfare.

Does seeking out profits for commercial purposes – managing television stations or buying convention centres – falls in the realm of legitimate CHC activity? Now, if the CHC were managing shelters for the homeless or providing social welfare services then few will question the legitimacy of the CHC.  

As things stand, there are hardly any positive signs of CHC activities visible to the ordinary Singaporean. People are right to be sceptical.

The issues are complex and require an independent and empowered commission to make recommendations for strengthening legislation surrounding non-profit entities. If harsh measures, including the forfeiture of illegally obtained assets, are implemented few will be sympathetic towards lawbreakers.

A review of the rules is no longer optional, it is a requirement.

If I were a contributing member of the CHC, I would certainly want to know whether my money is used to fund the Reverend's lifestyle or the CHC's legitimate activities.

Article originally published on June 9, 2010

__________________

Imran is a business and management consultant. Through his work at Deodar Advisors and the Deodar Diagnostic, Imran improves profits of businesses operating in Singapore and the region. He can be reached at imran@deodaradvisors.com.