CHC’s New Home: Suntec Convention Centre

March 8, 2010

This is an article about CHC’s new church building that was printed in City News Weekly, March 7, 2010. CNW is a newspaper reporting news from a Christian perspective. With CNW’s permission, I have reproduced the whole article in full below. Enjoy!

The news is out: City Harvest will be moving to its new premises at Suntec Singapore International Exhibition and Convention Centre by 2011.
By Theresa Tan

PHOTO COURTESY OF SUNTEC SINGAPORE

This has probably been City Harvest Church’s best-kept secret in its 21-year-history. The exact location of the church’s new site has been a hot topic that has kept Christians within and outside the church guessing, since it was confirmed on Jan. 16 that a space had finally been procured after a five-year search.

Bound by a non-disclosure agreement, the management could not say a word until yesterday afternoon, at the first service of the weekend at the Jurong West church.

The revelation of Suntec Singapore International Exhibition and Convention Centre met with great excitement from the church congregation. This location would put all the services of the church under one roof.

“When we were looking for a property, there were three major considerations,” said senior pastor Kong Hee.

1.	Size. “It had to be as big as we can go in our small city-state with limited land. Suntec Convention Centre has a total usable area of more than 1 million sq ft—that is 20 times our Jurong West property and 10 times Expo Hall 8. Suntec has the size we need and can accommodate our traffic.”
2.	Location. “We wanted a place that was central and easy to get to by MRT and bus. CHC members come from all over the island. Suntec is centrally located with three major MRT stations nearby: City Hall MRT is a 10-minute walk; Esplanade MRT and Promenade MRT open this April and are even closer by.”
3.	Facilities. “A church is not just a main sanctuary and nothing else. Having extra facilities is critical to the operations of the church. We need areas for children, rooms for Bible study, car park space and eating places. Suntec Convention Centre has more than 30 meeting rooms, and we will have access to over 8,680 car park lots in the Suntec-Marina area. Between Suntec City and the Convention Centre, there are 283 stalls/restaurants for our members to eat at, and 622 retail stores for our members to shop in.”

Through this agreement, CHC becomes a co-owner of Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre, and has a share in the annual revenues of all its facilities. The two floors CHC will primarily use are the sixth and seventh floors and include the CHC Auditorium which is column-free and can accommodate up to 12,000 seats. Early plans for this space reveal a stadium-style layout with a sizeable play area for children, and 10 meeting rooms. “All our morning prayer meetings, seminars and conferences will be held here in the future,” explained Kong.

The other parts of the Convention Centre will be open to the public, and will continue to be rented by third parties for exhibitions, fairs and performances as is currently the case.

Tan Ye Peng, deputy senior pastor, explains to City News what co-ownership of Suntec Singapore means. “Last year, ARA Asset Management Limited announced that its ARA Harmony Fund had acquired the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre. Harmony Fund’s investors comprise Suntec REIT, which holds 20 percent, and a consortium that holds 80 percent. CHC has bought a significant stake into the consortium.”

City Harvest is looking to raise S$310 million, but this sum is not the value of the property, says Tan. “This amount consists of cost of shares; rental; renovation and equipment; professional building, management logistic and maintenance fees; refundable deposits and moving costs.”

One of the key considerations for this site is the business model that CHC can and will adopt for Suntec Singapore. “For Singapore Expo, we are in a lease-only business model. As such, what is being paid out does not have any returns or profit-sharing for CHC. The Board and the Building Committee discussed and concluded that with an ‘ownership-and-lease’ business model, the rent we pay out will be recovered by CHC in the form of profits and dividends.”

“It’s perfect for our church,” says Tan. “This place has everything we need. It’s been around, it’s an established place. It has been the venue for some of the most important events that ever took place in Singapore, like the APEC CEO Summit last November, and the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meeting in 2006. This August it will be the venue for the 2010 Youth Olympic Games. It’s got all the facilities, and it’s super convenient. There is no other place that allows us this space size in this part of Singapore.”

In the event that there are such key events on the same scale as the IMF-World Bank meetings, Tan says City Harvest will exercise flexibility and vacate the space for such clients. “We are now part-owners,” he explains. “It benefits us too.” Tan points out that although City Harvest will use the space for its services, the building is still a commercial entity, and technically not a “church building”. “The church will lease the space to use for our services,” explains Tan. “The difference is that we are also co-owners of this building.”

For Chew Eng Han, who was tasked in 2005 to be the key person on the ground to find out what was available, and to speak to consultants and banks, the success of this partnership with Suntec Singapore is a triumph. “I feel fulfilled,” he declares.

The search was far from an easy one. “It required a lot of wisdom,” says Chew. “We needed the right location, central yet big enough, yet it could not be too costly, and it had to earn income, too. At the time we were looking, between 2005 and 2008, construction costs were escalating. When the crash came, property prices came down, but finding a partner became a challenge.”

Suntec Singapore was negotiated at the right time, and agreed upon at the right price, says Chew.

“It’s the best location because it’s already in existence. Although it may have been around for a number of years, the building is continually being refurbished and in good shape. Since we are not buying a new plot of land, we don’t have the risk of escalating costs—building costs fluctuate. The space is great: it totals over 1 million square feet, the hall is big enough, there are more than 30 meeting rooms and we have access to the Gallery space, and also the 600-seat Theatre on weekends.”

“It’s an ideal location for City Harvest, really—but at a much lower price than its original cost.” Suntec Singapore was originally built for a price of S$650 million in the early 1990s.

The best news for the burgeoning congregation may be the fact that with the space already built and available, CHC targets to move in by the end of the first quarter of 2011, once its lease at the Singapore Expo expires.

CN PHOTO: MICHAEL CHAN

For some, the announcement brought tears of joy. For others, the location was a complete surprise (See box story: What The Members Say).

Kong’s wife, singer Sun Ho, flew back to celebrate the announcement together with the church. Moments after the announcement, she tells City News: “I’m standing in a historical moment when miracles have just happened. God has done it again. My heart is overwhelmed, because this is something in which not just Kong and I, but the whole church have sown, labored, prayed, believed and claimed for, for so long. This is the time, this is the moment—we sowed in tears, and now we are really reaping in joy. Above the location, my heart is just so full of gratitude that we are able to build this house for God, for His glory. I’m grateful I can be a part of it.”

The church will fund the S$310 million through freewill donations from churchgoers. The church building fund, Arise & Build, is into its fifth round, with a target of S$17.3 million. There are eight more Arise & Build campaigns planned.

Further information on the design and details of the Suntec Singapore location will be released in the coming weeks.

What The Members Say

“I live in the Northeast, so I’m very happy especially since the Circle Line is opening. Everybody knows where Suntec is. It’s a very exciting move for the church!”
Khoo Lili, banker, in her 30s

“I never thought it could be such an awesome place. It’s at the center of Singapore—Formula One, Youth Olympic Games are all held there.”
Jason Jiang, pre-enlistee, 18

“I didn’t expect it, I thought it would be Marina Barrage. It’s exciting for the usher ministry—but greater challenges will come because of the bigger crowd. We’ll need more ushers to rise up for leadership and more members to join usher ministry.”
Ng Yoong Tian, engineer and usher team leader, 27

“The location is great as it brings in revenue for the church without the opportunity time cost. It really is a God-given idea.”
Kenneth Lee, IT director, 40

“Very excited to see such a big place and looking forward to having more quality and longer fellowship with my cell group members.”
Ang Xin Yee, secondary school student, 13

“I came specially for Service 1 though I was supposed to go back to JB. I teared when I heard the news and I can’t wait to worship at our new location.”
Lin Yilan, retiree, 60

“Mind-blowing! Totally unexpected! I believe this is the start of greater things with God bringing us to the next level. It is truly an honor and privilege to be part of history in the making.”
Ee Jia Ying, NUS undergraduate, 21

“I think God is amazing. All these years we’ve been giving and we didn’t even know where it would be! Upon hearing the news, all I can say is that God is indeed faithful!”
Rachel Lim, AIA financial services consultant, 26

Similar Posts:

None Found

Share and Enjoy:

Comments

222 Responses to “CHC’s New Home: Suntec Convention Centre”

Paul Silas on March 8th, 2010 8:15 am

Wow! SUNTEC SINGAPORE!

This is the best possible outcome we can expect to have a church in the marketplace, for the marketplace, to penetrate the marketplace.

Really excited at what God has done for us again.

Kudos to the Building Committee and Board who have brokered this deal for us!

This is wise financial management as this is a sustainable and prudent approach for the long run. The best part is, we can look forward to living something for our posterity, to enable them to do even greater things.

Thank you Pastor Kong for your faith and vision and credit goes to all the members who have given their best. Truly, God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. Let’s believe God for a tremendous harvest!

No matter what critics may say, my family and I are simply thrilled by the news. Looking forward to March 2011!

Suntec, here we come!
danieljx on March 8th, 2010 8:25 am

Dear Pastor,

Thank you for your faith & vision. I feel so proud to be part of this church and the vision that God has given to this house.

Through wise planning and projection, the. leadership and the building committee has steered the church in the right direction with the co-ownership of Suntec Convention Centre. Once again, God has given us a breakthrough that is ‘exceedingly, abundantly, above all that we could ask or think.’ Suntec Convention Centre, given its world-class facilities and island-wide accessibility, is the ideal location to house our growing congregation.

Moving from the lease-only model (Expo) to a long term ownership-lease model (Suntec) is fantastic! With this sound economics, we become good stewards of the contribution of the church members. Looking back at the years of faithful prayers & sacrificial giving of the people, one can only stand in awe and say: God is faithful.

At the end of the day, my heart is filled with gratitude and thanksgiving for this faith journey of searching for our building. Many tears, sweat, prayers and sacrifices have been made. They have made us stronger in our faith, deeper in our dependency on God (to guide us), and united us even closer as a family.

Thank God for our spiritual family in City Harvest, whose love for Him & His house continues to bring glory to His name. I look forward to the next decade in what God can/will do through us, as we continue to yield to Him as a people.
TKH_original on March 8th, 2010 8:30 am

Dear Pastor,

Wow an awesome weekend we had as a church in celebrating God’s goodness and faithfulness over our lives. There is only one word to describe our new place – a miracle.

Thank you for your wise leadership, as well as the management board discernment to come up with such a collaboration that will benefit the church in the long run. I personally felt this is good stewardship of finances that the members had sacrifice.

With such an iconic structure and a central location, I’m looking forward to more amazing miracles that will come our ways…

God bless …

TKH
Ed Unloaded on March 8th, 2010 9:07 am

Pst,

This weekend was definitely the most exciting weekend of my life!
It was truly an exciting moment when we watched the video and the location of the church was announced. My family and friends cheered in celebration and we are happy to be part of this “history-making” event.

Once again, I want to congratulate the church building committee, Sun and yourself for making such an astute choice in getting City Harvest Church as a co-owner of Suntec Singapore. The location is definitely a place beyond our “wildest dreams” and we are thoroughly enjoying it.

With the lack of a decent sized piece of land zoned for religious purposes and the increasing construction costs, the 310 million spent on the shares, renovation and equipment is a prudent investment. Furthermore, with us being a co-owner of the convention centre, and the fact that our rent will be recovered in the form of profits and dividends, we are really making every cent count.

It is with great anticipation that I look forward to entering the hall in March 2011. Personally, I have stepped into other auditoriums before, such as the one at Yoido Full Gospel Church, and nothing “beats” the atmosphere of having one congregation gathering together at one place.

There are many ways to build a church, such as having decentralized locations around the island, but I am glad that City Harvest Church has remained faithful to the vision that God has given us! It is truly different strokes for different folks, but I believe that being faithful to our calling is the most important decision that we can make as a church.

With its central location, and Suntec City being surrounded by 3 MRT stations, I think we have placed City Harvest Church in a truly accessible location, and I am looking forward to see more friends and family members making a trip to our church. If God can come true for us with regards to our building, I am sure that God can help us with our friends and family members as well!

We are all looking forward to the Promise Land!
ED
sarahsom on March 8th, 2010 10:42 am

We’re going to take Suntec City/down town by storm! I feel it, I know it and I’m so glad about it :)

With the accesible location, church’s going to be the second HOME for more (and new!) people to come.

I’m elated – over the roof – and am psyched for greater and bigger things to come.

*sings*
“All around the world we’re singing
Hearts surrender as we stand in awe
Of Your love, of Your love!” :)
Cal on March 8th, 2010 10:57 am

Hi pastor!

Suntec! We are all so happy that it is Suntec!! Truly God is faithful!
Pastor, thank you for holding to the vision that God gave! finally it has come to pass! :)
evangeline.gabrielle on March 8th, 2010 11:01 am

Pastor,

You are really the forefather of this race.

Because of your vision, we now instead of having a building that penetrate the marketplace, but we have the building the own the marketplace.

Though my parents aren’t saved, but when they heard of the news, unlike when I first came church (when they persecuted my sister and I for giving into tithe and offering and many times I kept a secret about the building fund that I has been giving since 2005), they actually allowed me to give and they know about it.

And this year, my sister also trying her best to give out of her little amount of allowance.

We are so excited for this building that we are shifting in 2011.

Pastor, you and Sun are really people who inspired us to believe and trust God for all the promises He has gave.

Running into the Promise Land together with God and CHC!
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 11:15 am

I got something to say can?
zounds on March 8th, 2010 1:27 pm

hi pastor, i am just really happy we got such a prime location and one on a more sustainable financial model too. God is truly amaaaaazing. its almost too good to be true :)

am quite curious as to things like the rental arrangements though, and how much we ‘ll be paying for the lease in suntec. i guess we’ll find out in good time.

as for mr. hokkien peng/michaellow, your comments are rude and repulsive. you are entitled to your opinion, and say whatever you must but at least be courteous about it. your comments are probably defamatory even.
terencelee on March 8th, 2010 1:34 pm

@zounds: Is it because he sounds like an uneducated hokkien peng? So you are repulsed by that?
JustMe on March 8th, 2010 1:56 pm

@terencelee: I can’t speak for zounds but I am reulsed by michaellow’s lack of common courtesy. Using Pastor Kong’s blog as a platform to sound his own so-called pov and ideas. It is rude, to say the least, compounded by the fact that he refuses to properly give the man of God due respect. What say you?
JustMe on March 8th, 2010 1:58 pm

On the more proper topic, as a CHC member I am totally pumped by the thought of using the Convention Centre as our worship location. Kudos to the Board and Building Committee for their years of hard work and search. What a great breakthrough it is for all of us!!!
terencelee on March 8th, 2010 2:00 pm

@JustMe: i just think he’s great satire. lol.
rainbow_rice on March 8th, 2010 2:53 pm

Hi Pst Kong!

I can’t wait to move into Suntec! It’s been a long journey, and we’ve finally came to the ‘Promised Land’!

Pst, thank you so much for being committed to the vision, even though it was really not easy. Your courage and boldness to pursue this God-given dream inspires me so much. And for our building committee, thank you for all the hard work and determination the last few years. Thanks for standing at the forefront to represent our church. But above all, I really thank God for His divine guidance and direction to all of you. Truly with God, all things are possible!

I’m also very glad to know we’re now co-owners of Suntec! That means in the long run, we will have more funds to help those in need in our society, do more in our overseas missions, and disaster relief work. And moving into an existing place will definitely save so much more than building from scratch. It’s really good to know the leadership uses our money wisely, by maximising every dollar given.

I’m really looking for to 2011! Believing for a breakthrough as we move into Suntec next year! Dreams can come true when we are willing to believe!
simonteoh on March 8th, 2010 3:09 pm

Pastor,

I’m really excited about the new location from the 3 points you had mentioned: size, location and facilities. This will indeed be a good launch pad to reach out to the market place.

However, I cannot say the same for economics of the price that we’re committed to, as there’s no disclosure on how much of the $310m is going to buying the shares, what percentage stake we’re buying (and thus the share of profits after paying back the loans that the consortium has taken up to own 80% of suntec), the cost of the lease for the areas that CHC is taking up over 78 years, renovation and moving costs, etc.

I pray that the team responsible for negotiating the contract, will renegotiate a release from the non disclosure clauses so that we, the church members, have access to information about how our money is being spent.

$310m is a large sum of money that God is entrusting us collectively as stewards so please allow us to exercise our responsibility to Him.

Thank you.
terencelee on March 8th, 2010 3:17 pm

From an anonymous source:

“ARA Harmony Fund (the “Fund”) owns 100% of Suntec Singapore International Exhibition and Convention Centre (”Suntec Convention Centre). In September 2009, the Fund paid S$235million and bought over Suntec Convention Centre (source: http://www.ara-asia.com/Document_Library/newsLetter/01-Oct-0908-10-43_PressRelease-HarmonyFund.pdf).

The Fund is 20% held by Suntec REIT and 80% owned by a consortium company (”Consortium Co”)

Consortium Co’s investment in Suntec Convention Centre, in terms of monetary value is therefore = 80% x S$235m = $S190.4m.

In order that City Harvest Church could fulfil the dream of owning (or rather, co-owning) a 12,000-seater auditorium, the church leadership agreed to pay S$310m to acquire a “substantial” share in Consortium Co.

The profit gained by Consortium Co out of the deal is more at least S$119.4m (S$310m minus S$190.4m) – and that is assuming that Consortium Co sold 100% of its shares to City Harvest, which isn’t the case. Assuming City Harvest bought 50% of shares in Consortium Co, the profit for Consortium Co (or the premium paid by City Harvest) would be: $310m – (50% X $190.4m) = S$214.8m. But how much is the actual premium born by City Harvest, we may never know, because of the non-disclosure agreement that forbids the church leadership from disclosing the relevant information.

A very good deal for Consortium Co indeed. Hope it is not a bad deal for City Harvest.”

Does it make sense?
TKH_original on March 8th, 2010 3:46 pm

Dear Terence,

You calculation is based on too many assumptions, which therefore can only be considered as a personal point of view.

Again, the whole issue here is trust and the soverignity of God. If God is indeed a living God and is watching over His church, He is able to do the below is the church is in error:
1) correct the church and bring it back to the right path for HIs Name’s sake,
2) judge the church, and make it a public display of His soverignity.

As such the question to ask is: do we trust in the leadership God has placed in CHC? Is there any reason to doubt by looking at the track-record of the church’s history?

The bottomline is if you don’t trust the leadership that God has placed, then you should not give at all to the $310 million for this new sanctuary. And if you don’t want to give to this building, it is pointless to judge or speculate any “conspiracy theory”. (I am not saying you are doing that in your post, just as a general statement.)

For me, giving to building fund is more than raising the money for a great worships venue. It is about faith in a good God, the attitude to sacrifice oneself for a great vision, and a cheerful & grateful heart in the privilege of part of God’s miraculous work!

God bless!

TKH
TKH_original on March 8th, 2010 3:47 pm

To michaellow,

Again I think you are in the wrong discussion group. Maybe you can direct your query to the church office for clarification?

God bless …

TKH
terencelee on March 8th, 2010 3:54 pm

@TKH:

These are not my calculations. Oh so you are assuming I don’t “trust” the leadership? I hope you are not “speculating” about me (again).

As for whether the calculations are speculative, I don’t think they are exact, but I think it underscores just how much we do not know about the dealings.

That is all I have to say.
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 4:37 pm

I got say something can??
abeoo on March 8th, 2010 4:37 pm

Pastor,
Awesome! What a Great and Awesome God we serve!
May CHC influence Singapore in a greater level through this new location. Harvest is going to be plentiful!

I am simply excited!
Love from Exodus Cochin.

Ps. Abe Thomas Oommen.
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 4:42 pm

Ahh just me ahhh?
You also say in my pov and ideas? This one is no more just pov oK? Is about honoring copyright OK, you can read my answer to zounds last paragraph can.

I donch give your Ps Kong due respect? What that means ahhh? Can explain to this hokkienpeng? Is it you want me kiss the ground where his shadow got fall on top? You want me address him “dearest Ps Kong” or “ps Kong, esteemed and highly favoured one?” Sorry lah, he is not my pastor can? He just another forgiven sinner who can still also fall into sin like any one of us.

THK ahhh..
still trying same trick ahh? If cannot deny, then distract? So hard to put one line of clarification here mehh? If print on Internet, then sure must print on internet. The deed that is done in the light, we cannot cover with the darkness tio boh?
TKH_original on March 8th, 2010 5:27 pm

Dear michaellow,

I think it is unncessary to reply you, as it is a irrelevant post. Maybe when you make sense, then I will attempt to reply you.

God bless.

TKH
j0a on March 8th, 2010 5:34 pm

to ■michaellowisback…. whatever u say is tio nothing but tio… pls bear in mind that this represent your imagine (tio boh)?? if this is the way you repect others, I can see how you are being repect (tio boh)??

God loves those who dwell in Him.. If you love God, you wont speak or comment such rude and nusty comments here.. Be it if its copyright.. I believe you do copy homework from your friends before (tio boh)??? All these can link n goes on and on…

So why not say a liitle lesser… There are others reader reading this blog.. If you really got any qns please feel free to call up the church office for all your answers as what TKH had suggest..

Thank you…
j0a on March 8th, 2010 5:37 pm

and lastly ■michaellowisback if you have been reading the bible, the bible did say Judge not.. (tio boh)??? So stop judging others now or you will be judge by God…

God Bless You
TKH_original on March 8th, 2010 5:37 pm

Dear terence,

Whether do you trust the leadrship or not, I think the readers can decide for themselves based on your posts. I don’t think I am here to cast my judgement and that’s why I qualify by saying that I am making a general statement.

The fact is that we don’t know about the exact terms of conditions due to the agreement of non-disclosure between both parties. That’s why the issue is trust: do we trust that CHC management board members are good stewards of God’s money? Again the bottomline is that if one do not trust, then one should not give. And if the financial seed is sown, in must be sown in faith in God, as well as the leadership He has appointed.

God bless.

TKH
terencelee on March 8th, 2010 5:55 pm

Funny, you claim you’re not passing judgment and yet you’re suggesting to the other readers to judge for themselves.
melvinchen on March 8th, 2010 6:52 pm

terencelee,

I second TKH’s suggestion that if you do not fully trust the leadership, it is best that you not contribute to the building…

As for whether it is a ‘good deal’ for the consortium company, I can only say that the church leadership is made up of highly experienced people. Most the board members are highly experienced volunteers who have decades of corporate, investment and financial experience. They also would have sought advice from legal counsels and external parties and will not make naive decisions that are not to our benefit.

As for the details of how many % of the fund we hold – the Joint Venture fund being a private fund does not allow public disclosure of its investors and % of holdings. CHC has to be fair to its other co-owners who abide by this.

For a hall with a capacity of 12,000 at a central location and all other amenities and facilities, $310m for the long-term rights of use to this place is already worth its while.
melvinchen on March 8th, 2010 7:10 pm

hi simonteoh….

I do not speak for him, but I think if Pastor Kong can, he would definitely want to share the details and how the sums work out….but there’s a non-disclosure as the Joint Venture is a private fund, the details of the % holding and the other investors are all private and we have to respect that to the interest of other parties.

As for how the economics work out, I think like what Pastor mentioned, it would be cost saving for us over the long term, with investment returns and guaranteed use of the halls.

With over 20 years of never failing the church with what he promised, I think we can reasonably trust that this means that the lease and other costs of use will never be more than the returns – if not, it will be meaningless to be a significant stakeholder with $310m on the table and we still have to fork out more on rent/least to others… it won’t make sense… The point of co-ownership is that we won’t have to pay more rent/lease to others.

I hope that sounds logical and reasonable?
danieljx on March 8th, 2010 7:52 pm

dear michaellowisback

it’s obvious what you are trying to do here. I love you as a fellow brother regardless of your language (whether satirical or not). Nevertheless, this is not the place to display such misbehavior – and you know it too.
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 9:35 pm

Dear TKH_original ahhhh

You got say “I think it is unncessary to reply you, as it is a irrelevant post. Maybe when you make sense, then I will attempt to reply you.” Ehhehehehehe, so you are the original TKH ahhh? Still got same kumpooi manual, same tactics when cannot answer. So when you answer you got excuse to say is relevant. And when you got stuck, cannot give answer then you say post is irrelevant, my England not powderful and plenty got other excuse oso. Leopard cannot change spots, Ethiopian cannot change color and TKH cannot change tactics. Ehhehehehehehe
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 9:38 pm

Dear danieljx
So your devotees got tell me cannot judge others but you can judge me with misbehaviour or donch know what other thing ‘obvious’ like you say? No matter to me.

But I oni ask one simple question. Why is your PS Kong’s daily devotion article “secure in yourself” same as article on page 1258 of Leadership Bible edited by Sid Buzzell. Why so difficult to answer one? This one you call misbehaviour, I call search for truth, incontrovertible (how my Englander oso got sometime powderful tio boh?:)) truth.

Actually I got love your members and your pastors as brothers-in-Christ but oso as forgiven sinners not yet perfect. But oso I love God and his truth even more. Hope you got can see the difference.
michaellowisback_mUm on March 8th, 2010 10:43 pm

Ah boy ahhh, lu forget eat medicine liao…
simonteoh on March 8th, 2010 10:52 pm

Dear Melvin and TKH,

First and foremost, I’m not implying any impropriety here. If you read my post properly, you will note that what I’m asking for as a member to be given the sufficient info about the deal.

The issue I’ve raised is the non disclosure agreement that was entered into. This is wrong. We should never have agreed to that clause. why? Because we are dealing with members’ money.

Let’s remember that every penny we have belongs to the Lord and we are accountable to Him for how we spend it. That includes giving to christian activities. We cannot give the excuse that “God, it is not our responsibility cause it is the church leadership’s”. We must individually and collectively ensure that there are checks and controls in place. As the saying goes: absolute power corrupts.

It is best practice in churches that major expenditure and annual budgets are subject to approval from its members. In this case, how can members or executive members make a decision if salient details are not provided? How would outsiders view the church with its lack of accountability and disclosure?

Best practice link: http://www.ecfa.org/PDF/BestPractices-Churches.pdf

Here’s some food for thought: when I mentioned this issue on a no name basis to my friends in malaysia, the comment i got was “what’s new, the malaysian govt is corrupt and has no transparency”. Is this what you want non christians to view the church?

Another saying is “it is important for leaders to do what is right. It is even more important that leaders are SEEN to be doing what is right”.

Let’s read what the Word of God says :

2 Corinthians 8:20-21 (NIV): “We want to avoid any criticism of the way we administer this liberal gift. For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.”

Or, as the New American Standard puts it in verses 20 and 21, “taking precaution that no one should discredit us in our administration of this generous gift, for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.”

There are enough examples worldwide where the “road to hell was paved with good intentions”. There are so many Christian leaders who ended up with poor investment decisions or worse, abusing public trust. Just google and see the recent problems in Calvary Church KL. Once one of the richest and largest church in KL is not beset with a court case by its members over lack of disclosure and transparency over the building and mission fund.

So, the leadership has failed us by signing the non disclosure terms. This can be rectified. We are not a private fund, but a public faith organisation. We do not have to disclose who the other investors are, but what our stake is, the projected IRR, cost of lease p.a., level of leverage, cost of renovation and moving, etc. Think hard, are these all within the purview of the consortium or the members of the church administering God’s resources as given to us?

simon

BTW, the 310 million includes prepaying rental (but no disclosure over the number of years), lease deposit, and renovation and moving expenses.
j0a on March 8th, 2010 10:54 pm

■michaellowisback

I trust my Pastor and I believe that he used the sentence for a reason., My Pastor always share the book he read and what God had spoke to him through that statement.. The original writer got no issue on it, I dont see any issue for u to create one over here… Everyone in church loves Pastor Kong and run after God’s vision with him as one… He share with all of us on the books that he read and the revelation he receives after reading..

No one want here is to judge, we are here to speak up for our Pastor, we trust our Pastor.. If you are being send by the devil to destroy all our FAITH… I am sorry to say that, we are strong… We are not easy destroy by you..

May God give you the peace in all things that you do..
Bible say that God has not given us spirit of fear but of love and of sound mind…

We love you for who you are and accept what you comment here…

God bless you..
j0a on March 8th, 2010 11:01 pm

Dear ■simonteoh,

Our church goes through ISO audit. So every cent that is being used are transparent. If you be more patient, I believe it will be share with you soon. That the reason why there is an executive meeting being held to discuss on it.

The non disclosure agreement was sign as an agreement for a reason. The committee are not allow to disclose the location to public till everything is finalise.

If you have any qns on this, you may want to call up the office for clarification. Like what TKH share, if you have doubt that dont sow.. This is a free-will donation.. No one is being forced..

God Bless You.
Ron on March 8th, 2010 11:19 pm

@michaellowisback

Irespect all that are sharing your views in this blog. You might have your facts right and did some research, however I am total shocked by how u can address Pst Kong as … ahhh Mr Kong eh…in some of your comment eh Ahhh Kong????

In 2 kings 2: 23 – 25 Elisha was disrespectfully called by a group of 42 youth as baldhead. In the end they were mauled by 2 bears that came from the woods. So you can imagine even God respect those who are His anointed.

You mentioned that Pst Kong is not your pastor, means anyone that is not your pastor , u will call them eh… ah … ??? So if God is standing before you, you will call him eh ah God ahhh … ?? Is that really the right way to address God’s anointed? Let’s take eg if President Nathan is here, will you address him as eh .. Ah Nathan ahhhh? What will happen if you do that , straight away you will be taken away by the police. If your children anyhow address you as lau eh, or lau ah pek, do you seriously think they respect you?

This is not a matter of whether your “England” is good/bad or you are a hokkien person. The principle is about respecting people and addressing them correctly. I do not think that you need to address Pastor Kong as Dear Pastor Kong if you dont wish to, just a normal greet Pastor Kong will do.

I’ve seen quite a number of times of what you had comment , to be frank , your loose of words to address pastor really turns me off from reading what you wrote. No matter how good you wrote or what are the facts that stated. Your loose of respect will cancel all that were being written.

I am not here to rub in any fire, however I believe there ’s a need to address this in love. I am not against you, but just like how you want to share with people of your view, I need to address this as well.

Once again, I thank you for taking your time to do the research and to share your views.

In christ,
Ron
jinglebelle9 on March 8th, 2010 11:23 pm

@terence I refer to your original post. $310 million is not the full sum for buying of shares, it includes rental, renovation, shifting, refundable deposit, etc. So the calculations are not accurate if you mean it as $310 million is for just the buying of the shares. :) Could you please reveal the source that you quoted from? I am very interested to know where did you get such writing from :)

@simon Signing a non-disclosure to secure the building is probably more important than waiting and waiting and raising funds to an indefinite future, especially for the members who have been anticipating for years to secure a place of our own :) I trust the church board that it has already been deliberated and the pros and cons have been weighed before coming to such a decision. Like what joa says, maybe in due time we would know. :)

Anyhow, I am so excited for us to move in! Suntec is truly a dream place! Pastor, I am always running with you. Your leadership has yet to let me down.. I am so privileged to be part of this great church!

God bless all! :)
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 11:35 pm

Dear ron ahhhh, point taken, you alredy sure got notice, I no more use the word Ah Kong ahhh OK? You must oso not forget he not my pastor so how I can call him Pastor Kong? Is logical tio boh? You got notice in newspapers they got call him Ps Kong or dr Kong? You got notice I know call him Mr Kong, that oso cannot ahhh? You prefer I call him brother Kong? I oso got call him your Ps Kong, that one OK?

Is ok you can idolize him but donch forget he is another forgiven sinner who can also succumb to devil’s temptations. You donch believe me? You go google can see how many pastors’ scandal even when got members say they are God’s anointed. You got hear Ps Mike Guglielmucci of Planetshakers. Anointed pastor, sing good can make people cry. But for two years got tell lie say he got cancer until got exposed. Some more news link say he is porn addict. See link here http://blog.beliefnet.com/gospelsoundcheck/2008/08/planetshakers_michael_guglielm_comments.html . So how? I not say your pastor is like that but is better to remmeber they all human and imperfect. I only worship God to be the perfect one, all others is forgiven sinners who oso can fall to sin again
davidngutg on March 8th, 2010 11:36 pm

When I heard Suntec Convention Centre as the new home to CHC, all I can say is glory to the Lord!

This is the best possible outcome we can expect to have a church in the marketplace, for the marketplace, to penetrate the marketplace.

I’m so excited at what God has done to CHC. Congratulation and well done to the Building Committee and Board! Well done to all the members who have sacrificed for the Lord. Because of their passion, CHC can experience this great miracle. But the credit shall be Pastor Kong! Because of your faith and vision, everyone in CHC can experience this wonderful grace from God.

Thank you so much Pastor Kong and may God bless CHC!
michaellowisback on March 8th, 2010 11:38 pm

Joa
You say your pastor Kong got use a sentence? Oni a sentence? How can you got fudge the issue one? Is a whole article word-for-word OK? Oni thing change is the article title OK? In thomas faith article, first two whole two paragraphs got copied OK.

How you know original writer got no issue with it? Maybe he donch know? This one is Pharisee legalism thinking one. If copying with crediting original source is wrong means is wrong, even if original write donch know OK. Man of God will fear God above all and so will surely not got take liberties with copyright law. Man of God who fear God will always give credit to others’ work because cannot rob God of glory in any way. In college, if this one found out is straight dismissal you know? You not yet time to go college is it so you donch got know this?

You got read your own CHC SOT rules and regulations? “In SOT, we strongly embrace the biblical virtues of integrity and honesty. Any student caught lying, cheating, …. will face immediate expulsion. (SOT dismissed 4 students in 2006.) How students cheat ahhh? One way is to copy others work like from internet and pass as their own tio boh? Like your own member simonteoh got say “it is important for leaders to do what is right. It is even more important that leaders are SEEN to be doing what is right”.

Yes God oso did not give me a spirit of fear so I can ask even megachurch pastor why he change title of article? Why he never credit original article in his daily devotion article. Some more is whole article word for word. Have spirit of sound mind which is why I got examine and discern what your pastor is doing is whether got in line with godly practice or not. Ultimately I oni can say people is destroyed by own folly when they donch got build their house on rock but build on sinking sand.

You speak for your pastor but I got speak up for the God of all truth can? Infringement of copyright is in line with truth si boh?
jamestan on March 8th, 2010 11:45 pm

Pastor, I’m so excited abt our moving to Suntec Singapore… it’s definitely the ideal place for us to be ‘in the marketplace, for the marketplace, and to penetrate the marketplace’. I’m sure after we move in in March 2011, 12 months frm now. We can be able to do more things for the Kingdom of God…. let’s take the central area by storm…
Ron on March 8th, 2010 11:52 pm

Dear michaellowisback,

Appreciated that you had noted the point. Again you do not need to address Pst Kong if you do not like it. however pls no ahhh .. eehhhh, I had given examples above that needless to state here.

Also I do not “idolize” or even worship him. I just honoring God’s anointed and doing what the Bible says.

You need not send me links about how other Pastors did , I known and seen before. I believed that if any of them has got secret sin or agenda, there will be time that God will dealt with them directly, need not anyone to step in. In my years as a christian, there are some pastors that I do not agree with their teachings, however I know that I will need to respect them as a person, as they are God’s anointed.

Hope the above clarifies.

May the love of God fills everyone and that’s including you =)

Good night

In christ,
Ron
melvinchen on March 8th, 2010 11:54 pm

Hi simonteoh,

Understand…,your questions are valid and you certainly did not imply any impropriety, rest assured, we do not doubt your motive.

I’m just as curoius as you are on all the facts and figures, but I think we have to manage our expectations on this. Its unlikely the figures can be revealed.

I’m not implying we should just ‘trust our leaders’ blindly, but there’s track record to back this up.

I don’t think the leadership failed us in the sense of signing the non-disclosure, but would you rather the project not go ahead because we refuse to sign a non-disclosure ?

I think we have to understand the fact that when CHC goes in as stakeholder, people in the outside world view us just like any other shareholder. Just because we’re a church, they’re not going to give us any preferential treatment.

What concerns us truely, as church members is that we are assured our permanent worship location, at a reasonable price, at the best possible location. And that’s the purpose of this entire project.

The details of the stake we hold, etc. are not as relevant, as long as we continue to have the rights to the worship location and co-ownership of the place.

Like I said, $310m for a permanent 12,000 seater hall at this location itself is already a miracle. Any returns of investment is an added bonus and not the primary interest – therefore the stake we hold etc. is not as relevant and I don’t see the need why the board should fight for a release from non-disclosure.

I’m sure the board, in the hands of very experienced people, adviced by the best from the legal sector, will ensure our rights as a church are taken care of.
albert on March 9th, 2010 12:13 am

Praise God for CHC :) I am so privileged to be a part of this great move of God to bring His Word to the lost world
stargazing28 on March 9th, 2010 12:23 am

Dear Terence Lee

Would like to emphasize what some of the people have said, that the $310 million does not include solely the price that we paid to acquire the shares. if $310 million is only used to buy the shares, then actually some of us would be able to work backwards and find out the percentage of shares we have bought into the consortium.

Jinglebelle has stated that this money include the shifting cost, furnishing etc. i think you can send your request to CHC office to get the exact details.
terencelee on March 9th, 2010 12:35 am

@Stargazing28: better yet, I’m going to suggest that the church release these details online for all to see, which I’m sure they’re actually going to do so. Many are asking these questions without vocalising it. How exactly is the $310 million being spent? What is the breakdown? I’m sure many of us are asking this.
terencelee on March 9th, 2010 12:43 am

Then again, with the non-disclosure agreement, this may present a serious problem when it comes to accounting to members. This is because the more details are revealed about expenses, the more one is able to work out the percentage of shares we actually hold. This actually renders the non-disclosure agreement useless.

As such, I totally sympathise with simonteoh’s concerns, and understand where he is coming from. I hope we won’t have to choose between maintaining non-disclosure and sacrificing on transparency. Let’s hope something can be worked out.
Phylanthropist on March 9th, 2010 12:51 am

Congratulations to CHC! God has done it again!

Just as it was in the day of Christ, there will be those who who Paul speaks of in 2 Tim 3:7, those who are “always learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (NKJV). This was the problem with those who thought themselves educated and wise in Jesus’ day. The Scribes and Pharisees always tried to cause doubt on what Christ was doing and never understood the ways of the Kingdom of God.

Lk 12:53
“As Jesus was leaving, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees became hostile and tried to provoke him with many questions. They wanted to trap him into saying something they could use against him.”

It is very clear that many of them are here also trying to act smart in this blog where others are wanting to rejoice as the blessing God has given to CHC. Out of the abundance of the heart ones attitude can be seen through the fruit of ones writing (surely this is obvious to any reader here without pointing out names)!

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that CHC has gotten a great deal with Suntec and met its objectives that were clearly laid out by Pastor Kong in his message and presentation.

In response the the Church spending “$310 million includes the cost of acquiring shares in the consortium, rental costs, renovation costs and others”, even the Director of the well respected Knight Frank Real estate agency was quoted in the Straits Times on Sunday, 7 March saying it was a good deal.

jiayou CHC!
albert on March 9th, 2010 1:02 am

Dear michaellowisback,

Pride is the mother of all sin
guitarwu on March 9th, 2010 1:19 am

Hi Terence,

I think I know where you are coming from.

Because $310 million is a huge sum of money, you just want to know where the money will go to..

But due to the non-disclosure agreement, we will not be able to know anything about it.. It’s too bad..

At the end of the day, I trust the leadership’s decisions and I thank God for the land. =)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.. ^_^
simonteoh on March 9th, 2010 2:53 am

Dear JOa

Free will donation to the building fund or not is irrelevant. We are a public faith organisation that should strive for the utmost transparency for the world to emulate. Do you remember NKF? It was also free will donations. Does that mean it does not have to be accountable to the donors and the non donoting public?

Melvin, Phylanthropist, joa, jinglebell, etc

You all claim it was a good deal. Yes maybe it is and we should thank god for it. But, how do we know? Do you have details that the rest of us don’t? eg could we have secured a 20, 30, 50 year lease without buying the shares? this gives us flexibility to move when we get too big or invest the purchase price in a range of diversified investments and get the same returns? who knows what was deliberated?

But that’s the secondary point. I’m not debating the merits of the deal because I don’t even know what it contains.

The key and foremost point is we must learn the importance of transparency and accountability. The ends does not justify the means. Just because it is a good deal, we cannot say we don’t need to share the pertinent details to the members to get their approval. These are two different things.

(Joa, fyi the executive members in the AGM were also not given these info so your point is irrelevant)

Perhaps I’m not familiar with our church’s constitution and I will get a copy tomorrow. Surely, such a big sum will require, I hope, a fairly large number of members to approve the expenditure.

If the non disclosure is so critical, no one has yet explained why it is and why we could not insist otherwise. If a public listed company were to acquire the shares, and if the acquisition was a material investment, they would have to disclose the details to their shareholders and public. Why? because the money belongs to its shareholders. So, melvin your point about preferential treatment is irrelevant.

Similarly for us. The money belongs to us and we are entitled to know too. It is reasonable that the average man on the street would want to know (otherwise why is ST putting it on page 1?), how would you or I be any different? Remember, the outside world is watching how we christians behave. We should not be afraid of transparency because the truth protects us from any wrongdoing.

Phylanthropist, i’m not sure quoting knights frank is relevant unless he was involved in the deal because there were insufficient facts given for him to make any useful or educated comment. Or was he involved? The article doesn’t say.

Last but not least, how much protection do we have that we have a “permanent” home? Again, no facts have been presented. Do we have a 20, 30, 40, 50 year lease? Do we have majority control over the shares so the other shareholders cannot kick us out? We have no idea.

Reminder: I’m not making any judgement on the deal since we have few data points. Neither is it about trusting or not trusting our leaders. That’s not the point.

The key point is we must have transparency and accountability. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do, it protects impropriety risks, gives a good testimony to others, achieves collective wisdom without risking group think and is consistent with biblical principles
ShineJ on March 9th, 2010 3:16 am

Dear Joa, Albert, Guitar Wu, stargazing28, melvinchen, ron and my fellow bro an sister-in-christ of CHC.

I think we don’t need to argue or reason with the people who don’t agree with our opinion. Everyone have their own thinking and we think differently.

Let them say out their view if not we wouldn’t beable to see and understand what is on their mind. We should learn from Pastor Kong, he had posted things but he never retaliates them or disapprove them from voicing out their unhappiness.

I always believe, given the time for the people, they will understand why someday. God don’t resolve things with verbal or physical violence. So, we shouldn’t do it too.

Agape. (x
ShineJ on March 9th, 2010 3:17 am

many*
simonteoh on March 9th, 2010 3:18 am

Experts say financial transparency, accountability key to church health – by Jeff Brumley Aug 16 2009

Bethel Baptist Institutional Church is spending thousands defending itself from a lawsuit filed by three deacons who say they are worried about the way its leaders spend church money.

The problem, they say, is that the Revs. Rudolph McKissick Sr. and Jr. will not allow them and other congregation members to see how a $22 million loan has been used. Their suit to gain access to those records has been winding its way through Duval County Circuit Court for more than a year.

“We just want to see where the money went,” one of the plaintiffs, William McCormick, said after a court hearing last month.

Whatever the suit’s outcome, the Bethel case is a reminder of how lack of transparency – real or perceived – in church finance can generate everything from headaches to disgruntled parishioners to legal challenges.

But no matter who wins this or any other finance-related legal challenge or criminal case, experts say the fallout will land far beyond the sanctuary walls.

“Search the Internet and you’ll find all too many stories of misuse of funds in churches, and when that happens everyone in the Christian world gets a black eye,” said Dan Busby, president of Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, a Virginia-based ministry that seeks to bring church finances into the light of day.

The McCormicks and other Bethel leaders declined comment for this story, but, as Busby said, the Web is crawling with nightmarish church-money stories:

- In 1989, Jim Bakker was imprisoned after embezzling more than $150 million from his PTL cable network.

- Ellen F. Cooke, former treasurer of the Episcopal Church, admitted in 2006 to embezzling $1.5 million from the denomination.

- The Rev. Henry J. Lyons was ousted as president of the National Baptist Convention in 1999 and spent time behind bars for stealing $4 million from the denomination to help support a mistress and buy luxury homes and jewelry.

- Earlier this year, two Florida priests were sent to prison for stealing hundreds of thousands from a Catholic parish in Delray Beach.

Busby and other experts, including ministers on the First Coast, say prevention is the best medicine and ranges from having church members with bookkeeping know-how examine spending, to having outside CPAs audit all financial records.

Most church financial woes result from honest mistakes in an environment where the laity is often all too trusting of religious leaders who are, in turn, usually untrained and uninterested in administration, said Chuck Zech, professor and director of the Center for the Study of Church Management at Villanova University.

“No man ever became a priest because he wanted to run a small business, which is what a parish is,” Zech said.

‘Good stewards’

Whether run by high-ranking officials or by lay people, most congregations try to head problems off at the pass, local ministers said.

At First Baptist Church in Orange Park, annual budgets are drafted by a finance committee, distributed to all members and then voted on by the congregation during a Sunday morning worship service, Pastor David Tarkington said.

Throughout the year, the pastor and other ministers spend the money in their budgets while the finance committee meets monthly to oversee revenues and expenditures.

Every three months, a church-wide business meeting is held where any church member can ask questions or raise concerns. He said that process is similar in most Southern Baptist churches.

“We do it that way to avoid any appearance of impropriety,” Tarkington said.

Revenue and spending at Catholic parishes are monitored monthly by dioceses and every four years by outside auditors, said Catherine Macina, chief financial officer of the Jacksonville-based Catholic Diocese of St. Augustine.

The diocese’s spending and revenues are examined once a year by an outside auditing firm and every five years by the Vatican, Macina said.

Financial accountability and transparency is an obligation congregations and dioceses owe their parishioners, Macina said.

“We are responsible to the people to show we are being good stewards of their money,” she said.

A business approach

Congregations where temptations and conflicts of interest are minimized usually are in less danger of running into fiscal disasters, Zech said.

A prime model are Jewish and Muslim houses of worship, which he said are usually run like businesses with boards of directors that have ultimate control of the purse strings.

In those situations, clergy can make suggestions on budget priorities, but not set them, said Rabbi Martin Sandberg, spiritual leader of Beth Shalom Congregation in Mandarin.

Synagogues also are dues-based instead of relying on tithes, Sandberg said, making it a little easier to predict annual income and expenditures.

Transparency and accountability are achieved through the annual election of the board, whose regular meetings are open to membership, Sandberg said.

“They can ask questions about any issue they feel like, including finances,” he said.

‘The kingdom suffers’

While the vast majority of church money abuses result from incompetence and lack of diligence, the results are usually devastating on every level imaginable, Busby said.

Most often the damage is immediate and long lasting: Tithing plummets, members quit and a church’s reputation is tarnished. These outcomes are exacerbated if lawsuits or criminal charges result, Busby said.

But the greater tragedy, Busby said, is that an entire religious tradition can be tarnished by a scandal. Many quit the faith altogether, while the issue provides ammunition to critics of organized religion.

Another result is that embezzled, misspent or misplaced money, by definition, isn’t accomplishing whatever ministerial goal or project for which it was meant. So the poor suffer and missions go without much-needed dollars, Busby said.

“The kingdom of God suffers when we don’t practice proper oversight of God’s funds.”
simonteoh on March 9th, 2010 3:22 am

Crisis rocks Calvary Church
By CHARLES FERNANDEZ and STUART MICHAEL Nov 18, 2009

THE Calvary church in Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur, is rocked with controversy over alleged mismanagement of funds.

A group of church members, who call themselves the Truth, Transparency and Good Governance Group (TTG), is demanding for accountability and transparency over the use of church funds from the Calvary Church’s Board of Deacons (BOD) led by senior pastor (SP) Rev. Tan Sri Prince Guneratnam.

A member of the TTG, which is said to be supported by 300 church members, had also lodged a police report over the matter at the Brickfields police station early this year.

The feud between the two groups has now even gone onto cyberspace with both sides trading accusations over various issues.

The disagreement, among others, includes the rising construction costs of the Calvary Convention Centre at Bukit Jalil, alleged transfer of substantial funds from the church into the accounts of a personal ministry headed by the SP without members’ knowledge, poor financial management, claims of nepotism, and the sacking of a well-respected deacon for speaking out.

The spat, which began 19 months ago, was said to be the main cause for the dwindling congregation at the church.

There were attempts by mediators to get both groups to resolve their dispute for the betterment of the church, but it never materialised.

A check with the Registrar of Societies (ROS) revealed that the Calvary Church in Damansara Heights is not registered with the body. However, a ROS spokesman said all church accounts should be made available for scrutiny by church members at all times.

A Council of Churches Malaysia spokesman said the church being a religious body, there was no reason for a spat, as they were all required to follow high ethical standards.

“It’s public money. In this case, the church members have a right to know how their money is being spent. It is a practice for all religious bodies to make available the accounts for scrutiny. Apart from the Catholic Church, there is a retirement age for deacons/pastors. The church cannot have someone on their payroll for life,” said the spokesman when asked to comment on church accounts and retirement age.

The disagreement over the lack of transparency over church funds led to the resignation of Dr Lum Siew Heng, who had been a deacon for 11 years, from the BOD in November last year.

Following this, the TTG wanted the rest of the deacons, including the SP, to emulate Dr Lum and resign so that the church could continue to move forward.

“The SP is the voice of the church; he is the head of the deacons and what he says has a significant influence on the rest of the board of deacons,” said a TTG spokesman.

The TTG claims that while the whole church waits in anticipation for a conclusion to the 19-month saga that has caused much hurt, confusion, strife and division in the church, another threat looms on the horizon: financial disaster can erupt in the event of the failure of the Calvary Convention Centre (CCC) in Bukit Jalil.

The CCC, the TTG claims, has been dogged by controversy right from the beginning. The project was supposed to cost RM50mil, excluding land cost, but this has now ballooned to RM150mil.

Although the project started with much hope for a new beginning for the Calvary Church, work on the project subsequently took a bad turn.

The project, which was scheduled to have been completed by October this year, is now left temporarily abandoned due to the stoppage of work by the main contractor since April this year. Two Sundays ago, the pastors announced that the church had issued a Notice of Default to the main contractor,

“The church commenced the project, knowing right from the start that there were not enough funds to complete it. Despite selling some properties and obtaining a bank loan, the church still has to continue raising a lot of funds to finish this extravagant project.”

The escalation of construction and material costs has added to the financial woes and the congregation are concerned that the church will not be able to raise enough money to pay for the construction.

Questions are also being asked on the RM9mil Calvaryland project, a large welfare home designed for orphans, the homeless and single mothers in Sungei Pelek. The home, which was built to house at least 200 people, is almost empty with only four residents.

When met to get his side of the story pertaining to the claims made by the TTG, Rev. Guneratnam said he was fully aware of the allegations made against him and the BOD.

“Yes, I am aware of all the accusations and I know who those people are. They have even made police reports but this is not the way to solve a church problem. A church problem should be contained within the sanctity of the church and not be made available for public consumption,” Guneratnam said.

Guneratnam said everything was done above board and he had even invited the TTG to sit and discuss the issues for the benefit of the church.

However, a recent effort by two Christian leaders to mediate between the two groups failed because the SP and his deacons could not make it on the agreed date.
TKH_original on March 9th, 2010 7:25 am

Dear Simonteoh,

I understand your concerns but I perceive that you can be over-reacting. I do not say that you are wrong in any areas, as it is good for members of the church to share in the burden and responsibility of the church.

I agree for the need to be transparent and accountability, which I have observed over the years that CHC management board consistently exceed the expectation of the executive (voting) members. I am not sure how long have you been in CHC, but I encouraged you to give yourself some time to get acquanited with the operations of the church.

You said “If a public listed company were to acquire the shares, and if the acquisition was a material investment, they would have to disclose the details to their shareholders and public. Why? because the money belongs to its shareholders … Similarly for us. The money belongs to us and we are entitled to know too. It is reasonable that the average man on the street would want to know, how would you or I be any different? Remember, the outside world is watching how we christians behave. We should not be afraid of transparency because the truth protects us from any wrongdoing.”

Firstly, I want to highlight that the church is not a public listed company, and members who gave to the church do not automatically become shareholders of the church. Shareholders of a listed company have a right to know where their money goes to, because the money is legally theirs and their motivation is for personally profit.

When a believer gives to God, technically the money does not belong to the person anymore. That is why you cannot go to any charity organization and seek to claim back the free will donation you have given. Also when a Christian gave, the motivation is never for personal gain, but out of a love for God and a desire to help to advance the kingdom of God. So you are wrong to say that “the money belongs to us”, if you still claim ownership of the money you have freely given, then you have not really given to God in scriptural sense.

There are laws in Singapore that governed the charitiable organizations, proper accounting procedures and balance & check system. Though it is not perfect, we have seen how our government has taken strict actions in recent times to those who have abused the system. The average Singaporean can always go to the Registery of Soceity to obtain a report of the charitable organization that they wish to know. This to me is transparency and accountability.

Having said that, I am implying that members should give blindly or be ignorance and leave everything to management board. That is why I am stressing the need for one to take a look at CHC’s track record, as well as trust in God. I remembered times when one investment of the church made a loss, and the leadeship took responsibility to make up for the loss out of their own pocket, though this is not required by any law. I saw the efforts made by the leadership in wise budgeting so that today we can give about 20% of our total income to local and overseas mission. (You can check how many churches are doing that.)

As for this new building, it is sometimes new we are embarking, new grounds we are treading. Give the leadership time and you will see the fruits of our labour. From what I know about the leadership of CHC, they would love to share more information (if they can) than members who want to listen.

Also I must say that the examples you have quoted are unnecessary. Maybe if you can find out the make up of our management board, and the strict policies we have put in place, you will know why I say that. Please check with your pastor if in doubt.

God bless.

TKH
Handwritings on March 9th, 2010 8:18 am

@TKH_original:
“Having said that, I am implying that members should give blindly or be ignorance and leave everything to management board. ”

Was that a typo? I hope it is.. if not it could really spell trouble. :)

Anyways, I guess what simon have raised up are valid pointers which many of us, adults, young adults, businessmen and students would like to know more about the way the new CHC-business model would work.

His articles are actually a cautious perspective should a church management be ran wrongly it could end in a disaster. I guess instead of shelving it as unnecessary – we should address and reaffirm the sowers (everyone of us). I don’t think there is anything detrimental or unfair about it.

I believe trusting is also knowing who and what you are believing in.

@TKH_original:
“Maybe if you can find out the make up of our management board, and the strict policies we have put in place, you will know why I say that. Please check with your pastor if in doubt.”

Believe that if these policies and how the how church investment is going to be run are made transparent and public (as much as the church can), more people will at peace and have the confidence and assurance that their money is safe to give.

Hope this helps.
MyNameIsAhuat on March 9th, 2010 8:36 am

City Harvest Church was founded by Rev.Kong Hee.
We came and join CHC. The track record was and still is amazing.
CHC is Rev.Kong Hee’s church.

At each Arise and Build season, we gave to God with a cheerful and grateful heart, into CHC’s hands to do and administer the fund however it deems fit under the direction of the Holy Spirit. What we gave to God is God’s. If we have to give grudgingly with full of mistrust, it will be best we don’t give – God wil reject it.
It a matter of the heart, not the head.

I thank God for CHC. I bless the name of God for the Suntec auditorium. For He is a faithful and just God. He delivers what He promises. In Jesus’ name, Amen,

Thank You Rev. Kong and Yes, Rev.Tan, you were right about the 12000 seater.
MyNameIsAhuat on March 9th, 2010 8:38 am

To Michael Low,

Em Mai Choe Kui hor.
Have peace and leave things to God.
terencelee on March 9th, 2010 11:03 am

Dear TKH,

I think it has become quite clear that there is great interest in the details of the acquisition deal and the controversy surrounding the non-disclosure agreement. There are calls for information to be forthcoming not just within the Executive Members, but even to the church and the public.

It is strange that even during the AGM, as some people have pointed out to me, that insufficient details were revealed about how the $310 million is spent.

I fully support and affirm Simon Teoh’s stand that as a church, we need to be accountable to the public and the members about the way our church operates. Suspicion builds when information is not forthcoming, therefore it is only for the interest of the church and public that we fully reveal details of our operations online.

Asking members to go to their pastor is no longer enough. Given the widespread interest in these issues, we need a more efficient way of releasing information.

Let us not resort to religious cliches like “leave everything to God” or “let God judge” to prove our point. Let us stand for the truth. The Bible says that the human heart is desperately wicked. Let us not be complacent and forget that.
observer on March 9th, 2010 11:15 am

The fact remains that in September 2009, ARA Harmony Fund became the sole owner (holding 100% ownership) of the Suntec Convention Centre at S$235m. And less than six months later, City Harvest had to commit to making a payment of S$310m just to become part-owner of the exact same property.

One party paid $235m and gained FULL ownership of the property. City Harvest paid $310m and got only PART ownership of the same property. On the surface, it does seem like a not-very-good deal City Harvest, doesn’t it?

Surely it is not unreasonable for concerned members, being stakeholders in the church, to want to know more details regarding the deal. No?
terencelee on March 9th, 2010 11:37 am

Disclaimer: In none of my posts am I ever implying that there is no integrity within the church leadership.
observer on March 9th, 2010 11:46 am

The financial health of the church and the management of cash flow are key issues to be addressed.

An organization can appear to be profitable and asset rich on paper, but it can still be in trouble and even be forced into bankruptcy if it were to encounter cash flow problems and become unable to make timely repayments to its employees, suppliers, service providers and other creditors.

This is a real and urgent concern now that City Harvest Church has entered into the Suntec deal. How much and how soon must the S$310m be paid out to the creditor(s)? What are the possible consequences for the church, and what are the remedial action that can be taken by the church should it fail to meet the repayment schedule?

What makes the situation seems even more urgent is the fact that financially speaking, City Harvest Church had been in a deficit position in the past few years, and its cash position had been in decline.

For the 18 months period from 1 Jan 2006 to 30 Jun 2007, the church incurred a loss of S$441,000. For the 16 months period ended 31 Oct 2008, the church incurred a loss of S$967,000.

As at 30 Jun 2007, the bank balance was about S$27m. As at 31 Oct 2008, the bank balance was less than S$5m.

Check the audited financial statements disclosed in the church website for yourself: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/financial_stt.php

The church may show $100m in the building fund on the balance sheet, but if $95m is already tied up in the property-in-development balance or other non-liquid assets, and three is only $5m in cash asset, and the church needs to make a payment of $50m by the end of this year, then it has to find ways to raise another $45m cash within the next 9 to 10 months. Don’t forget, this is on top of ensuring that there would be enough cash to keep the normal operations running.

The on-going operational expenditures, as we know, are not small sums. And we know (based on the financial statements) that the church has been in deficit (i.e. not having enough collections to cover expenditures) over the past few years.

In view of the above, the church members (52% of whom are non-salaried: see church statistics here: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/church_stats_congregation.php#03) should be prepared to be asked by the leadership to contribute even more sacrificially in the years ahead.
melvinchen on March 9th, 2010 11:49 am

hi observer,

once again I re-iterate, like I have responded to you in various forums. $310m include other costs, such as renovating, equipping, moving, leasing costs and other provisions. It does not translate fully to the invested sum.

Therefore it is not true we paid $310m just for part ownership.

In any case, part can be any %, your statement is invalid as you do not know what this ‘part’ means.
observer on March 9th, 2010 12:02 pm

Hi Melvin,

How is my statement invalid? Are you saying that the Straits Times report is wrong to state that, ““City Harvest Church…will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore”?

Correct me if I am wrong, but does not “co-own” mean the same thing as “part ownership”?

I am re-posting my response to your various argument against me in the other forum below:

The first paragraph of the Straits Times report states that “City Harvest Church…will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore”.

You can argue that the consortium may not get the full S$310m from City Harvest, but the church will still be making a payment of S$310m to one or more than one third parties. Regardless, the third parties are the ones who are profit financially from the deal.

The fact remains that in September 2009, ARA Harmony Fund became the sole owner (holding 100% ownership) of the Suntec Convention Centre at S$235m. And less than six months later, City Harvest had to commit to making a payment of S$310m just to become co or part-owner of the exact same property.

I did not assume that City Harvest was in financial losses and was experiencing declining cash balances. Please go through the profit and loss statements, and the balance sheets for yourself.

For the 18 months period from 1 Jan 2006 to 30 Jun 2007, the church incurred a loss of S$441,000. For the 16 months period ended 31 Oct 2008, the church incurred a loss of S$967,000.

As at 30 Jun 2007, the bank balance was about S$27m. As at 31 Oct 2008, the bank balance was less than S$5m.

I did not assume anything. I simply stated what was reflected in the audited financial statements disclosed in the church website. Please read them for yourself: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/financial_stt.php

A loss is a loss. It simply means the total expenses incurred during the financial period exceeded the total revenue collected during the same year, which was the case for City Harvest Church. We cannot argue just because the expenses incurred were for the purpose of charity or mission work, we should not treat the loss as a real loss. It still is.

Also, please don’t confuse funds (under the equity and reserve section in the balance sheet) with cash and bank balances (under the asset section of the balance sheet).

It is the cash and bank balances that determines the paying ability of an entity, not the funds balances. An entity can have a high level of funds, yet be cashless or be in a negative cash position. Please check and clarify with your accountant friends if you don’t understanding what I have written.
observer on March 9th, 2010 12:16 pm

I am reproducing the rest of the exchanges between Melvin and myself in another forum below:

Melvin wrote on March 8, 2010, 2:51pm:
Anyway, no worries, I’m sure you do not have malicious intent. :)

Since you were looking at the financial statements online, you can also compare the very low liabilities vs. the funds and assets of over $160+m.

Do note that these were for periods until Oct 08. More than a year has lapsed and another round of building fund was over, raising over $20m over 6 months.

observer replied on March 8, 2010, 6:35pm:
Granted, the church may have successfully raised $20m over the past 6 months of a year. And I sincerely wish the church (and especially the members) well.

The key issue is the management of cash flow.

If you have accumulated $100m in your building funds on the balance sheet, but have only $5m cash in the bank, and you need to pay $50m by the end of this year, you will have to find ways to raise another $45m cash within the next 9 to 10 months, on top of ensuring you have enough cash to keep the normal operations running.

I reiterate the questions I’ve raised in my previous comment:

“Most importantly, has the church been able to maintain a healthy cash position? An organization can be profitable and asset rich on paper, but it can be forced into bankruptcy if it encounters cash flow problems and is not able to make timely repayments to its employees, suppliers, service providers and other creditors.

This is likely an even more urgent concern now that the church has entered into the Suntec deal. We do not know what the payment terms are like. How much and how soon must the S$310m be paid out? What happens if the church is not able to meet the payment schedule on a timely basis?”

Like I said, I sincerely wish the church and especially the members (over half of whom are non-salaried: see church compiled statistics here: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/church_stats_congregation.php#03) well.

God bless.
melvinchen on March 9th, 2010 12:38 pm

Hi observer,

I think u’re mistaken once again. The building fund we have accumulated is in available cash. The bank balance refers to balances of the general fund, for operating expenses, etc.

Therefore, it is not true when you say we only have $5m and need to raise $45m if we were to pay $50m.

Also, the board is made up of very capable people from the business and financial market, advised by some of the very best legal people. I think they know what they are doing…
observer on March 9th, 2010 12:44 pm

Hi Melvin,

It is very obvious that you are not accounting trained.

Please learn the difference between “reserve/fund” (a credit balance on the balance sheet) and “asset/cash” (a debit balance on the balance sheet) before you accuse me of being mistaken.

Ask any accounting student, accountant, or investment savvy person, and you will understand what I have trying to point out to you.

Peace out.
melvinchen on March 9th, 2010 12:51 pm

Yes, you are right, I’m not accounting trained and do not claim to be, though I know a little here and there…

But I can assure you, everyone in CHC also knows that our building fund is in cash, and after several years, it is about close to $100m. The 5m is just the operating bank balance.
observer on March 9th, 2010 1:07 pm

The statement “substantial stake in a consortium company that owns 80 per cent of a joint venture fund that owns Suntec Singapore” is causing much confusion because of its vagueness.

Let’s break the statement down into smaller bite-size portions, and try to clarify the statement, bite by bite.

“subtantial stake”:
- the public (and most of the members of City Harvest Church) may never know what this actually means, the stake could be anything from 20% to 99%. Only the parties to the deal, and the lawyers who helped draft the agreements would know for sure.

“consortium company”:
- most likely a private investment holding company whose shareholders are private investors. This group of private investors holds 80% of the ARA Harmony Fund. The remaining 20% of the Fund is held by Suntec REIT. (see notes* below)

“joint venture fund”:
- refers to the ARA Harmony Fund established in Sep 2009 (see notes* below).

“Suntec Singapore”
- refers only to the Suntec Singapore International Exhibition and Convention Centre, NOT the entire Suntec City, which comprises several other towers that house shops, restaurants, cinemas, auditoriums and offices

*Further notes on ARA Harmony Fund:
ARA Harmony Fund was established on 30 September 2009 by ARA (a subsidiary of Li Ka Shing’s Cheung Kong Group).

The ARA Harmony Fund is a single asset private real estate fund which owns the Suntec Singapore International Convention & Exhibition Centre. The fund’s investors comprise Suntec REIT, which holds a 20% strategic stake, and certain private financial investors.

For more information on ARA and ARA Harmony Fund, please visit: http://www.ara-asia.com/home/about/Milestone.html
observer on March 9th, 2010 1:21 pm

Melvin,

Let me walk through a simple example to help you understand the difference between fund balance and cash balance.

You set up a company with $100 cash on 1 Jan 2010. Your balance sheet shows the following:

Fund: $100 (credit balance)
Cash: $100 (debit balance)

On 31 Jan 2010, your company bought a desk for $90 and paid by cash. Your balance sheet shows the following:

Fund: $100 (credit balance)
Furniture: $90 (debit balance)
Cash: $10 (debit balance)

On 1 Feb 2010, your company bought a couple of chairs for $50 on credit. Your balance sheet shows the following:

Fund: $100 (credit balance)
Accounts payable: $50 (credit balance)

Furniture: $140 (debit balance)
Cash: $10 (debit balance)

On 31 March 2010, your company borrowed $40 from the bank and make full payment of $50 to the supplier of the chairs. Your balance sheet shows the following:

Fund: $100 (credit balance)
Bank loan: $40 (credit balance)
Furniture: $140 (debit balance)

Therefore, as at 31 March, you have $100 in your company’s fund, but you are totally out of cash, and you owe the bank $40.

I hope the above illustration proves useful in helping you understand what I have been trying to say to you.

Please refrain from accusing others of being wrong or mistaken, if you yourself do not fully understanding what you are talking about.

Peace out.
RK on March 9th, 2010 2:05 pm

Why the church would pay all that money for what is supposed to be worth less? Let us first ask ourselves:

What is the value of that place to City Harvest Church?
How do common people value that location?
If the church revealed that it is paying 1.3x the market rate to obtain part of the building, would that upset any of you?

Are we stakeholders of the church? I don’t think we are. We didn’t buy shares. We’re not doing a business. Do you expect any returns?

Of course, people want to know more about how the money is spent but is that going to be of any real use to any of you? The church can possibly say that they are willing to pay the 1.3x the “market rate” and you will not have more information than what you already have now but you would start by arguing that it is impractical for the church to be paying so much over this place.

As we have been explained to in the presentation and articles on how the place is going to be used, it’s really straightforward that having Suntec is going to be very advantageous for the church. Anyone with a logical mind can reason that we should get the place unless we are hindered by money… which is the root of this discussion.

Yes you can say that it is the responsibility of the church to list a breakdown of the expenses so as to be accountable to members who have been faithfully giving. However, who can promise that when such spendings are revealed, one would not continue to question every little part of it and demanding an explanation for every portion. Why would the church go through all this trouble to account to people who want to be part of everything but not willing to play a part in anything?

Jesus showed us the answer to these trap questions when His authority was questioned. In Matthew 21: 23-27. And you wonder why you don’t get an official reply from the church.
mlranti on March 9th, 2010 2:16 pm

To Observer, I’d just like to share several things:

1. The statement that Straits Times made, “City Harvest Church…will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore” is based on their coverage on the announcements made during service last weekend.

As the first statement in the article, of course it would be worded in a way that it grabs the reader’s attention. Isn’t that one of the basics of journalism?

The paper actually goes on to clarify this statement several sentences later: “The $310 million includes the cost of acquiring shares in the consortium, rental costs, renovation costs and others.”

Pastor Tan also made the same clarification in the City News article, which is reported in this blog post.

Therefore, as Melvin had said, it is not true that CHC paid $310 million just to become part owners. The actual sum used to acquire the % stake in the consortium company is lesser than S$310 million.

2. Due to the non-disclosure agreement, the sum cannot be announced. Personally, I don’t know how long the time period for confidentiality is going to be. Hopefully, not too long, so that we can get some/full disclosure that will surely satisfy a lot of people, including church members and the public.

However, if the time period is long, then honestly the members of CHC have a choice to make:

- Trust that the leadership & board members who have helped make the deal happen have done, and continue to do, the best they can to ensure that the Building Fund given by the members out of their sacrifices is well-managed. Or…

- Demand that disclosure be made to satisfy their need to know that their money is being well-managed. Nevermind that the NDA is still in effect and that the leadership & board members have to abide by that. Or…

- Decide that they can’t trust the leadership to handle their given money and make a change (give less? stop giving? change to a church where they can trust? …)

Personally, I trust the leadership God has placed over CHC. I trust that the money I have given (which is not really my money, but something God has blessed me with and entrusted into my stewardship) will be managed by them wisely, in the fear of God.

Even the fact that we can actually get an existing place downtown that “only” costs us S$310 million, yet able to contain 12000 people every service already shows two things:

a. God is a miracle-working God
b. The leadership wisely decided against other options (over 20 other places, as I recall from the announcement) that could entail erecting a new building and drive up the amount of money we would need to raise.

I understand your concern of wanting to make sure that the Building Fund (and church’s cash flow) is being managed well. I don’t know if you’re a CHC member or not. If you are, then I hope you can come to a place of trust in the leadership God’s placed over your life. If you are not, then I assure you as a member, the leadership is taking good care of us.

God bless,

Mario
melvinchen on March 9th, 2010 2:19 pm

hi observer,

like i said, i’m no expert, but neither am i ignorant.

Since you claim to be such an expert, go figure out yourself which part the building fund is in the financial statement….and do note this has not factored about $20m raise in 2009’s building campaign….you’ll figure out its about close to $100m – in cash.

So its not true that we only have a cash position of $5m.

You’ll also notice that we have very low liabilities. The asset to liability ratio, since you’re such an expert, you can figure out too.
allwinjohnson on March 9th, 2010 2:58 pm

“Suntec Singapore was originally built for a price of S$650 million in the early 1990s” Since CHC has only S$310 million, how come it can buy 80% of shares?
melvinchen on March 9th, 2010 3:05 pm

hi allwinjohnson.

I think there’s a misread somewhere.

CHC has acquried a significant stake in a joint-venture fund, which owns Suntec Convention Centre via a Joint-Venture Company.

The JV company has a whole, owns 80% of the Suntec, while 20% is held by Suntec REIT.

So CHC holds x % of 80% – which is undisclosed due to non-disclosure agreement.

Also, $310m is the entire project cost, including renovating, equipping, rental, leasing, moving costs…..so the invest sum is lesser than $310m.
deif_thong on March 9th, 2010 3:20 pm

Hi, Pastor Kong,

This is one of the greatest news in 2010!
Good job to the committe that made this happen.

I can’t wait to worship in the new premise!
observer on March 9th, 2010 3:21 pm

Hi Mario,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Really appreciate it. I have been hoping to get such measured and reasonable responses, rather than just unthinking rejections and denials of what I’ve written.

Finally, I see one. : )

I agree with you that ultimately it boils down to trust in the church leadership. I believe neither myself nor Terence have been trying to undermine anyone’s trust in the leadership. In fact, if the valid and relevant observations and questions raised by us were to be properly addressed, trust in the leadership’s capability and competence would increase tremendously.

I believe it is unhelpful to harp on the fact that the amount is not just for shares in the consortium that holds 80% of Suntec Convention Centre.

We all know that already. It remains a fact that to co-own the building, City Harvest has committed to making a total payment of $310m.

Those who are familiar with such kinds of deal would know that it is probably all part of a whole package – shares in the consortium, rental costs, renovation costs and others. The counter-party of the deal probably insisted that City Harvest must commit to rent (and possibly make some upfront payment) for certain parts of the Convention Centre, as well as to renovate or to bear the renovation costs for improvements to be made to the facilities. If City Harvest were to agree to only buy a portion of the shares in the consortium, and refuse to commit to pay any rent or to be responsible for the renovation costs of the facilities, there will probably be no deal at all. So, the statement “City Harvest Church will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore” is as factual and as valid as it can be, however one wishes to interpret it. Afterall, wasn’t it Ps Kong himself who said that this is the “legal” or “official” statement on the matter?

Let me try to be helpful and offer some possible suggestions.

To address the concerns regarding the seemingly expensive price tag (when compared to the $235m paid by the Fund just months ago), the leadership may NOT even need to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs and expenses.

What people are really concerned about is whether this course of action (at such a price tag) is better than continuing on the current rental mode. What the people get so far are just mere claims and assertions in words that it is. It would most likely be helpful to see some concrete numbers comparing the financial impact on the church over the next 20, 30 or 70 years under the ownership mode vs the rental mode. Of course there will be assumptions, and these must be stated clearly. When people can see and understand the planning and budgeting process taken by the leadership, they will feel more settled and their confidence in their leaders will be boosted.

Like you said, it could be that the final conclusion would be: City Harvest “only” paid $310m, so it’s really worth it. But for (some of) the people to arrive at such a conclusion, certain things must be done first. Agree?

God bless. : )
observer on March 9th, 2010 3:31 pm

Sorry, I stand corrected, and would like to retract the part where I wrote:

“So, the statement “City Harvest Church will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore” is as factual and as valid as it can be, however one wishes to interpret it. Afterall, wasn’t it Ps Kong himself who said that this is the “legal” or “official” statement on the matter?”

No, it is not true that Ps Kong say that the statement is the “legal” or “official” statement on the matter.

What he did say repeatedly was: “City Harvest is paying $310m to get its own building”, and he also asked the congregation to repeat after him “City Harvest is the co-owner, not sole-owner,of Suntec Convention Centre”.

Sorry for the mistake on my part.
observer on March 9th, 2010 4:00 pm

Melvin wrote:
like i said, i’m no expert, but neither am i ignorant.

Since you claim to be such an expert, go figure out yourself which part the building fund is in the financial statement….and do note this has not factored about $20m raise in 2009’s building campaign….you’ll figure out its about close to $100m – in cash.

So its not true that we only have a cash position of $5m.

Observer’s reply:
Huh? Did I ever claim to be an expert? Please substantiate.

Please don’t treat me as an enemy or a trouble-maker. I am not.

According to the balance sheet as at 30 Oct 2008, the “Building Fund” was approximately $40,630,000, and the “Bank, Cash & Fixed Deposits Balances” was $4,712,000. Please check for yourself: http://www.chc.org.sg/eng/church/financial_stt.php

Again, I wasn’t the one who claim that the church had less than $5m as at 30 Oct 2008. It is the church’s balance sheet one that states so. Please don’t blame me. If you want to blame someone, blame the church accountant or the auditor who audited the financial statements.

Melvin wrote:
You’ll also notice that we have very low liabilities. The asset to liability ratio, since you’re such an expert, you can figure out too.

observer’s reply:

I never questioned the asset to liability ratio, did I?

Please, all I am trying highlight is very simple: cash flow management is crucial. And I only pointed out the fact that the cash balance of the church had decreased by more than $22m – from $27,042,000 as at 30 Jun 2007 to $4,712,000.

I am not making anything up. It’s all in the balance sheet.

Let me try to be helpful and offer a plausible explanation for the huge fluctuation in cash position (and hopefully, as an illustration what will be consider a measured and reasonable response):

Based on the balance sheets, the “Available-for-sale financial assets” balance rose by more than $35m. It appears that the church had used its cash to invest into some kind of shares or bonds or financial assets during the period between 30 June 2007 to 31 Oct 2008. It appears to be a good investment as cash balance decreased by only about $22m, yet “Available-for-sale financial assets” balance rose by more than $35m, hence accounting for the overall improvement in net asset position of the church as at 31 Oct 2008, relative to 30 Jun 2007.

The concern though, is that “Available-for-sale financial assets” is classified under “Non-current asset”, which means that in the event that cash is needed urgently, the “Available-for-sale financial assets” may not be readily convertible into liquid cash for use by the church.

I hope what I’ve written above is useful and helpful to those who are concerned about the matter, in one way or another.

Peace out.
mlranti on March 9th, 2010 4:03 pm

Hi observer,

Thanks for replying back :)

I agree with your statement; it does remain a fact that to co-own the building, City Harvest has committed to making a total payment of $310m. Along with your explanation in the following paragraphs, I can see your point of view and I agree with it.

Regarding your point about the rental mode, whether “ownership-rental mode” with Suntec will be better than “rental mode” with Singapore Expo: I agree that for some, or even a lot of people, a more thorough explanation of the financial calculations/projections
would be very helpful in convincing them that we’re moving in the right direction. However, it might be that due to the NDA, or even just the sensitive nature of subject (CHC using profit and dividends to pay out the rent, as stated by Pastor Tan above), the church has not given this detailed explanation.

As I mentioned before, maybe once the NDA confidentiality period expires, the church can divulge more information along this line. One could always contact the church office and inquire about this; I’m sure the leadership will be happy to help. Perhaps, with a little bit of patience on our side, we’ll get to know more in the following weeks. :)

Either way (more info or not), I trust that we’re moving in the right way. Don’t know about you, but I’m excited for that day when we finally move in 11 months from now :)

God bless,

Mario
TKH_original on March 9th, 2010 4:31 pm

To ■Handwritings on March 9th, 2010 8:18 am

@TKH_original:
“Having said that, I am implying that members should give blindly or be ignorance and leave everything to management board. ”

My apologies … it a typo … it is “should NOT give blindly …”

Thanks for pointing out : )

TKH
Handwritings on March 9th, 2010 5:58 pm

@TKH:

Most welcome :)

Interesting that we are having accounting lessons on the blog! Truly edifying!
j0a on March 9th, 2010 7:38 pm

Dear ■simonteoh,

thank you for reminding me on NKF incident.. are you trying to tell me that I should doubt my faith on CHC? I trust CHC and my Pastor and I am strongly believe and trust the auditors that CHC hired to audit on the accounting… If not why CHC is being certified under ISO? It is not so easy being certified under ISO… I am proud of my church for this.. I do not care what others think and wanna says about CHC and the Arise and Build… If you have doubt then dont pledge and give..

Pastor and the committee just had a meeting on the new building and I believe the money that I am going to give will be in good use.. Cos every cents that I gave, the committee records it and it will be audit through..
michaellowisback_mUm on March 9th, 2010 8:49 pm

Ah boy ahhh… lu forget eat medicine again, tio bo?
Jia on March 9th, 2010 9:14 pm

Pst, thanks for the awesome arrangement! Thank Sun to advise you to make the call. Thank the whole commitee of having such great wisdom to do a co-ownering of the place.

I am glad that im in such a wonderful church, with the smartest group of people around. Indeed God is good and He never fails!

I love you and i love the church! and of course, i love God! Thank you for all that you have done!
michaellowisback_mUm on March 9th, 2010 9:46 pm

All God’s children are celebrating for the new church location….

Obviously devil and evil ones are upset and doubting the finance, leadership of the church…. this is a GOOD sign!

All God’s children, let’s arise and build!
John on March 10th, 2010 12:36 am

simonteoh, observer and terencelee,

i agree with all your calls for openness though I’m afraid that you are in the minority. Most members have such a trust in the leadership that they probably just refuse to even try to understand a little about this whole acquisition.

Many have totally no idea, and probably don’t want to know cos it’s easier not to know. Despite a convenient excuse of non-disclosure, did anyone actually see this clause if there ever was such a clause? Don’t have to reveal the numbers, just show that there is indeed such a clause.

I would have not wanted to contribute here but for an uncalled statement made by Ps Kong during the AGM. And to think so many clapped and cheered when he passed that insult against another church.

Anyway, even without knowing the numbers (the number of shares & how much money to shares, rent and renovation), it is already very alarming to hear terms like “getting its own building” and “co-owners of Suntec” and having a million square feet and 78 years and “ownership-and-lease”.

A rental is a rental. You don’t own the premise, you’re just a tenant to three halls 601 to 603. 12,000 square metres is not 1,000,000 sq ft. Buying shares in Harmony Fund makes you an investor, not an owner. My Singtel shares don’t make me a co-owner of Singtel. I may get a miniscule share (maybe 0.00000001 cents) everytime someone sends an sms if Singtel decides to issue some dividends. My Capitaland shares don’t make me a co-owner of Clarke Quay.

This is not an “ownership-and-lease” deal. It’s nothing more than a fund investment (hope for share-value appreciation or some dividends) and renting some convention space. To call this an “Arise & Build” project is just an excuse to excite people into giving to this “building fund”. Harmony fund it is but not building fund.

Sorry but I have to call a spade a spade. Still, because people trust the leadership, they’d rather not question, not know and just give because it’s the christian thing to do. Not our place to question leaders, they are answerable to God. Look at their track record. Trust the auditors. Trust the auditors? If auditors are all that smart Madoff won’t have made off with US$60B. Do you know who owns Xtron? Does City Harvest Church own Xtron? Do you know who inked the deal with Suntec. The church or Xtron?

I’m not implying any financial mismanagement. Different churches use different tools to accomplish different purposes. My question is do you know and do you think?

Do you know Suntec only just issued a statement to say that “City Harvest Church has a minority participation in the Harmony Fund”. Does that sound like “significant” or “substantial”?

Good luck.
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 2:42 am

Hi John,

While we may not know everything, it is also wrong to assume what you do not know.

It is premature for you to assume that it is not an ownership-and-lease deal, if you or anyone else here for the matter, does not know the mechanism behind the deal.

If Pastor Kong, as Founder and Senior Pastor, can stand on the stage, in front of the media, issue a statement that we co-own Suntec, who are we – without knowledge of the mechanism behind, say that is NOT an ownership-and-lease deal? Remember that this statement is probably vetted by CHC’s legal counsel to be correct.

Therefore your claim that we do not co-own Suntec is invalid, unless proven otherwise or refuted.

If the statement was not true, ARA / Suntec REIT will be the first to refute our co-ownership statement.

You can call a spade a spade – or anything you like, but you cannot presume that just because it is not explained, it must be like you imagined.

Since you have understanding of funds and shares, why didn’t you realise that the ARA Harmony Fund is not like any other? It is different from your buying of shares in the open market or some unit trust fund.

It is a private fund that owns Suntec Convention Centre via Harmony Convention Holdings Pte Ltd. (These are public info from press releases). A stakeholder of the fund, directly translates into a stake of the holdings company, which in-turn translates to a stake of Suntec Singapore. This is obvious.

I am afraid you are only assuming according to your limited understanding, nothing wrong with that, we are are somehow like that.

Nobody knows everything, like what you said, we should all think….and in the process hopefully learn something before we’re too quick to speak and assume.

You mentioned about the AGM. Let me ask you then, are you an Executive member, privileged to attend the AGM. If you are, you should not know that you should not discuss the AGM in public – if there’s anything you feel uncomfortable about, you should always raise it with your leader/pastor.

You said “My question is do you know and do you think?”. Like we so very well know, among our congregation are some very intelligent people, from both the private and civil sectors. There’re lots of lawyers, accountants, CPAs, bankers and other professionals. I think with their professional knowledge, they know enough to decide for themselves.

As for the less informed/educated – what do you expect? Everyone to learn the mechanisms of such transactions, its legal, accounting implications? What do you expect? You can’t say its their fault or their responsibility they do not know … but in CHC, there’re more than enough, in the thousands – professionals who know better to help safeguard the church.

Once again, I think it is foolish of you to declare it is NOT a co-ownership, when you do not even know how it works. Its presumptious.
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 2:47 am

Hi John,

You also mentioned that Suntec released a statement, may I know your source, as I have searched everywhere but couldn’t find. I’m just as curious as you are….

Even if at this point in time, they say its a minority shareholder, it doesn’t mean anything.

Obviously, we have not raise the full sum for the purchase – that’s why we’re still in the building fund campaign, right? Won’t you think there’s a timeline to exercising the option of purchase? So even if at this moment Suntec releases a statement saying we’re a minority shareholder as of now, so what? Isn’t there a possibility there’s an agreed timeline of purchase?

I think you have presumed many things and over-reacted. Like you said….think…..
John on March 10th, 2010 9:12 am

melvinchen

Nothing personal :)
People see only what they what to see.

Anyway you are right in that I may be wrong. on the same token, I may be right and you wrong.

Let time prove itself when we move to Suntec, and see if City Harvest is just a tenant or an owner.

About Suntec’s statement, I’m afraid I can’t prove anything as I was told by a friend I trust. I don’t have time to be a private detective gathering info. As you said, at this point, it doesn’t mean a thing. After all, minority can mean 49% which is not small. But just see the stark difference of words used to describe the same thing. One party uses minority, the other use substantial and significant.

Lawyers, accountants, CPAs, bankers and other professionals is one thing. Maybe many have doubts but choose not to express it in the spirit of being a nice Christian. Nice Christians, professional or not don’t question leadership. It’s just not right.

Like I say – time will tell.
broadviews on March 10th, 2010 9:33 am

TO simon, terence, john etc… While i understand your desire to have transparency and to question whether the church is making the wrong decision or move in this, it’s pointless to cut and paste thousands of other churches who cheated on their members or speculate/debate on SO many terms and how the church spend the money where is this leading to? You want a refund? You want to feel safe because you contributed 1% of the 310 million?

Even if the church disclose everything so what can you do? There will always be differing opinions, you cannot please everyone with a decision. If they have the intention to cheat they will have their ways to mask it, you can’t even tell. If not how do big companies esp in US get away with so many things and get exposed only after many years?

There is a calculated risk in every business decision whether is too much liabilities or not. If you are such an expert in this you should have volunteered your services to the church. It’s the board’s interest to do their best, they sowed alot of their own money into the church too. Their hard earned money is in the building fund as well. If they are land the church into major debt, Pst Kong will be the first to get hit. Who on earth in his right mind will want to end his ministry in shame by mismanaging especially when CHC has come so far?

I have one guaranteed solution for you, and you will have the right answer. Ask God, he will tell you. If you have a good enough relationship with God, he will tell you if CHC is a bad or good church or is cheating, holy spirit will tell you what to do. Instead of spending so much time speculating, you are better off asking God and you get your answer.

If you want to use purely logic to determine things, don’t bother coming to church. Coming to church is by faith, alot of things is in the supernatural realm too, you can’t see God, there is no brochure to promise returns for your investments for this building fund. You claim don’t want to give blindly and it’s the church’s money. Then don’t give just like if you feel an investment is not worth your while, don’t do it. If you sense God telling you this is a scam, leave the church and sow somewhere else.

Also how much of $310 million are you giving in the first place? If you want accountability in everything, does it mean you check the spending in tidthes, offering, there is probably more in there 20 years worth of money there. How do you know the church’s current “statement” is true, there will never be an end to this so i suggest you take a stand either support and stand by the church or just leave if you feel dubious and don’t give.
observer on March 10th, 2010 9:37 am

Melvin and John,

The Suntec statement mentioned by John was actually reported on page 4 of on the 9 March 2010’s edition of Lianhe Zaobao (Singpore’s leading Chinese press) . The reporting journalist is Lu Cai Xia. According to the report, Suntec Singapore had released a one-page statement and a 3-page FAQ regarding the deal with City Harvest.

In the statement, Suntec Singpore clarifies the following points:

- City Harvest’s participation in the ARA Harmony Fund is not significant (in Chinese, the exact words used were “bu da” which literally meaning is “not big”),

- City Harvest does not hold any seat in board of directors

- The deal will have have impact on the normal operations of Suntec Singapore and will not result in any impact on the staff headcount

Hope this helps.
observer on March 10th, 2010 9:40 am

Correction: The last line should read:

- The deal will NOT have impact on the normal operations of Suntec Singapore and will not result in any impact on the staff headcount
John on March 10th, 2010 9:59 am

broadviews

I don’t think the question is whether this is a good church or a bad church. God obviously is present.

The point is accountability. Ren Ci is I’m sure a good hospital. But it suffered from one man’s indiscretion. Yes City Harvest has more than one leader, so does Ren Ci, so did NKF and the man wasn’t even on the board of directors.

If someone in those organizations has the guts to speak out, maybe there would have been no scandal.

I say this, love the church enough by seeking answers to ensure that City Harvest does not get embroiled in a scandal.

I agree with one of statements above – it’s not just about leaders doing right, it’s about them being seen to be doing right. And what is worse is if leaders are not doing right, how to be seen to be doing right.

Asking questions and seeking accountability can keep a church safe. As far as man is concerned, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Handwritings on March 10th, 2010 10:00 am

@broadviews:
It is so sad to see so many CHC-ers asking fellow brothers and members to leave each time someone raises a doubt/question/issue of a differing point of view – but not necessarily invalid or harmful.

I hope we can be right spirited in that sense to love our brothers and our neighbors just as Christ loved us. :) Let’s be accepting inspite of differences.

Thanks observer for the lead – you really live up to your name – good observation! ;)
Handwritings on March 10th, 2010 10:22 am

新达新加坡声明：城市丰收教会入股不影响新达新加坡运作

新达新加坡国际会议与展览中心说，通过ARA Harmony基金获得其部分股权的城市丰收教会，在基金的参与不大，也没有董事会席位。它的加入不会影响新达新加坡的正常运作，也不会引发任何人力削减或裁员行动。

　　新达新加坡（Suntec Singapore）昨天发表上述声明，对城市丰收教会（City Harvest Church）决定入股的消息作出回应。

　　新达新加坡在1页长的声明和3页长的问答录中说，它所发给城市丰收教会的授权合约允许后者在周末使用6楼的三个会议厅、3楼大厅和横跨2楼和3楼的礼堂，明年3月生效。

(for more: http://www.zaobao.com/sp/sp100309_006.shtml)
observer on March 10th, 2010 10:23 am

Technically speaking, if I were to own shares in Suntec REIT (which is holding 20% of the ARA Harmony Fund which owns Suntec Singapore), I can call myself a co-owner of Suntec Singapore.

In the same way, technically speaking, Pastor Kong is right to say that City Harvest is the owner (or co-owner) of Suntec Singapore.

Using a similar kind of reasoning, City Harvest has been declared by Pastor Kong to be, technically-speaking, a 30,000-member church, by virtue of the thirty-three thousand names in the data base of the church.

Pastor Kong is not wrong, technically, to make those claims. And I have no issue with his claims.

Based on what I see and what I hear in the church and in Pastor Kong’s actions, I am increasingly concerned what SEEMS to be a growing preoccupation with wanting to beat “the other church” – in terms of having the biggest congregation and having the biggest building here in Singapore.

I hope I am wrong (and that I am the only one, or one of the very few, who feel this way).

Let’s continue to keep the church and its leadership in our prayers.
Handwritings on March 10th, 2010 10:32 am

That was ARA’s response to CHC’s release that CHC’s investment is not big and do not have a seat in the Board of Directors. It will also not affect the business activity or involved in the hiring of staff.

The agreement states that on weekend CHC is entitled to use the 3 convention halls on Level 6, 3rd floor Gallery, and Theatres.
broadviews on March 10th, 2010 10:41 am

John, I totally see where you are coming but you don’t realize asking questions and accountability is not the solution as long as you are not part of the board.

Like I said, if they have the intention to cheat, they can do it in many ways, after all isn’t it simply paperwork? Do you want to fund your own external auditor to look into the situation? Justice will prevail if the board is corrupt just like Renci and NKF, isn’t that enough? In this case, you are speaking out, the deal is done so where does all this speculation lead to? You will be satisfied if the church display some figures on a powerpoint? Geez there is no true way to verify unless you get your own auditor… Do you want to go to this extent? Do you audit’s your dad’s accounts daily or your family’s accounts power is relative in this case. The head of the household has absolute power, you want your children to audit your accounts with your set of arguments? If no, why not, it’s basically the same logic.

The church will be embroiled in a scandal if they mismanaged the whole thing regardless of whether you ask questions or not. If they are taking the wrong path, they will be exposed eventually so why cast stones now? Do you trust God? If yes, then support the cause wholeheartedly, where is the spirit of giving?

Ren Ci and NKF, the people are doing it for charity, the money is expected to go to the sick and poor and in the end it went to the management’s own pocket. They take money from the masses regardless of religion, they have major TV shows to raise public funds, even Sun donated.

CHC is talking to church members people who identify themselves in the church and wants to be part of the project. It is as they said. We need to build God a house, 310 million is going into the building, there is no masking, there is no pretense of a charity angle. It is up to the individual to decide if they want to be part of this project that many people labelled it as extravagant, funds could be used for the poor etc….

People give their money because they want to please God. The building fund is the channel for them to sow to God. So even if the church is corrupt, you give because you want to please God not pastor kong. So even if the money is pocketed by the board, you fulfil your original objective, you gave to God and God knows. To be willing to spend on this building is a sacrifice and love, we don’t even sleep or eat in this building, it’s just once a week. What is your objective of giving? If it’s to pleased God you have done it.

Also in this case, there is not much to pocket, costs are high to be in the city central taking such a big space, moving from one hall in expo already costs a bomb what more suntec.

At the end of the day, i still maintain ask God for answers and you will have your answers on whether you should give or not, this is what makes this project different from Renci etc.
observer on March 10th, 2010 11:10 am

broadviews,

I agree with your statement that: “there is not much to pocket, costs are high to be in the city central taking such a big space, moving from one hall in expo already costs a bomb what more suntec”.

Like you, I do not believe that the leadership is using the building project as a scheme to make themselves rich at the expense of the members. I trust that the leaders are making sacrifices, NOT making profits.

The question I am pondering on is this:
Is the church striving too hard to be the biggest congregation and to have the biggest building in Singapore?

I am not demanding any answer from anyone, not from you, and not from the leadership. The question is only meant for individuals who are willing to do so, to ponder upon, to think about.

God bless.
city111 on March 10th, 2010 11:23 am

Anything above 5% stake is considered as substantial (per legal definition).

Members need to know CHC’s stake in SUNTEC for sake of transparency.
broadviews on March 10th, 2010 12:58 pm

Hi observer.

Just to clarify am not defending the church or pastor, it’s purely my own opinion. I can’t comment on why he mocks the other church though as someone indicated above…

Why be a big congregation it’s back to basics? John 3:16, church growth is natural if we want to spread the gospel. Nowhere in this world even companies, organisations would anyone say let’s not try to hard to grow, let’s limit our growth let’s try to be average, there is always room to grow… It boils down to the issue of mediocrity…

And this church is a very driven church, that’s the DNA of the church cutlure. This leader has travelled a few times round the globe this year,this is how driven the leader is to fulfil God’s calling. If driven people who wants to be the best they can be, isn’t this the way to live?

I feel this is leading by example. I can’t imagine a pastor telling me to strive to be the best, to be in the marketplace, to be the best servant at my job and he is just very average person with slow growth with small visions.. Why makes him qualified to lead me? He has to prove what he says is true. Talk is cheap, anyone can be on the stage to tell you to dream dreams have visions, but showing it can be done is a diff story, and i say i had my reservations, but Pastor Kong has been delivering.

As for whether there is a need to have the biggest building in SIngapore, you try running a few services. I have participated in ministry that requires me to be present every service and for a person below 35 i am simply exhausted. It’s amazing Pastor has the tenacity to repeat the same message many times over and over again, it is physically draining. Also, to corporately worship the lord together in one place would be great, so i don’t feel it’s a matter of having the biggest building. IF your church is big, logically you need a big building to contain all. I stay in the west and travelling to the east is a long distance. If you ignore all the spritual reasons for having a big building to glorify God, consider the sensible reasons.
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 1:42 pm

I was reading through the exchanges and the core issue seems to be on “transparency” toward members. I think there’s no point arguing the critics because we cannot be fully transparent in terms of the ownership for the interest of every party.

While the board has tried to and have always been as transparent as they can, some things cannot be made public as it may affect the share prices. The board and Suntec Singapore is especially concerned that members will go around saying “CHC owns Suntec”. The fact and legally correct term is, CHC is not in the picture. Everything is done through a holding company.

Apart from just the members to account to, the board, being the owner of shares also have to answer to the board of directors, the exchange, Suntec Singapore and the public. Any adverse information delivered wrongly and interpreted wrongly can potentially cause swing in share prices.

I think we have to understand this word in the context of a business transaction. This acquisition is a very sensitive thing nationally as Suntec Singapore is considered to be a national icon. We need to understand that CHC do not fully own Suntec. And members should exercise wisdom in the way we say things. Having ownership in something does not mean it is ours fully. I mean, if I own suntec today and I have a partner who owns some of my shares, I’ll be very concerned what they say man! I don’t want any wrong perception to dilute my share value!

As for the $310 million, from my understanding, it is used to pay for rental cost as well as purchasing the shares on a annually incremental basis. It is much cheaper than building a smaller capacity seater in the north. And it is cheaper than building on Jurong East in the long term (with land for religious purpose having a lease of only 30 years). We can use Suntec for over 70 as long as we hold the share. And we fully own the optimum amount of shares in less than 10 years time without spending half a billion like the other building.

Why $310 million? The cost of rental of Suntec and all its related costs, such as equipment, shifting to other venue such as SIS or Expo in the event Suntec Singapore need to be used for International events like APEC.

The amount (310) is a conservative estimated figure. If the rental market does well and occupancy rate is high, we can significantly reduce this amount n number of years we need AnB.

Now as to whether CHC owes the members an account of how they manage the AnB money, yes they do – for accountability purpose and what can be revealed has always been revealed. And no they don’t – for areas that require confidentiality.

If any member don’t feel confident about our leadership, we can always choose not to give. We give because 1) we want to, 2) there’s a vision to fulfil a great purpose through our giving, and 3) God is glorified when our faith produces great fruits.

Don’t demand full transparency just because we gave some money. If you are not comfortable, don’t give. The church don’t need the money stained with gossip. Just like we gave our live to God, we cannot demand transparency on exactly what He gonna do in our lives. He can put you through a “Job experience” and need not explain why you’re screwed.

No point arguing about this because those things that require confidentiality, we wont know even if we use media pressure. There must be a basic level of trust. When it comes to money, I know CHC has never tried to be funny because we can even see frmo the AGM how much the staff and pastor earns. And they are really paid peanuts to have to get screwed by all these false n inaccurate arguments.

To know the full facts, you can also be a co-owner of suntec. Buy Suntec REIT today!!! And then demand them to be transparent to you about the acquisition la… see if they tell you? And if they don’t, try demanding “transparency”. Point is, as an investor myself, we won’t get anything besides the fund prospectus and financial reports which bte, is hardly understood in full.
starfish on March 10th, 2010 1:59 pm

Ronald,
Very well said.. I couldn’t agree more… let’s not get distracted or react emotionally by some of the unpleasant comments here.. To me, I give because of the Lord.. Everything is about Him, always has been and always will.. Thank you Lord for everything… and may your name be glorified ALWAYS…
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 2:04 pm

Wow Ronald…*applause*, that’s a really good reply.
John on March 10th, 2010 3:19 pm

Ronald says “We can use Suntec for over 70 as long as we hold the share.”

if you believe that, you are going to be very disappointed. You can collect your dividends for 70 years as long you keep your shares.

You get to use the convention halls as long you keep paying the rent.

They are two separate agreements. The shares and the rent are not connected.
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 3:35 pm

Yes John, compared to leasing Expo or SIS at full rental, paying rental for Suntec makes better economic sense since we have a fraction of it distributed back as dividend.

Also, rental appreciation at later years when shares are fully paid up creates an income source for us. It’s better than re-buying the right after 30 years for land use in the case of buying a new piece of land.
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 3:46 pm

John, we do not know the details of the deal. You presumed that the shares and rent agreements are seperate. Have you seen these agreements? What do you know about these agreements?

If Pastor Kong says we can use the place for good – I believe him. It is most likely there is a deal that guarantees us the use of the place for good. This is not the same as a normal renting model, which we’re doing for Expo now.
JustMe on March 10th, 2010 3:47 pm

Hi John,

I think Ronald made a pretty good point.

To give my take on: “My question is do you know and do you think?” This question seems to insinuate that the members of chc either do not have the knowledge nor the initiative to ask questions. But in the midst of the congregations and amongst those who attend the AGMs sit auditors, accountants, bankers, lawyers, professionals, business owners…

If you don’t know, yes do ask. But ask in a manner and mode that is appropriate. To do so on this blog smacks of inappropriateness. Why not bring this matter up for clarification to your pastor? Write in to the church to clarify?
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 4:01 pm

Feel free to write to the church, to pastor kong or any of the pastors if you have any queries.

They have facebook all over the place and I’m sure they will not hesitate to direct your concerns to the board members for an acceptable answer.

It’s more productive than making speculations and assumptions about things we all don;t know in full.

Unless otherwise, your objective is coffeeshop blog-talk, then it’s fine. But I think if you want real answers, you got to ask the ones in the soup…
JustMe on March 10th, 2010 4:15 pm

Hi city111:

“Anything above 5% stake is considered as substantial (per legal definition).

Members need to know CHC’s stake in SUNTEC for sake of transparency.”

Just to let you know, per CHC’s statement, the stakeholding is a nondisclosure clause per the S&P Contract. Apart from this percentage, everything else is pretty much above-board and made known to the public. Why do you feel that the info given is insufficient? You must understand that CHC also has to take into account Suntec Singapore’s concerns and this is a commercial agreement between these two, not just between CHC and its members.
John on March 10th, 2010 4:31 pm

You guys just proves my point.

See know evil, hear no evil and speak no evil.

If you convince yourself long enough, maybe a lie becomes the truth.

Good luck!
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 4:43 pm

Hi John, why don’t you contact the right person(s) to find out?

“See know evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. If you convince yourself long enough, maybe a lie becomes the truth.”

This applies to your perspective as well. If you are not convinced (rightfully so, since we do not have the full picture to convince you), why not contact the right people to find out, rather than yakking it away here n have not answer – to prove your point?

I’m not protecting the church… but I just see that this argument is going nowhere…
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 4:45 pm

John….we’re not dumb people… neither are the members in CHC dumb, neither is it a lie. You’re over-reacting unnecessarily with many presumptions.

So you’re accusing the leadership of lying? Back up your claims…
observer on March 10th, 2010 5:26 pm

broadviews,

Thanks for your comments. But sorry bro, in your zeal for to justify the church leadership, you’ve totally missed my point.

Let me repeat my question, this time highlighting the key words to make it clear where my main concern is, so that no one will miss it: “Is the church STRIVING TOO HARD to be the biggest congregation and to have the biggest building in Singapore?”

I have absolutely no qualms with the church growing strongly and having a large building. I totally agree with you bro, that a healthy church must grow, and a suitable venue is necessary.

Peace.
John on March 10th, 2010 5:30 pm

All i want to say has been said in my first post. Up to you to think about it.

Like I said this is no building project. it’s a rental project disguised as a building project by buying some shares. Just an illusion to justify a fund raising.

You will know when you move there next March.

Enough said.
observer on March 10th, 2010 5:35 pm

melvin,

just a friendly word of advice: your defensive attitude, militant style and knee-jerk reactions are not helping the discussion here.

please refrain from jumping to conclusion, putting words into people’s mouth and being emotional.

learn from the other brothers and sisters here who are able to maintain their cool even when confronting and responding to views that they disagree with. learn to use facts and reasons to persuade and convince.

Peace.
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 5:48 pm

observer,

I don’t think we’re ’striving too hard’ to be the largest congregation, because in the first place we don’t have to ‘try to be’ anything.

If it is only for being the largest, or wanting to grow by mere number, the church would have grown much larger by many ways.

We can all see, the church has never departed from a strong focus on discipleship and spiritual disciplines. If it was for number, it will be so much easier to water all these down….we would have grown larger in number…
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 5:54 pm

John,

Believe what you will…. but I’m very sure its not an ‘illusion’. You have said ‘..a lie becomes the truth’. So you say the church leadership is trying to cast an illusion and lie?

One day, the time will come when answers to all these questions will be revealed – its only a matter of time. And then you’ll realise these are not an illusion or a lie….you’ll regret your words and accusations.
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 6:12 pm

Hi John,

whether we rent Suntec, own Suntec, or build a building, makes no difference in terms of advancing the Kingdom. We need a bigger place to house the congregation, be more time-effective in outreaches and centralised to make it easy for people to attend church. It is a just a means to fulfill Matt 28

Cost wise, building a building don’t make financial sense. To build a building and use it only for 30 years, is too expensive. Besides, there is no land available big enough to build, and for church purpose. Jurong West is the biggest plot of land the government granted for church use ever since, and no larger plot is available.

To co-own Suntec Singapore makes good economic sense as it creates a means for the church to use a large facility, good location, cheap and generate long term income at the same time.

We just need to set aside $310m n we set ourselves up for long term effectivity in ministry without the need to raise funds again. Compared to building like One North, it cost almost half a billion to build with a smaller capacity and shorter lease, it just don’t make economic sense, and having to think the only plot available is in Jurong East.

I hope we don;t be too pre-occupied with getting the “terms right” and miss the whole point. We want a building big enough to advance the work of the gospel. The purpose has precedence and priority over the form.

Are we trying to outdo other churches to have the biggest building, most number of people? No.

We want a big building to be effective. Gone will be the days we have 6 services. With only 1 or 2 services, pastor can divert his attention to missions and other work, and we as members will not feel so tired having to run from place to place or service to service…

Objectively, if the options were laid out to spend $310m for Suntec Singapore for 70+ years, or to spend $500m build a building on a plot of land and use it for 30 years, the former makes better monetary sense and as member, I will feel that the funds are better accounted for in terms of usage.

At the end of the day, so what if we are renting Suntec or owning Suntec? When we create for ourselves longevity in the ministry, with financial issues covered by the rental, we prove ourselves good stewards by channeling resources better to the general fund to help in the work of the gospel, to social services and the bless the needy n society?
observer on March 10th, 2010 6:27 pm

Ronald,

What makes me uneasy is not the lack of transparency. In terms of the disclosure of financial information, I think the church is already very transparent.

In fact, it is this tranparency that has given me access to the financial information of the church, that has made me uneasy about what’s happening.

The price tag of the building alone does not an issue make. It is when we see that price tag in the context of the recent financial performance and position of the church, that some of us begin to raise our eye brows. And what’s with the constant criticisms against and comparison with “the other church”?

Something just doesn’t feel right. Am I the only person, or are there others who also feel that the leadership is TRYING TOO HARD to prove something?

I pray the church (especially its leadership, since everything rise and fall with leadership) is not losing its focus.
JustMe on March 10th, 2010 6:39 pm

Hi John,

I find it a little funny that you make such comments on Pastor Kong’s blog, and expect to have it go “unchallenged” and when we do bring up valid points, you simply end off by saying it is a matter of seeing no evil, hearing no evil, speaking no evil?

I personally “see no evil” in this building project. True, it is an acquisition and not a building project in the full sense of the word. Yet, we have always started off wanting, praying, desiring a stadium that we can call home. Apart from Suntec, what really are our viable options?

We can either keep on renting Expo or Indoor Stadium… and here, our rental expenses are just that. Expensed off. No returns back to us whatsoever.

Or we can get a land, build a complex. Which we did with Jurong West St 91. HDB land is too small. There’s no way we can the next 10 plots earmarked by HDB for religious purposes without incurring the wrath of the other religions or get a commercial land. Look at NCC. They had to partner with an external party, and still their share of the building cost is close to half a billion. Even so, they will only be able to shift in in 2012, and I believe their announcement first came out late 2007.

True, we are renting. But the point you must see is this. That the rental we are paying will also return to us back in the form of profits and dividends, thus lowering our effective rate of rental.

This point has been reiterated time and time again. I really don’t see why you cannot see eye-to-eye on this, nor comprehend why we did so.

Perhaps you should really arrange to meet your pastor/leader to clear your doubts soon, instead of just pointlessly joining in the bashing and not hearing the answers we are trying to give.
terencelee on March 10th, 2010 6:42 pm

Melvin,

it is unsettling that you’re suddenly playing the role of God here.

Man judges one another’s action, but God judges our motives. What John is unsettled about is the perceived lack of transparency by the church on certain issues. I don’t think he is in anyway judging Pastor Kong’s heart.

Even to suggest that the church is indulging in lies or illusion is to judge an action, which by my view, is perfectly permissible. I don’t think John should be faulted at this.

But what you are doing is to presume that you know what God is thinking, that he will vindicate CHC and condemn its critics? Who are you to speak on God’s behalf? Have you become His prophet now?

We trust Pastor Kong because he has proven himself to be faithful. But once again, we do not know his heart. Only God does, to be honest with you. I must disclaim that I am not making accusations against him, but I want us to be clear that only God knows the true motives of a man’s heart.

So far, the church has not even explained why it had agreed to the non-disclosure agreement in the first place. Correct me if I’m wrong on this. And please understand what the NDA means. It means that the church might not be able to reveal how it will spend its $310 million.

That is because if the information is revealed, it’ll be pretty easy to work backwards and calculate the amount invested in the shares. Once again, if you think I’m wrong on this, correct me here. We seem to be caught in a bind: It’s either total transparency or no transparency.

Therefore, I don’t blame people like John and Observer for asking and probing. What disturbs me is when these individuals are castigated for asking these questions, as if it is even wrong in the first place.
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 6:43 pm

Hi Observer,

“The price tag of the building alone does not an issue make. It is when we see that price tag in the context of the recent financial performance and position of the church, that some of us begin to raise our eye brows. And what’s with the constant criticisms against and comparison with “the other church”?”

care to elaborate? What are the areas that cause the raising of eye brows?
JustMe on March 10th, 2010 6:44 pm

Hi Observer:

I did a look-through at CHC’s financial statements posted online. True, they did register a net loss in FY08, and in any other organization this probably would prove to be a worry.

But I think you need to see it in context. If you see the amount given for overseas missions and local charity giving, it is also apparent that the church is giving more to these charitable causes. In a sense, should the church choose to NOT give, it would actually register a healthy “gain”.

It is quite assuring to see that the church persists in giving to the underprivileged and in advancing the work of God despite what is one of the hardest years economy-wise.

If anything, I think the church has remained focused for the last 5 years. Getting a new church building that can house all the congregations has been on the topmost of the leadership’s minds these few years, as this consolidation of our resources will help us to be more effective in our ministry outside the 4 walls of the church.
teebh on March 10th, 2010 6:57 pm

For the unbelief:

The seed is the word of God, which has a heavenly quality. When it lands in the right soil, it produces guaranteed results. If results are not produced, the fault is not with the seed but with the soil. Therefore, we should never blame God but rather examine the soil.

The first soil is the road or the wayside. The road came to exist because many people walked over the same surface, making it hard and unproductive. It was a gravelly dirt road. This description applies to the arrogant, worldly heart. Such a heart hears, but does not listen. It does not receive the word. God’s word cannot come into the soil. Indifference or scorn for the Word prevents the Word from taking root. Birds readily pick it up and eat it. Satan comes immediately and takes it away.

Mark 4:15
And these are the ones by the wayside where the word is sown.
When they hear, Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in their hearts.

A heart hardened by unbelief, arrogance, criticism or disappointment becomes easy prey for Satan. With all doors ajar, nothing prevents him from coming in and taking what he wants. The tragedy in such a situation is that the person with the hard heart can sit in church and hear the best sermons yet remain unaffected. It is only when the word of God comes like a hammer and breaks the hardness, thus enabling repentance, that the Word can be effective. Before this occurs the heart is insensitive, selfish and scornful. People with such hearts even persecute those who are open and positive. No fruit is produced in this field.

רַבִּי rabbī EU

Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life.
Avoid all perverse talk; stay away from corrupt speech.
Look straight ahead, and fix your eyes on what lies before you.
Mark out a straight path for your feet; stay on the safe path.
Don’t get sidetracked; keep your feet from following evil.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.
Seek His will in all you do, and He will show you which path to take.
Don’t be impressed with your own wisdom.
Instead, fear the Lord and turn away from evil.
Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the best part of everything you produce.
Then He will fill your barns with grain, and your vats will overflow with good wine.

Dear Lord,
Your word is a lamp to (guide) my feet and a light for my path.
You curse the house of the wicked, but You bless the home of the upright.
You mock the mockers but are gracious to the humble.
The wise inherit honor, but fools are put to shame!
Wisdom live together with good judgment.
We know where to discover knowledge and discernment.
All who fear the Lord will hate evil.
Therefore, we hate pride and arrogance, corruption and perverse speech.
Common sense and success belong to us.
Insight and strength are ours.
Let the wicked be disgraced; let them lie silent in the grave.
Silence their lying lips— those proud and arrogant lips that accuse the godly.

We are always overwhelmed with a desire for your regulations.
You rebuke the arrogant; those who wander from your commands are cursed.
Don’t let them scorn and insult us, for we have obeyed Your laws.

Abba Father, we know with God all things are possible,
but despite all the miraculous signs Jesus had done,
some people still did not believe in Him.
This is exactly what Isaiah the prophet had predicted:

Isaiah 53:1
“Lord, who has believed our message?
To whom has the Lord revealed His powerful arm?”

And to whom was God speaking when He took an oath that they would never enter His rest?
Wasn’t it the people who disobeyed Him?
So we see that because of their unbelief they were not able to enter His rest.

We accept other believers who are weak in faith,
and don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong.
Some may learn the reason for not getting an official response,
just like when Jesus’ authority was questioned by the priests and elders.

Matthew 21:23-27
When Jesus returned to the Temple and began teaching, the leading priests and elders came up to him.
They demanded, “By what authority are you doing all these things? Who gave you the right?”
“I’ll tell you by what authority I do these things if you answer one question,” Jesus replied.
“Did John’s authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?”
They talked it over among themselves. “If we say it was from heaven, he will ask us why we didn’t believe John.
But if we say it was merely human, we’ll be mobbed because the people believe John was a prophet.”
So they finally replied, “We don’t know.”
And Jesus responded, “Then I won’t tell you by what authority I do these things.

Holy Spirit, remove all hardness from my heart and hearts of unbelief. Search all the fields in our life to ensure the soil is right for Your purposes. In Jesus’ name. Amen.
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 6:59 pm

Hi Terrence,

I don’t think it’s wrong that John n Observer to ask the questions. It’s perfectly legitimate and holds valid concerns.

However, what can they expect to find about the queries when only the board knows? I think we objective discussions are possible, but it seems like we’re going after one another’s throat instead… I mean like it or not, the NDA is already in place… so there’s nothing we can do, and in a commercial agreement, I do know that there are many limitations which if not carefully adhered to will have terrible consequences to the commercial interest… n in this case, a singapore icon, a church, a well known hong kong organisation and a consortium is involved…

I would think the main reason for the NDA is to protect the interest, not that the church is doing something funny we don’t know about…
observer on March 10th, 2010 7:02 pm

Ronald,

You wrote: “Objectively, if the options were laid out to spend $310m for Suntec Singapore for 70+ years, or to spend $500m build a building on a plot of land and use it for 30 years, the former makes better monetary sense and as member, I will feel that the funds are better accounted for in terms of usage.”

I am sorry, but I have to be objective and say that you did not argue a good case.

Allow me to point out the flaws in your argument:

First, assuming my understanding is correct and that you are referring to one north in your comparison, the lease for that piece of land is 60 years, instead of the 30 years as you’ve stated.

Second, S$310m vs S$500m is an over simplistic comparison. City Harvest, being a co-owner, will be getting only a share (exactly how much, we don’t know) in the rental income from the Suntec facilities, whereas “the other church” will probably be getting 100% share of the rental income from their facilities.

Given the lack of information, there is no way to truly compare the monetary returns from the two venues. Therefore, it is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion from the comparison.

To be more convincing, we need to get more information, list out the relevant assumptions (which should be reasonable), and generate a more robust set of projections for the venues in question, before we proceed with making any comparison and drawing any conclusion.

Sorry, bro. Nothing personal. I’m just being objective.
John on March 10th, 2010 7:03 pm

Ronald said “Objectively, if the options were laid out to spend $310m for Suntec Singapore for 70+ years, or to spend $500m build a building on a plot of land and use it for 30 years, the former makes better monetary sense and as member, I will feel that the funds are better accounted for in terms of usage.”

Such an ignorant statement proves my point. If you take the full $310M just to pay rental for Hall 601 to 603, it won’t even last 25 years. And you have no money to buy any shares.

Your rental for the three halls for 75 years will cost you around $930M, presuming there’s no increase in rental over the 75 years. Which you know that’s impossible.

Try asking the leaders to disclose the how many years is the rental agreement for.
terencelee on March 10th, 2010 7:06 pm

Ronald,

yeah it’s sad that such discussion often degenerate into attacks. My view is that discussions here are not necessarily to get answers, at the very least we begin to understand the issues a little better.

My concern is that if the NDA is effectively binding our leaders’ mouths, this might mean we’ll never know how the money is spent. And I’m concerned. I do think the leaders are in the best position to make decisions. No doubt about that. But as history has demonstrated time and again in the past, even the best systems, ideologies and people are capable of erring. Even the most anointed leaders make mistakes.

Transparency, in my view, is our last safeguard against that, a failsafe device that allows the church to spot things the leaders may have missed. I’ve said this before: I rather our own church members clean up our own house than wait for outsiders to do it for us. Then we’re in deep trouble.

As a start, i hope the church will at least discuss what led up to this NDA, what interests Suntec has in maintaining the NDA, and what rationale is there for the NDA. But so far, I’ve heard nothing about that. And yes, in case you’re wondering, I’m seeking direct answers from the top on a personal basis too.
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 7:11 pm

Terence, I’m not playing God like you accuse me to be doing, neither did I pass any judgment. I was questioning the words used by John to describe the project – such as illusion, lies,…etc.
melvinchen on March 10th, 2010 7:24 pm

At the end of the day, we have to realise one thing – no amount of questioning, commenting, projecting, guessing and calculating will reach its desired conclusion.

Truth remains, the answers we’re all so curious about, the % shareholding of Suntec, the projected timeline of purchase, etc. the cost of rentals, these will not be disclosed anytime soon.

It is up to us individually, whether we believe the objectives and vision of the church in this project.

Every individual needs to settle in their hearts, whether they hear from God, whether inside of them they have faith that this is from God – it is up to the individual.

Years down the road, results will speak for themselves. Hasn’t it been so at every stage of CHC’s life? At many junctions, some will believe and see the Glory of God years down, while those who didn’t missed it…and said they wish they had believed….

Back to the topic, truth remains, for an undisclosed time, we’ll never know the % of holdings we have of Suntec….does it matter to you? Or has God spoken to you and that settles it?

If you choose to look at it with only the natural mind and need every information and detail before you believe….then its abit hard…
Handwritings on March 10th, 2010 7:41 pm

@everyone:

Guys, at the end of the day, it’s just a building for crying out loud.

Well, i begin to realise and understand that the world is greater than a church.

Jesus came to die for the world. He loved the world so much. He didn’t come to die for the church. Before the church, was the world.

Let’s move on. Casting pearls before swines aren’t gonna bring us to Jesus.

It will only lead us to more darkness and exposed dirt.

God came and exposed righteousness while in darkness through Jesus.

Jesus, not CHC, not Pastor Kong, not Suntec Convention saved us.

Jesus, not CHC, not Pastor Kong, not Suntec Convention died on the cross for us.

Jesus, not CHC, not Pastor Kong, not Suntec Convention fought, won and conquered death.

Let’s bring JESUS back into our lives.

HE IS BIGGER than any building campaign in the world.
Ronald on March 10th, 2010 9:15 pm

Hi Observer,

no problem. You have your point. I have to admit that I do not know the details to say who’s right. What I understand is that the incremental shares we acquire on an annual basis will give us a significant stake in the shares. I’m not specifically pointing to One North, although they are one of the locations that also utilize this model. I would think that the rental income from Suntec will be high – based on the consideration that the location where we can earn from rental income comes from the up-coming retail expansion proposed by ARA, as well as the major fairs and exhibitions such as IT Show, APEC, Comex, as well as niche exhibitions such as the flora expo, etc… which will use potentially the areas.

As for the other party, they will not be getting 100% also because the project is joint venture with another developer.

To John, as many other have shared, the $310m is calculated as the breakeven amount including rental n other costs. It is not used to pay rental exclusively. And from today onwards, we have rental dividends from the tenants to offset the cost of our rental of the hall. I would believe as our share percentage increase, the dividend will increase as well.

Terrence, I think we have to await their answers then hahah… I’ve also wrote about to them about some concerns. From my experience with REIT fund managers, the NDA is a very important clause in significant shareholders. One of the reason is to avoid the manipulation of prices.

But it’s sad to hear sweeping statements to put others down… it’s very difficult to have an objective discussion when the writing is emotionally charged…

Such a discussion, if ever have to be engaging and meaningful, should be conducted in a more amiable way…
city111 on March 10th, 2010 9:44 pm

WHETHER S$310 MILLION MAKE SENSE OR NOT DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT OF THEIR STAKE. THE PRESS REPORT INDICATE “SUBSTANTIAL”WHILE SUNTEC REBUTTED LATER THAT THE STAKE IS NOT LARGE.

IF THE STAKE IS ONLY 5% ( IT’S STILL CONSIDERED AS SUBSTANTIAL LEGALLY), ONE CAN SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THIS IS A LOUSY DEAL.

THE USE OF NON-DISCLOSURE CLAUSE SEEMS MORE OF AN EXCUSE TO JUSTIFY THE DEAL.
omega on March 10th, 2010 10:51 pm

To observer:

you mentioned earlier”

“Is the church STRIVING TOO HARD to be the biggest congregation and to have the biggest building in Singapore?”

I have absolutely no qualms with the church growing strongly and having a large building. I totally agree with you bro, that a healthy church must grow, and a suitable venue is necessary.

I totally agree with you that a healthy church must grow and that a suitable venue is necessary…but whether or not a church is striving will be seen in time.

Maybe we sometimes forget that it is God that brings the growth and He is the one that brings the increase.

I think striving or not…Only time can tell! :)
observer on March 10th, 2010 11:21 pm

Ronald, you wrote: “What I understand is that the incremental shares we acquire on an annual basis will give us a significant stake in the shares.”

I understand that to people who are already convinced, you would find the phrase “significant stake” reassuring and comforting. But objectively speaking, since no one can actually spell out what “significant” actually means, to people like myself and Terence, the statement becomes essentially meaningless.

I hope you understand where we are coming from.

And what aroused our curiosity even more is the fact that according to the report on page 4 of the 9 March 2010’s edition of Lianhe Zaobao (Singpore’s leading Chinese press), Suntec had issued a statement to clarify that City Harvest’s participation in the property is “not big”.

How does one reconcile this with the church’s claim that its share in the property is “substantial”?

You wrote: “I would think that the rental income from Suntec will be high – based on the consideration that the location where we can earn from rental income comes from the up-coming retail expansion proposed by ARA, as well as the major fairs and exhibitions such as IT Show, APEC, Comex, as well as niche exhibitions such as the flora expo, etc… which will use potentially the areas.”

Your assumptions that the rental income from Suntec will remain high, and that exhibitors will continue to rent Suntec’s facilities, may or may not be valid. Don’t forget that there will be keen competition coming from the newer and more glamorous convention facilities at Marina Sands IR.

And most pertinently, the key questions to be answered are:
(a) how many months or years of rental cost (for City Harvest to use the hall and rooms for its services) has been included in the $310m amount;
(b) going forward, how much will be for City Harvest to continue renting the halls and rooms for its own use;
(c) how much of the total monthly rental income collected by Suntec Convention Centre will eventually flow to City Harvest?

Unfortunately, due to the non disclosure restrictions imposed, we are unlikely to get the answers to the key questions listed above.

Last but not least, you wrote: “As for the other party, they will not be getting 100% also because the project is joint venture with another developer.”

Based on publicly available info, the one north property comprises two distinct zones – the the civic and cultural zone (where the theatre and other halls are located) is 100% owned by the commercial arm of “the other church”, whereas the retail zone is 100% owned by Capital Land. I just wish to clarify that when I wrote that “the other church” will probably get 100% of the rental income, I was referring to the rental income derived from civic and cultural zone of the property.

Cheers.
observer on March 10th, 2010 11:50 pm

Omega, you wrote: “I think striving or not…Only time can tell!”

Yes, I agree. Time will tell for sure. Nevertheless, if we were to detect some unusual signs and symptoms NOW, should we not do something NOW, rather than wait until later? Or should we just ignore the signs and symptoms?
observer on March 11th, 2010 12:42 am

Ronald, you wrote: “care to elaborate? What are the areas that cause the raising of eye brows?”

Please refer to my previous comments, where I’ve highlighted the areas of concern. In summary:

- the church has been incurring financial losses for the past few years;

- the church’s bank and cash position declined significantly during the period from 30 Jun 2007 to 31 Oct 2008 (when the bank balance fell from about $27m to less than $5m).

- in this context (of deteriorating financial performance and position), the church decided to commit itself to an apparently “expensive” deal (paying $310m to secure the partial use of, and potential share of rental income from, the Suntec facilities, when less than months before that, the same facilities were bought for only $235m)

Like I’ve written in my previous comments, I am NOT questioning the leadership’s integrity. I do NOT think that they are using the building project to cheat the members of their money. And I do believe that they are sacrificing more than the average members in the church in this building project.

At the same time, I see signs and symptoms that the church is overstretching itself financially (whatever happens to financial prudence?). I see and hear much criticisms against and comparisons with other church(es). I see and hear a lot of emphasis on size, on impressive numbers. I feel uncomfortable that the decisions and actions taken by the leadership seem to be driving the whole church to this one end: to make City Harvest the biggest congregation with the biggest building in Singapore.

Of course, these are just my personal observations and feelings. I don’t expect or demand anyone to agree with me. If someone should agree the points I’ve raised are valid points, and the leadership were to take actions to address them, that’s great. If not, so be it.

In the end, we know that God loves the church, and He will cause to be done what needs to be done.
jinglebelle9 on March 11th, 2010 4:59 am

wow.. what a whole lot of comments. Dear ronald and broadviews, I really applaud you guys! I couldn’t say it any better! I have to say, if by making some comments on a blog could get you anyway, think again :) I really like what broadviews said about if the church really want to cheat you, it could still do so by posting up some powerpoint slides. LOL..Nice one there!

@john Our church is already so transparent even though its not obligated to, doesn’t that count for something? If you keep demanding for MORE transparency, isn’t it kind of like opposing for the sake of opposing?

Our giving goes to God not in the amount, but in our heart (If some people here are listening to the sermons). If you give to the wrong ministry, but your heart is towards God, God knows and he remembers. If your motive is wrong, no matter where you give, you are still wrong :)

@observer: I happen to think that our church is one of the most courteous churches around. You never hear Pastor Kong mention the name or openly put down another church from the pulpit, even though there are many detractors out there. If anything, that has taught me to be gracious and sensitive when disagreeing with another fellow Christian/or any religion.

If we truly want to be the biggest church, we could easily do so by accepting everyone who wants to be Pastor Kong’s disciple. Just adopt all the small churches in Singapore under CHC’s wings, lor :) But I remember very clearly Pastor emphasizing all growth to come from 1st time decisions = ie we are trying to impact the most amount of people from Christ. It’s easy to become the largest church in Singapore, but we are not even the easiest church to commit to :)

@terence: I understand you’re very active about your opinions, but how come you seem to pick and choose who to reply? haha I asked you a question earlier on :) don’t give melvinchen a hard time, I don’t think he is trying to play God, I think you just pick to reply him sometimes. Is it personal? I don’t know. :)

@dear michael, I don’t think Pastor Kong replies here. Here’s his email if you need it: kh@konghee.com

God bless :)
city111 on March 11th, 2010 9:41 am

It is rather strange that Straits Times did not publish the clarification form Suntec.

According to the report on page 4 of the 9 March 2010’s edition of Lianhe Zaobao (Singpore’s leading Chinese press), Suntec had issued a statement to clarify that City Harvest’s participation in the property is “not big”.

How does one reconcile this with the church’s claim that its share in the property is “substantial”?
Ronald on March 11th, 2010 10:52 am

For the record, many times the media reporting are taken out of context.

I am sure when things settle down there will be official reports of the acquisition.
observer on March 11th, 2010 11:15 am

jinglebelle9,

Did I ever questioned the courtesy or politeness of City Harvest Church? What I pointed out was merely the fact that I’ve observed and heard criticisms against and comparisons with other church(es) in the church. Criticisms and comparisons can be done in a politically correct manner, don’t you agree? Based on technicality, I must agree with you that City Harvest is one of the most courteous churches around.

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the church is courteous and gracious, because we know for a fact that the Pastor Kong and the other leaders never mentioned any specific names when they make remarks from the pulpit regarding other church(es), regardless of actual impact, impression and influence created by those remarks.

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the church did not really perform badly financially over the past few years because arguably, it could have avoided going into deficits if it had not been so generous and gave away 20% of its revenue to charity and missions work. So, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the church is has been prospering and doing really well financially, regardless of what the audited financial statements clearly reveal.

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the church is a 30,000 members church because there are around 33,000 names in its database. So, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the church has the largest congregation in Singapore, regardless of the actual physical attendance numbers at the services.

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, the church co-owns (or has a “substantial” ownship in) Suntec Convention Centre because it is a shareholder of the fund that owns the property. So, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, as a church, City Harvest has the largest building in Singapore, regardless of what the “faithless” detractors are trying to say to the contrary.

Should people like myself just stop making objective observations, stop thinking critically, stop seeking clarification, and stop asking questions (regardless of the actual relevance and validity), and just trust the leadership, because technically speaking (for some of us here), when a leadership is trustworthy, they can do no wrong, they will not make mistakes, and they need not listen to feedback from the ground?
terencelee on March 11th, 2010 11:34 am

@jinglebelle9:

If I have to respond to every comment i’ll be kept extremely busy!

And no, I’m not picking on melvinchen specifically, just his comments. I’m quite disturbed by his implication that he seems “cock-sure” that CHC is right and everyone else is wrong. He mentioned specifically that when God will judge the truth will be made known, and by then CHC’s critics will be proven wrong.

He said:

“One day, the time will come when answers to all these questions will be revealed – its only a matter of time. And then you’ll realise these are not an illusion or a lie….you’ll regret your words and accusations.”

That seems pretty clear to me.
terencelee on March 11th, 2010 11:48 am

My point is this: we can criticise one another all we want, but let God be our ultimate arbiter. I myself am not too concerned about being wrong. if I’m wrong, so be it. There are more things to be concerned about than the building. Ultimately, as many of you have said, if you have no confidence in the church, don’t give. The purpose of such discussions, in my opinion, is simply to sharpen our understanding of the issues involved. I’m not looking for answers, just mental clarity.
observer on March 11th, 2010 12:07 pm

I don’t know about the rest of you, but the leadership’s not-so-subtle reliance on technicality to lay claims on the size of the congregation and the “ownership” of the Suntec property unsettles me. It just feels so “forced”. Hence my question about whether the church is striving too hard.

On a side note, curious about what michael has written, I dropped by Tecman yesterday to check out Pastor Kong’s 90-day devotional (volume 1) book. I found the articles “Secure in yourself” and “Thomas faith” in the book. This could be potential serious matter, as it involves published material meant for commercial sale. I hope someone in church is looking into it, before the whole matter blows up.
observer on March 11th, 2010 12:54 pm

Ronald, you wrote, “For the record, many times the media reporting are taken out of context.”

I agree that media reporting does not always paint a complete and accurate picture. Take for example the report by City News (reproduced here on Pastor Kong’s blog). Included the report is this statement: “It’s an ideal location for City Harvest, really—but at a much lower price than its original cost.” Suntec Singapore was originally built for a price of S$650 million in the early 1990s.”

Reading this, one would be led to think that City Harvest paying “only” S$310m for the property (which was priced at S$650) meant a fantastic deal for the church. But what the City News report fails to reveal is that Suntec Singapore was acquired at a price S$235m in late 2009.

Again, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, no one can say that the City News report is wrong.
TKH_original on March 11th, 2010 1:18 pm

Dear observer,

I think it is perfectly fine if you feel “unsettle” about CHC leadership, as nobody can force anyone to trust or not to trust. My suggestion for you is not to give to CHC (which I think you probably will not, but I may be wrong to …), and if that’s is the case, you should have little concern about the whole building project.

I think CHC is always striving for excellence, and to do greater works for God. And by the grace of God, we are where we are today. I think from my years serving in the church, we are never out to prove anything to anyone. We are here to do what we are supposed to do, whether we have support or face obstacles. But nevertheless, thank you for your concerns.

God bless …

TKH
TKH_original on March 11th, 2010 1:22 pm

Dear John,

You said “Such an ignorant statement proves my point. If you take the full $310M just to pay rental for Hall 601 to 603, it won’t even last 25 years. And you have no money to buy any shares.Your rental for the three halls for 75 years will cost you around $930M, presuming there’s no increase in rental over the 75 years. Which you know that’s impossible.”

I think you just made a statement that CHC got a very good deal …

God bless.

TKH
observer on March 11th, 2010 2:32 pm

TKH, you are welcome. Like Terence, my objective of sharing here is not so much to get answers from anyone, but more for personal mental clarify.

I find that as I participate in the discussions and articulate my thoughts here, I become more and more aware of the reasons why I feel uneasy about what’s happening in church, and I begin to see the issues in a clearer and clearer light. It has been a good experience in exercising my thinking and reasoning, communication, to a certain extent, my problem solving skills.

I hope the rest of you also learned and benefited from the discussions. Most importantly, I hope we have all learned something about how to interpret information critically and accurately, how to think clearly and objectively, and how to discuss issues in a civic and constructive manner.

By the way, I don’t think John’s statement leads to the conclusion that CHC got a good deal. I believe what John was trying say is that we should probe further and find out what has been included in the $310m payment, and what does it mean that it includes rental?

Does it mean that upon the full payment of the $310m, CHC will no longer need to make any further rental payment to use the 12,000-seater hall, until the end of the remaining 70 plus years of the leasehold period? Or does the payment only cover an initial limited period of say 5 or 10 years, after which CHC will need to start paying rental every time it uses the hall?

God bless.
mlranti on March 11th, 2010 2:56 pm

Hi observer,

Just a small comment: I noticed that you took for reference the financial report for the year ending Oct 2008, which is not the latest one. At the last AGM, the latest financial report (in book form) was given to the executive members, namely CGLs. If I recall correctly, the outlook is much better compared to 2008; unfortunately I’m not accounting-trained so I can’t give you a detailed analysis :)

Maybe you can check with your CGL to get this latest info, hope it can answer some of your doubts as to the latest financial health of the church.

God bless,

Mario
observer on March 11th, 2010 3:27 pm

Mario, I am glad to hear that the financial health of the church has improved in the last financial year. I must admit I am not as brave as Terence who is so open with his identity. I dare not take of risk of being seen as a “trouble-maker” or being labelled as a “critic”. Therefore, I’d just be patient and wait for the church to disclose the latest set of financial statements in its website. Anyway, thanks and God bless.
Cal on March 11th, 2010 4:25 pm

dear observer :)
I think we shld not be afriad to voice out if you have questions. you won’t be seen as a troublemaker or a critic ba. I just wanna clarify this. I believe your cell leader would be happy to help. :)
John on March 11th, 2010 4:34 pm

TKH,

If you think that we paid $310M to rent the halls 601-3, the Gallery and the Theatre for 78 years, and still have money to buy shares in the ARA Harmony Fund, plus renovation, equipment and moving cost, then I think you’re being very naive.

And I guess that you like so many others have been convinced by misleading statements made by the leaders.

My guess is that CHC probably have at best a 9 year lease under the present deal.

Anyway I don’t expect most of you to agree with my guesstimate but time should tell I’m not far wrong. But since the members have voted in the AGM to give full empowerment to the leaders on the funds to be raised, maybe we’ll never know.
John on March 11th, 2010 4:54 pm

For 9 years rental of Halls, Gallery & Theatre based on lower estimate of published rates – $150M, maybe $10M for moving, renovation, equipment. Leaves another $150M for Harmony shares. Total $310M.

Problem is record shows we don’t have that much cash in hand, so rental is probably on a yearly basis with some deposit. Commitment to funds likely in stages over the next 5 years.
John on March 11th, 2010 5:03 pm

My last line above meant to be:
Commitment to purchase shares of Harmony fund likely to be in stages over the next 5 years.

$150M for 9 years rental is estimate is based on good discount rate from Suntec’s published price.
Phylanthropist on March 11th, 2010 9:23 pm

As a fellow CHC member I am saddened that here seems to be a lot of speculation and critical inferences going on in this blog. The bottom line is as I posted earlier, Lk 12:53 says,
“As Jesus was leaving, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees became hostile and tried to provoke him with many questions. They wanted to trap him into saying something they could use against him.”

It is very clear that many of them are here also trying to act smart in this blog where others are wanting to rejoice as the blessing God has given to CHC. Out of the abundance of the heart ones attitude can be seen through the fruit of ones writing (surely this is obvious to any reader here without pointing out names)!

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that CHC has gotten a great deal with Suntec and met its objectives that were clearly laid out by Pastor Kong in his message and presentation” and that the Lord has answered CHC’s prayers for a building “in the marketplace, for the marketplace, to penetrate the marketplace”!

Just look at the recent project of New Creation, they spent $496 million for a 5,000 seater hall at One North which is for only 30+ years. Their Management Board apparently saw this as a better deal than renting long term and their members rejoiced and gave. Good for them. Now CHC got a long term lease for a 12,000 seater (with additional meeting rooms) in town at Suntec and is a shareholder at the same time and the returns will apparently cover the lease from what has been shared if you can read between the lines and the property is of 70+ years. Even the Director of Knight Frank was quoted as saying it was a good deal and alternative to buying land and building. (and yes, if he is not qualified-being a premier property and real estate company to comment, who is?)

The CHC Management Board has said all they are able to say regarding the deal. The AGM, which is made up of CGLs and Ministry Leaders from all across the Church agreed and voted that this was a good thing. I am sure more information was shared with them than with the general Church and public. The Leaders are not young kids anymore but mature volunteers, people of conviction who are Lawyers, CEO, Business owners, Managers, CPAs, Accountants and professionals. They are not blind followers! If you really feel that you cannot respect them then you should DEFINITELY go to another Church where you can respect the Leadership and TRUST them. When in 20 over years has the Leadership of CHC ever let the members down in its decisions for a meeting place? Come on please, enough is enough.

If those commenting think they are really so smart and know more then why dont you get involved in leadership and serving? Why don’t you get someone to nominate you for the CHC Management Board? Would anyone support you even? If not, please stop throwing stones. making criticisms and speculations that may not even be true.

I find wisdom in the words of Christ in Lk 12:36, “And I tell you this, you must give an account on judgment day for every idle word you speak.”

and from Paul, in Rom 13:1 “Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished”

Hen 13:17, “Obey your spiritual leaders, and do what they say. Their work is to watch over your souls, and they are accountable to God. Give them reason to do this with joy and not with sorrow. That would certainly not be for your benefit.”

I think that the Bible makes it very clear in regards to how we as Christians and believers speak and behave. Let God be the judge of all things.
michaellowisback on March 11th, 2010 9:59 pm

Anyone can say something here or is oni for some people ahh?
michaellowisback on March 11th, 2010 10:03 pm

Nice Jinglebelle
You got say “What I mean is that if I am not mistaken it is not meant to be his own intellectual property – that’s why it’s different from his books, his personal blog, etc.” So how now? Even his books oso got article is word for word copy from Leadership Bible. This one I din got read but I think Observer not make mistake when he saw artcile in book. Like that can or not? You give me his email? You write to him can? Tell him you very disturbed got one hokkienpeng anyhow say your book got article is copy from Leadership Bible. Is not difficult for him to post defence here tio boh? No point I ask. Maybe he ignore me? Maybe he ask me to go his office, chiak kopi and he explain in office?
Derek on March 11th, 2010 10:16 pm

Dear John,

I am Rev Derek Dunn, the Executive Pastor of CHC. Thank you for your post
and your vigilance on behalf of all of us. There are however
a number of flawed conclusions in your post.

There is nothing inherently inconsistent between Suntec’s announcement and
Pastor Kong’s. Suntec’s statement is a formal legal announcement in
compliance with the SGX-ST listing manual and thus uses bare legal terms.
Pastor Kong pastors our Church and thus announced this development in terms
of how the Church sees this investment.

You buy your shares in Singtel for investment, the Church invested in the
holding company of Suntec because it aspires to co-own the premises it uses
within the confines of the law and existing legal arrangements relating to
Suntec Convention Centre. There is also a great deal of difference between a
stake that may be several decimal points away from 1% and one that is just
one share short of 50%, yet both are minority shareholders in the eyes of
the law.

Without breaching our confidentiality obligations, neither the shareholders
nor ourselves can say more. We are a Church and not a court of law. Pastor
Kong spoke from his heart. After years of exploring many different sites and
their pros and cons, and after much heartache and difficulty which it is not
possible to share here, Pastor Kong wanted to share the enthusiasm of
everyone involved that we finally have a place of worship in a central
location.

What we can say however is that we are not an investor in a fund. We are not
passive with respect to our investment into the convention centre leaving
the fund manager to manage our money and our investment.

While we are tenants of Halls 601 to 603, this is not necessarily an
arrangement that we would have made but for our investment into the holding
company, without being at liberty to say more.

From my personal in depth contact with Pastor Kong and serving together with
him for more than 15 years, I can say that he would never intentionally
bring insult to any person, much less an entire Church. We are all
Christians and any inadvertent slight is regretted. Please accept his
apologies in peace for any offense taken.

The present arrangements are the first step of many that the Church will
need to take to secure centrally located premises for its congregations.
Whether these steps revolve solely around Suntec Convention Centre or any
other space it is not appropriate to disclose at this point. The Church is
constantly reviewing and evaluating its options and guards carefully the
funds entrusted to it by its members.

We call our project “Arise & Build” because we will not be daunted by the
difficulties we have faced or continue to face in securing a permanent place
of worship for our congregations in a central location. The building isn’t
just of brick and mortar but of spiritual determination. However humble you
consider our results, this has been the result of years of determination and
hard work and personal testimonies on this will, God willing, be
shared with the whole Church one day.

As a Church, it is not appropriate for us to conduct our commercial
activities directly. In the UK, we understand that the Commissioner in fact
requires Churches to form subsidiaries to conduct their commercial
activities, and we are advised by our lawyers that our Commissioner in
Singapore has similar views.

Apart from the older Churches who have land in central locations
historically, there are no religious sites in the city centre. There is no
choice for the newer churches such as ourselves but to co-own commercial
centers, but always within the confines of the law. We do not run Suntec
Convention Centre nor do we intend to do so. That is a commercial activity
reserved to commercial people.

Ironically, it is belief in the courage of the leadership to do what is
right even if it attracts calumny that binds the majority of our members
rather than blind faith.

There are easier ways to have avoided the present debate, but there is no
intention to hide or plug yours or any other member’s right to comment on
the proceedings. We ask only that you consider our response in the spirit in
which it is made – a humble, quiet confidence
that we have done the right thing for our Church members.
observer on March 11th, 2010 11:48 pm

Set out below are portions relating to CHC, extracted from the statement and FAQs issued by Suntec Singapore dated March 8, 2010*:

From the statement:
- Suntec Singapore has issued a license agreement to the City Harvest Church (CHC), to use the Level 6 Convention Halls, The Gallery and The Theatre for its activities. Suntec Singapore has built flexibility into its agreement with CHC to allow for retention of various megashows and attract new major events in the future

From the FAQs:
1. Who owns the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre (Suntec Singapore)?
- Suntec Singapore is owned by the ARA Harmony Fund. Stakeholders of the Harmony Fund include Suntec Reit (20%) and other private investors including City Harvest Church.

2. Does City Harvest Church have a majority share in the Harmony Fund?
- While details of the stakeholders are confidential, it can be confirmed that City Harvest Church has a minority participation in the Harmony Fund.

3. Will City Harvest Church have a seat on the ARA Harmony Fund Board?
- Currently, CHC has no board seats in the ARA Harmony Fund.

4. Will the Church have any influence in the daily business of the Convention Centre?
- No. The operation of the Convention Centre has been contracted to Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Services Pte Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of ARA.

5. What leased spaces will City Harvest Church be using in the convention Centre?
- Suntec Singapore has issued a license agreement to the Church to provide 3 halls on the 6th floor, the Gallery space on the 3rd Floor and the theatre on the weekends. The license agreement will come into effect in March 2011.

6. Will the Church be renovating the licensed spaces for their use?
- Yes. An auditorium with the latest sound system will be constructed in the 6th floor halls. This auditorium will be available for Suntec Singapore to market for MICE business and other events during the week. The Gallery will be converted into smaller rooms for exclusive use by the Church. There are o changes planned for the theatre that will be used by the church on the weekends only.

*You can contact Suntec Singapore if you wish to get a copy of the full statement and FAQs.
John on March 12th, 2010 12:20 am

Dear Pastor Derek,

I shall accord you the respect you deserve as an Executive Pastor and return the politeness in my reply to you. I guess it’s not in my place to accept the apology concerning remarks made about the other church which was named openly by Pastor Kong Hee, but I do appreciate the gesture. As to whether it was done intentionally or not, I have to say that you know it’s not the first time. I do hope that we learn to treat our fellow brothers with respect since we are all in the same family. We may differ in our interpretation of scripture, but to categorize them with sinners is very uncalled for.

With regards to the truth behind the Suntec deal, I guess it may be a true fact about the non-disclosure but at the same time it is also a convenient excuse to not divulge very key information that is crucial for the confidence and full-hearted support of this deal by every member. I still do not understand why the leaders agree to a non-disclosure for the sake of Harmony’s shareholders when the members of the church, who are essentially shareholders too, are kept in the dark.

I agree that minority could mean anything from 1 share to 1 short of 50%, but you, of all people, should know that the stake purchased, based on our available funds and based on sound reasoning, is going to be found in the far lower half of that range. Yes, maybe in time to come when the full $310M is raised, but not now and certainly not in the near future.

This is one other reason why people like me are unhappy. To see our leaders say things that is technically not a lie but yet leads to a certain impression. And it results in our members, especially the young ones, going around declaring, blogging, twitting and facebooking we own Suntec City, have 1,000,000 sq ft, we have 78 years lease, the other church will pay rent to us and all for $310M, compared to other church who pay $500M for 30 years (evidenced in contributions above).

Please… even if we have a better deal, should we have such an attitude? This kind of behavior is a reflection of a leadership that is always comparing, competing and always needing to be number one. I know somebody’s got to be number one but it’s the competitiveness and the strong driving ethos of the church that makes many of our members to behave this way.

Why don’t the leadership do something and correct the wrong impressions concerning the building? I’m sure something can be done without infringing on the NDA.

Pastor Derek, with regards to the building, you don’t have to answer since it’ll be difficult to clarify without disclosing confidential info. I trust that you really believe you are doing the right thing for CIty Harvest Church and I respect you for being able to articulate your response to me in such an honorable and respectful demeanor.

Pardon my candidness in certain portions but it is really said without malice.

Thank you.
FearGod on March 12th, 2010 1:28 am

Dear John,

John: ” We may differ in our interpretation of scripture, but to categorize them with sinners is very uncalled for.”

Can I check did you ever hear the CHC leadership called or categorize any other church as sinners? If not, probably you are the one who is doing the categorizing, or at its worst essence, an accusation without any proof. If yes, then you should highlight your concern to a pastor with the supporting evidences. To me, it sounds like a “sweeping statement” on your part.

John: “I still do not understand why the leaders agree to a non-disclosure for the sake of Harmony’s shareholders when the members of the church, who are essentially shareholders too, are kept in the dark.”

I think you are wrong, there are no shareholders in CHC. When a person gives his time, finances, energy to serve in the house of God, it is not to have a “share” in the church. We do it out of our love for God and others, not for personal benefit. I am not implying there is no accountability system. I think CHC has sufficient accountability measures in place, which I know you will most likely find them insufficient from your remarks. I certainly don’t feel I am kept in the dark … just that maybe you need more light …

John: “To see our leaders say things that is technically not a lie but yet leads to a certain impression.”

Your words seem to imply the leaders are telling a “subtle lie?” I hope I am wrong in my perception … but I look at the statements made by the church, I don’t have the impression CHC owns the whole Suntec …

John: “Please… even if we have a better deal, should we have such an attitude?”

Personally, I am not thinking about any competition or comparing with other church. For me, I am just happy and excited that we found a good place for our worship services and a central base to do more in the future. I agree maybe some members might be carried away and got into some unncessary comparisons. But again, it probably understandable as people are excited. I think they will not go around and boast about the new building and put other Christians down.

On a personal note, I am not sure are you a member of CHC … but if you are, you don’t seem to be enjoying the Christian life in CHC. Why “torture” yourself in a church you can’t agree with the method or style of leadership? I am sure you can find a much better church than CHC than suit your needs and spiritual growth.

Take care …

FearGod
erickp on March 12th, 2010 1:33 am

I have to admit I do have a wrong impression after Pastor’s last week announcement.

I heard something about acquiring significant share fn the 80% of the ownership and the other party only has 20%, so I infer that we have got the majority. Certainly my interpretation is wrong, and obviously our cheering and excitement has reduced the information gain.

And after being showed all the cool pictures, being presented all big capacity numbers and areas, and being told that we will not be bounced around again – even get some share of others rent payment – only have to give up 5 times as our contribution to gov. ; I couldn’t help but thinking that somehow we do own it all and not just renting. Again, my personal bad judgment and presumptuous understanding.

I do hope that its all just my premature impression, not purposefully driven or anything. It is good that we have a discussion here, so that we know all the facts. Lets Arise and Build, Achieving Dreams, Celebrating Success !!
CRX on March 12th, 2010 1:39 am

Pastor Derek,

I understand John’s frustration as I’m also personally upset over how the disclosures were made on the weekend services cum fund raising day.

From the perspective of an ordinary member like me, I think the minimum disclosures that should have been made during the weekend services are:
- to explain why the NDA is required which prohibits CHC from providing more details of the $310m breakdown
- to reveal that the consortium had previously bought the building at S$235million in September 2009 (this is public news anyway and was already in the internet) and explain why CHC still think entering into this $310m project is a good deal.

As it is now, members who find out about this S$235 million price LATER and have no clue on the $310m breakdown may:
- wonder why this crucial information was not revealed on the fund-raising day which naturally triggers suspicion that something could be wrong somewhere
- have regrets in giving and pledging to the building fund (I believe pledging is something a person would need to account to God for, so wouldn’t it be hard for the person to withdraw his pledging if he doesn’t like the true picture later?)

I just think CHC leaders should have been more considerate on the members’ thoughts and feelings if they want to enter into such a large, complicated and secretive deal. Without contravening the NDA, as much information as possible should be disclosed to members on the project in a balanced manner. For example, your explanation above is helpful and should have been conveyed to members on that day.

Otherwise, the fund-raising day should be held later so that members can find out more about the project – at least it will allow them to give/pledge with their eyes wide open.

Although this $310m project may still be controversial to others no matter how you slice and cut it, I believe that some ordinary members, like me, would find it easier to understand and support this project if the above disclosures were made during that weekend services cum fund raising day

It is my sincere hope that CHC would provide as much disclosures as possible on this project during the upcoming weekend services, particularly for the benefits of those who may have got the wrong impression of this project.

God bless.
Handwritings on March 12th, 2010 2:55 am

Hi Pastor Derek,

Thank for the post. It is indeed respectable and courageous for you to come out and explain and calm the storm here. Appreciate that :)

Having said that, I believe there seem to be many people (not sure what demographics they’re in) who are really in need of answers… this, does not imply that they are detractors or harsh critics (so the rest of the members please do not simply chase them away and shoo them to the door) They certainly could just be a representation of many who choose not to respond on the blog, or simply away from it all. They are the voice of the unheard.

My concern – especially echoes John’s point:
To see our leaders say things that is technically not a lie but yet leads to a certain impression. And it results in our members, especially the young ones, going around declaring, blogging, twitting and facebooking we own Suntec City, have 1,000,000 sq ft, we have 78 years lease, the other church will pay rent to us and all for $310M, compared to other church who pay $500M for 30 years (evidenced in contributions above).

It is not only saddening, but VERY misleading should members go around setting up FB groups such as “I own a chair in Suntec City Convention” or mentioning quotes like “Next time when I shop in Suntec, it is also like giving offering.”

I think this is a pretty dangerous caution that as the Leadership I hope is something we can clarify and present a clearer picture, rather than to end up being a misrepresentation or misunderstanding.

Like what Pastor Kong always says – “Under project and over-perform.” I hope we have alternated it around.

Cheers :)
Handwritings on March 12th, 2010 2:58 am

@Pastor Derek

As a suggestion, we could breakdown certain details and understanding for the Leaders (not all are finance or accounting trained to understand investments and leasing models) – as i am sure many of the members would have plenty of questions when they meet during CGM.

I guess having a clearer picture of how the whole Funding works would ease much of the doubts and questions than to simply reply – “Just trust the Leadership…”

Hope that helps.
TKH_original on March 12th, 2010 3:06 am

Dear CRX,

I supposed you are a very new member, or probably didn’t participate in “Arise and Build” before, or “trying” to be a member.

Firstly, every giving is free-will, even if you have pledged and never fulfilled it, nobody is going to force you to pay up. If any leader force you to pay, please talk to your pastor immediately.

Moreover, we have given to Arise and Build way before this building was in sight. If there is so much information you need before you can give, I think you missed the point. Our giving is in obedience to what God has spoken indivdually to each member. If you have so many considerations, you should not pledge in the first place.

God bless.

TKH
Handwritings on March 12th, 2010 3:21 am

@TKH_original:

I simply hope you could give some of us an open mind and open heart. I really feel some of the points raised are valid and give them the benefit of doubt – rather than accusing/suggesting them as “fake-members” trying to stir up a storm.

Thanks
Handwritings on March 12th, 2010 5:47 am

FearGod on March 12th, 2010 1:28 am
Dear John,
John: ” We may differ in our interpretation of scripture, but to categorize them with sinners is very uncalled for.”
Can I check did you ever hear the CHC leadership called or categorize any other church as sinners? If not, probably you are the one who is doing the categorizing, or at its worst essence, an accusation without any proof. If yes, then you should highlight your concern to a pastor with the supporting evidences. To me, it sounds like a “sweeping statement” on your part.

Perhaps you can ask anyone who was in the AGM and they can tell you what were the exact words being said… :)
timtimtimtim on March 12th, 2010 7:26 am

Handwritings on March 12th, 2010 5:47 am
FearGod on March 12th, 2010 1:28 am
Dear John,
John: ” We may differ in our interpretation of scripture, but to categorize them with sinners is very uncalled for.”
Can I check did you ever hear the CHC leadership called or categorize any other church as sinners? If not, probably you are the one who is doing the categorizing, or at its worst essence, an accusation without any proof. If yes, then you should highlight your concern to a pastor with the supporting evidences. To me, it sounds like a “sweeping statement” on your part.
Perhaps you can ask anyone who was in the AGM and they can tell you what were the exact words being said… :)

PK: “The transfer of the wealth of the ______ to us” “dont quote me”
crowd:”hahaha… clap clap..”
his intentions were clear.
Michael Lee on March 12th, 2010 8:57 am

Hi guys,

A week before A&B Pastor Kong shared a word with us on the Ephesian church. In many ways we are indeed very similar to that great church in giving, sacrificing and standing for the truth.

The exchanges/questionings/doubts especially the spirit (if you prefer tone/attitude/motivation) in which these were conveyed is not characteristic of that church. Please don’t behave like the church of Corinth that Paul the Apostle needed to correct and correct again and again.

Even Pastor Derek has come forth to address issues here. Can the City Harvest members here give him the due respect? This is the blog of City Harvest’s spiritual founder, can US the MEMBERS of City Harvest take our questions and arguments to our leaders directly, face to face instead of conducting it here for the rest of the world, members non-members to see? Is it so hard to say you want to speak to your CGL, ZS or Pastor?

Comon guys, it’s already hard enough to be as innocent as doves. Let’s try to be wise and behave for the interests of this church God planted us in. Love God, love His House, love your brothers and sisters in word and deed. Not just “it’s because I love the church that’s why I’m questioning…”

Pastor Kong is like Apostle Paul to us in City Harvest
danieljx on March 12th, 2010 11:21 am

Dear comment contributors,

I would like to believe that all of us love God and the church (except with a few exceptions and we all know who you are from your posts – it’s quite obvious actually)

I agree with Michael Lee and I quote “Let’s try to be wise and behave for the interests of this church God planted us in. Love God, love His House, love your brothers and sisters in word and deed. Not just “it’s because I love the church that Pastors why I’m questioning…”

1. If you are a member, there are existing channels of communications within the structure of the church. CGLs, ZS, Pastors. This is a public forum. Since when do family members speak through a public forum? Don’t you just talk within your house? Why not speak directly through the channels?

2. Perhaps some of you are just attendees of the church and you have no one to talk to. If you really want to part of this church, it’s not just through your giving. What about in love, in attitude, in speech and in deed? CG IS a major part of this church. If there’s any reason you feel you do not have anyone to turn to, perhaps it’s because you are not connected in the first place? Why not get connected if this is where you want to be planted?

3. To the other Christians. Yes, we are the Body of Christ. Yes, there should be accountability. But what about the track record of the church? The integrity of the leadership of this church has been proven time and time again in the last 21 years of the church’s existence. Can you account for your words you post in this forum? Some of you speak accusations after accusations, interrogating the church? In the first place, who gave you the right to question CHC’s ‘family’? Does/should anyone question yours? Using the bible-slamming tactics in this forum only make you look worse off. You have no right to question in this attitude in the first place. God will require an account of our words when we meet Him.

As a member, I believe in due time, the leadership will reveal the answers. But in the meantime, will the ‘love-the-church-that’s-why-i-question’ crowd please stop questioning with a i-see-through-this attitude which is not just interrogative but absurd! If you really love the church, love the leadership – do it in deed and in speech. Do consider what you post before you hit the post button.
observer on March 12th, 2010 11:31 am

Business Times reported on Mar 2, 2010 that Suntec REIT has plans to acquire the ENTIRE Suntec Convention Centre. If the plans were to proceed, what would the implications be for City Harvest Church as the co-owner of the property?

SUNTEC REIT EYES CONVENTION CENTRE

Suntec Real Estate Investment Trust (Suntec REIT) has plans to acquire the entire Suntec International Convention & Exhibition Centre. However, this is unlikely to happen until the convention centre has been repositioned to produce a more stable income stream.

“Eventually, we hope for Suntec REIT to acquire the asset,” said John Lim, chief executive of ARA Asset Management, which has a unit that manages Suntec REIT.

But “we have to spend some time and money to reposition the convention centre, and that may take about two to three years,” he added.

ARA has not yet coordinated with the Urban Redevelopment Authority, although their plans are subject for approval. “We will have to work with the authorities closely on how to reposition the asset,” said Mr. Lim.

In 2009, ARA purchased Suntec convention centre for $235 million and placed it under the ARA Harmony Fund, a newly created private property fund. Suntec REIT has a 20 percent share in this fund.

Suntec REIT did not acquire the convention centre entirely as its earnings fluctuated, depending on the frequency and size of events held.

REITS prefer properties with stable income in order for them to make steady payouts to unit-holders.

Nicholas Mak, a property lecturer from Ngee Ann Polytechnic, said “putting up tenants that pay regular rents would be a way to instill more stability into the income of the convention centre.” However, he said that the amount of space that could be converted to other uses could be limited.

The possibility of more food and beverage outlets at Suntec convention centre was also raised by Mr. Lim. “There are quite a number of activities you can look at,” he said.

In the meantime, Suntec REIT has been busy working to enhance some of its other assets. It said it would build a glass facade and covered walkway to connect Suntec City Mall to the forthcoming Promenade MRT station. It is also building new retail units.

Suntec REIT units earned one cent on Friday to close at $1.30.

Source : Business Times – 2 Mar 2010
wwwg35 on March 12th, 2010 11:38 am

Hey danieljx,
I totally agree with you. Being a member in CHC for the last 16 years, it is really absurd to see our supposed members who post such questions in a public forums.
CHC is a closely knitted family and we talk about everything to our family. In public, we praise one another. In private, we correct and ask questions that we do not understand.
Honestly speaking, why do the people care so much about our new location? Not as if they bought shares from REIT or they contribute money to CHC. All in the name of “they have a right to know”? No man can tell another man how to live his life or how to teach his own family if that man is not a family member.
aaronchew on March 12th, 2010 11:41 am

dear pastor derek,
thank you for your comments which displayed the spirit that every city harvester should carry. cheers!

aaron
absolutKEL on March 12th, 2010 11:58 am

Pastor, why dont we all sing the We Are The World 25 For Haiti song at service? :)
TKH_original on March 12th, 2010 12:00 pm

To Handwritings,

From the tone of the comment, I can’t help but think that it could be just the intent of 1 or 2 to stir up unncessary things.

For example ■timtimtimtim on March 12th, 2010 7:26 am came out of nowhere to make his comment, I think it could be the same person with a particular agenda. Of course I may be wrong, but I think the readers can perceive it …

Personally, I felt enough has been said in this comments area. CHC is a spiritual family with God’s appointed leaders over this house. It is definitely not a perfect church, but I think it is a progressive church. If for any reasons a person have sincere concerns or doubts, he/ she should take the initiative to talk to a pastor personally. If after that the issue cannot be resolved, the person has to make a choice as to decide can CHC be his home church.

In the first place, CHC started with nothing, and all that we have today is by the grace of God. The simple belief that I have is “If God be for us, who can be against us?” And I think the vice versa is true, “If God is against us, who can be for us?” Therefore, even though I appreciate the concerns of the critics, I personally find them unncessary …

God bless.

TKH
terencelee on March 12th, 2010 12:05 pm

I have to disagree with the notion of “keeping things in the family”. CHC is no longer a small family church. We’re a family of 30,000. What we do has implications for people who are not in church. We have financial clout. Why do you think non-CHCers are so interested in us? It’s because of our influence.

Let’s discard the notion about putting up a false front where everything is shiny on the surface when in fact there are many valid questions to be raised. Let’s be an authentic church that is not afraid to show our failings and strengths. Let’s practice radical honesty. The public has the right to be concerned about what we do, because it affects them too! I say instead of being fake, let’s be as open as we can be. I’m sure our society as a whole will benefit.

I am grateful that Pastor Derek has come onto the forum to engage church members. He is setting a great example of how the senior leadership should engage the rest of the church. I hope this will be a sign of greater things to come. Let’s use the Internet as a tool to help our church.
terencelee on March 12th, 2010 12:10 pm

Also, I want to point out that there’s no point casting doubt on each other’s agenda. Instead, let’s assume we’re all here to engage one another constructively. We can’t presume to know what others are thinking. I personally think its great that I can come here and engage with ZSes and Pastors. It’ll be sad if all we do here is to accuse one another of having ulterior motives or disobeying god or all that.

Rather, let’s view this discussion forum positively. Otherwise, why not just request to shut it down?
Ronald on March 12th, 2010 12:19 pm

Hi Observer,

Pastor DD said the following:

“The present arrangements are the first step of many that the Church will need to take to secure centrally located premises for its congregations. Whether these steps revolve solely around Suntec Convention Centre or any other space it is not appropriate to disclose at this point. The Church is constantly reviewing and evaluating its options and guards carefully the funds entrusted to it by its members.”

I understand the need for answers and clarifications by some concerned individuals here. However, based on what Pastor DD is saying, it is quite obvious that the board have plans beyond Suntec and the new may not come as a surprise – if the ARA Harmony fund knows it, then our stakeholders will not be ignorant about it.

At the end of the day, we need to understand that whether we build a building or not, does not matter at all – because our focus is not about building a building, but having a facility to house the congregation and be a launching pad for missions all over the world. The church’s objective is really building lives and expanding the gospel rather than building concrete building and have some things to boast about. We already have built a monumental building before, debt free from the giving of people who are still not rich that time – and we have already proven a point that God is real and have no need to do so again.

And the board is looking for the most cost-effective way to own a facility to house the church congregation – whether by means of building a concrete building from scratch or renting a facility or co-owning a property fund, it really is just a means to fulfill the objective. As members, we need to look at the big picture of fulfilling the great commandment n great commission, and not just fix our eyes on a building.

And as he have said, it’s confidential. It is a commercial interest, so even if you bang your door at commercial holdings involved, you will not have anything.

Put it that way…the commercial organisations have more to worry and be concerned about what the church says than the church ourselves. And I know if pastor may, he will tell all… there are many moments in the AGM that pastor kong ask the board “am I allowed to say this?”, only to be replied with a “No, we are not allowed to say that”

And if they have a choice, they will rather we keep as hush as we can for fear of affecting their commercial interests in the markets.

So at the end of the day, we are just passer-bys – we’ll move on just like we have in the last 15 years I’ve been in church.

Understand that the money we give are managed to the best of the abilities of the board which consist of experienced people who are subject matter experts, let’s focus our attention on more important things like soul winning – EASTER IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.

Surely we can spend better time reaching out to friends, family and colleagues. The truth will come to light as time goes by, but there’s only a small window for unsaved souls to know God.

Don’t win small and lose big. The building and the money – is not the point. People are.
observer on March 12th, 2010 12:23 pm

For those of you interested in the facts, Suntec Singapore’s statement released on March 8, 2010 has made the following very clear:

City Harvest Church:
- has a minority participation in the ARA Harmony Fund
- has no board seats in the Fund
- does not have any influence in the daily business of the Convention Centre, and
- has been issued with a license, which will take effect from March 2011, to use the 3 halls on the 6th floor, the Gallery space on the 3rd Floor and the theatre on the weekends.

When it comes to the amount of stakeholding held by the church in the Fund, and how long the license (for the church to use the venues) will be valid for, I concede we just have to accept that no answers will be forthcoming, because of the NDA. It a fact. We have to live with it.

John’s guesstimates look like the best “answers” anyone could hope for. Based on the reference figures (e.g. current rental for the convention halls – which can be easily verified) and his reasoning (which I find to be sound), I believe he probably isn’t too far off. So, if you are looking for numbers to work with, you may want to use John’s guesstimates as a guide.
observer on March 12th, 2010 12:51 pm

Hi Ronald, thanks for your comment. I asked what I asked because I have problem reconciling the the information I received.

On the one hand, I get the impression from the church leaders that the church has finally secured its “promised land” with the Suntec deal. On the other hand, other sources of information seem to tell us that the “promised land” is not as secured as we would like it to be.

For a person whose decision-making is based on objective analysis of facts and figures, I just find this whole episode unsettling and frustrating.

I agree with you bro, that ultimately, it is not so much the building, but the people that matter.

God bless.
JustMe on March 12th, 2010 12:55 pm

Dear Pastor Derek,

I think it is phenomenal you came into this to give your views and share with us.

Do know we do appreciate your inputs! :)

@terencelee: “Let’s discard the notion about putting up a false front where everything is shiny on the surface when in fact there are many valid questions to be raised. Let’s be an authentic church that is not afraid to show our failings and strengths. Let’s practice radical honesty. The public has the right to be concerned about what we do, because it affects them too! I say instead of being fake, let’s be as open as we can be. I’m sure our society as a whole will benefit.”

Even after reading what our Senior Pastor had to write on this subject matter and what our Executive Pastor clarified, you are seemingly still implying that beneath that “shiny surface” lies much still to be hidden.

Pardon me if I am wrong, but I suppose one of the things having you in a bind would be: “So far, the church has not even explained why it had agreed to the non-disclosure agreement in the first place. Correct me if I’m wrong on this. And please understand what the NDA means. It means that the church might not be able to reveal how it will spend its $310 million. ”

Would CHC have a choice to tell Suntec Singapore, ‘nah, we don’t want to sign the NDA’ and do you think the deal would have still gone through? If you do think so, then I would think you are naive indeed. The NDA serves (in my opinion) to protect Suntec’s commercial interest and share prices. It is not meant as a wall behind which CHC can spend the $310mil at will.

Will the church be able to reveal how the $310million is spent?

Honestly I don’t know. I am not privvy to the NDA. If like you say, it will be easy to work backwards, then it is true, we might not be able to have a proper breakdown, and only ballpark figures might be given. However, the accounts will still be audited, and as the donations are stipulated to the BUILDING FUND, rest assured that the auditors will also check to make sure no other expenses outside those incurred for the building are charged here.

I have been a member in CHC for years, and I do remember when the Jurong West building was being constructed, Pastor would give regular updates on its progress, and even put up a detailed breakdown of how the $48million was spent. Even with this amount years back, the church leadership has proven itself to be good stewards of the money.
JustMe on March 12th, 2010 1:03 pm

@ observer:

Just my two cents …

I believe if you read Pastor Derek’s reply, he would have answered your question.

If not for our shareholding, Suntec won’t be available for us to even use on a regular weekend. And because of our stake, effective rental in Suntec decreases.

While you may be stuck on “building ownership” i.e. physically owning a plot of land and building on it, ownership of shares might be a more economically viable option. Investing into a sound company with sound returns will assure a greater capital return than having a annually-depreciating building. As shareholders, we are also “protected” from such expenses like building maintenance or upkeep. Yes, profits may be affected, but our cashflow as a church is also more “predictable”.

You mention about security of the lease CHC has with Suntec.

Well, I suppose if you think for Suntec (who issues the license to us), CHC is a viable and very valuable tenant… cos week after week after week, services will still be on. If you are a landlord, wouldn’t you ADORE us as your tenant? U are ensuring constant rental yields over a period of time, which will make your shareholders happy in return. Haha!
terencelee on March 12th, 2010 1:06 pm

@JustMe: Don’t get me wrong! That is not what I imply at all!

What i am saying is that, since we say we’re an imperfect church, let’s not try to cover that up.
JustMe on March 12th, 2010 1:14 pm

@terencelee: Wow, quick reply :) Alright, your words noted. :)
observer on March 12th, 2010 2:11 pm

@JustMe: Contrary to your allegation that I am stuck on “building ownership”, if you had read my earlier comments (specifically, the ones I added on March 10th, 2010 10:23 am and on March 11th, 2010 11:15 am), you would know that I have no problem with the church claiming co-ownership of the building via its participation in the ARA Harmony Fund.

My concern is with the fact that City Harvest does NOT have a majority stake in the building. This means, unlike a major shareholder, it exercises NO control ( over matters that pertain to the building.

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that City Harvest also does NOT have any seat in the board, which means that, unlike a party with some representation in the board, City Harvest does NOT have a say in the management policies and decisions that pertain to the building.

What City Harvest has is only a license (that comes with a fixed term and needs to be renewed every few years) to use the 3 halls on level 6, the Gallery area on level 3 and the theatre on weekends.

Reasonably speaking, when one takes into consideration all the above factors, and then read the Business Times report on Suntec REIT’s plans to acquire the entire Suntec Convention Centre, could one be truly assured that the church’s tenancy at the convention centre is secure? Who can say that in 5 or 10 years time, when the current license expires for City Harvest Church, there won’t be another “viable and very valuable tenant” that could outbid City Harvest for the new license?

The concern would not be as acute under “building ownership”, as the church would likely have full ownership and total control over the building.

Sorry, but I am just being brutally objective and realistic about the whole matter.
wen0606 on March 12th, 2010 2:42 pm

Dear Pastor,

Just wanna say a big thank you for all your sacrifices and faith to believe in the vision God’s given to you and the church. if not for your perserverance and faith and vision, we will never arrive at where we are.

Beyond the location, i believe this is just a step that God has once again shown us his faithfulness, and that all things are possible through Him. And there’re more and greater things God has installed for us, thanks so much for laying down your life for us all :)

And Suntec, wow, really a miracle and indeed, in the marketplace, for the marketplace, to penetrate the marketplace! the vision, the prayers have all come to pass, amen!

Running together with you, and believing the best is yet to be :)

With much love, thanks Pastor and Sun!
JustMe on March 12th, 2010 2:50 pm

@observer:

No, your concerns are valid, and I am sure, every chc member would want to secure this prime location, not just for the next 1-3 years, but for as long as it can serve our purposes.

“My concern is with the fact that City Harvest does NOT have a majority stake in the building. This means, unlike a major shareholder, it exercises NO control ( over matters that pertain to the building. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that City Harvest also does NOT have any seat in the board, which means that, unlike a party with some representation in the board, City Harvest does NOT have a say in the management policies and decisions that pertain to the building.”

Your concerns are valid. The running of the building is not in the hands of the church.

The missing link would probably be in terms of the contract lease agreement CHC has inked out with Suntec Singapore. However, given that in Suntec’s statement, it assures its clients of its commitment to the MICE industry, it seems unlikely to me that their business model will change. Even if Suntec REIT wants to acquire the Convention Centre, their primary aim is to ensure constant returns, and I feel that they would value regular tenants such as CHC. Until Suntec releases more information on its contract, i suppose a lot of what we say is pure speculation on both our parts…

Building ownership is of course great, we have seen that in our Jurong West premise. But in light of the high, rather prohibitive land and construction costs, it seems to be something only further down the pipeline for the church.
timtimtimtim on March 12th, 2010 3:03 pm

TKH_original on March 12th, 2010 12:00 pm
To Handwritings,
From the tone of the comment, I can’t help but think that it could be just the intent of 1 or 2 to stir up unncessary things.
For example ■timtimtimtim on March 12th, 2010 7:26 am came out of nowhere to make his comment, I think it could be the same person with a particular agenda. Of course I may be wrong, but I think the readers can perceive it …

oh so i can’t comment? if not, whats wrong with my comments? did i said anything wrong? ;)
correct me if i’m wrong.
CRX on March 12th, 2010 3:06 pm

TKH_original

Pls refrain from making wild assumptions on my membership credentials – and really, is this so important before I can point out what I hope the church will address ASAP? Bear in mind that last weekend services were telecast “live” over the internet to thousands/millions of people (including non-members).

Pls correct me if I’m wrong, I believe pledging is something a person would need to account to God for. It has got nothing to do with anyone forcing me to pay up. Of course, anyone can easily revoke their pledges, but don’t you agree that members should first try their best to fulfill their pledges?

My point is this – I think members should give/pledge in the last A&B after seeing the true picture of the project (ie with their eyes wide open). This is not comparable with the previous A&Bs, as members then were fully aware that they are giving into a building fund (ie nothing complicated and secretive).
city111 on March 12th, 2010 3:06 pm

Rental is paid in advance whereas profit ( if any) from Suntec will only be paid as dividend approximately 15 months later( assuming AGM are held 3 months after the financial year-end). Whether profit to be declared as dividend or used for loan repayment or expansion depend on the shareholders which the Church had no influence since they are only a minority shareholders.

On assumption that Suntec is profitable, there is a price to be paid which is why we need to know what is the actual stake. How much is substantial stake or what is NOT BIG ( as clarified by Suntec on our level of participation) is critical. Since the identity of the Seller ( who sold the shares to the Church ) and the consortium is l unknown, the NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT SEEMS TO BE IRRELEVANT.

The dividends paid by Suntec will not goes to the Church but to the Consortium company who can only declares dividend to the Church another 15 months later unless interim dividend are declared whereby majority of shareholders’ approval are required .
timtimtimtim on March 12th, 2010 3:08 pm

Handwritings on March 12th, 2010 5:47 am
FearGod on March 12th, 2010 1:28 am
Dear John,
John: ” We may differ in our interpretation of scripture, but to categorize them with sinners is very uncalled for.”
Can I check did you ever hear the CHC leadership called or categorize any other church as sinners? If not, probably you are the one who is doing the categorizing, or at its worst essence, an accusation without any proof. If yes, then you should highlight your concern to a pastor with the supporting evidences. To me, it sounds like a “sweeping statement” on your part.
Perhaps you can ask anyone who was in the AGM and they can tell you what were the exact words being said… :)

I believed that people need to know certain statements about another church were made from the pulpit and as a active reader, i decided to response to that statement so that it ain’t just a “sweeping statement”
omega on March 12th, 2010 3:26 pm

To city 111:

you mentioned that:
“Since the identity of the Seller ( who sold the shares to the Church ) and the consortium is l unknown, the NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT SEEMS TO BE IRRELEVANT.”

I believe that IRRELEVANCE should be determined by the people who signed the agreement and not be outsiders who just sit and give comments.

If the church has signed a Non-disclosure agreement, are we expecting the church to break their legal word at this moment of time.

I think if the church members can wait, maybe the outsiders can wait as well
TKH_original on March 12th, 2010 4:04 pm

Dear CRX,

Sorry that I caused such a strong reaction in you … my assumption is based purely on what I understood from your comments, and that is why it is purely an assumption, which may be wrong … But again, you are a member not by the card you have, but by the lifestyle you exhibit in your speech and action …

It is true that once a person pledged, he/she should do his or her utmost to honor that vow. Truth is our pledge is first to the Lord, and not to the church. And if that is the case, we should pledge based on revelation – what God has impressed in our hearts; and not on information.

So your suggestion for more information should not affect the pledge of the the members. If our members’ giving is based on information, there will probably never be “Arise and Build” in the 1st place.

As far as I am concerned, the attitude and motivation for every Arise and Build is the same.

God bless
.
TKH
observer on March 12th, 2010 4:31 pm

JustMe: You wrote: “Your concerns are valid. The running of the building is not in the hands of the church.”

Thanks for acknowledging the validity of my concerns, instead of just shrugging them off.

I look forward to the valid concerns raised here (not just by me, but by others also) being addressed by the leaders at the appropriate time.

God bless.
CRX on March 12th, 2010 5:05 pm

TKH_original
No worries – my apologies if I come across too strong – just wanted to make my point clear.

I also think you have given a fair view on giving/pledging by revelation and not information. But, information is also useful for members to rationalize things and clear as much doubts / questions that they have – and this would only be possible if CHC tries its best to give as much disclosures as possible in a balanced manner, without contravening the NDA.
Z on March 12th, 2010 5:23 pm

We give because we love God
We give because we want the place of worship to be awesome
We give not because we need to but because we want to
We give because of conviction and not convenience
We give despite what others are saying
We give because we trust in the leadership

Unequal Amount, Equal Sacrifice!

Focus on the right thing. Let’s Arise and Build!
newcreation on March 12th, 2010 5:34 pm

Dear Rev Dr Kong Hee and all City Harvesters,

Congratulations on your new worship venue! Suntec is blessed indeed! :)
leila on March 12th, 2010 7:01 pm

Dear all,

Wow I think Suntec is a great place and am so blessed that the church’s vision is being fulfilled!

This is indeed sth amazing :) It is a so great that suntec is going to be our new home!

CHC has been my home for many years now and the project Arise and Build has brought many of us to new breakthroughs :) It is not about the brick of building but about our lives that are being built up :)

I am thankful, truly for great leaders and visionaries in our midst :)
teebh on March 12th, 2010 7:21 pm

Yes, we are thankful to the great leaders and their abilities to deliver the vision that God has given:

We are also grateful to Pastor Derek for his sharing of information, views and insights.

I am truly amazed with the insightful comments from the Pastor:

1. “While we are tenants of Halls 601 to 603, this is not necessarily an arrangement that we would have made but for our investment into the holding company, without being at liberty to say more.”

2. “The present arrangements are the first step of many that the Church will need to take to secure centrally located premises for its congregations. Whether these steps revolve solely around Suntec Convention Centre or any other space it is not appropriate to disclose at this point.”

Also, I can now link to Pastor Tan’s comments quoted in CityNews on 7 Mar 2010:

3. “In the event that there are such key events on the same scale as the IMF-World Bank meetings, Tan says City Harvest will exercise flexibility and vacate the space for such clients. “We are now part-owners,” he explains. “It benefits us too.” Tan points out that although City Harvest will use the space for its services, the building is still a commercial entity, and technically not a “church building”. “The church will lease the space to use for our services,” explains Tan. “The difference is that we are also co-owners of this building.””

And connect to Pastor Kong’s point raised on 7 Mar 2010:

4. “Having our own property means we will no longer subject our congregations to the risk of not being able to rent a facility for use, or having to move from time to time to different venues.”

So let’s don’t draw our conclusions too early or too fast before knowing the details. Stay tuned as the greater things and greater works unfold. And when they come to pass, we will be laughing our way to the …….church. Hallelujah!
leila on March 12th, 2010 7:35 pm

Yes, thankful for Pastor Derek’s points that have provided greater clarity into the situation!! :)
teebh on March 12th, 2010 7:45 pm

“Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers,
who can cut through argument, debate and doubt,
to offer a solution everybody can understand.”
- Gen Colin Powell
Handwritings on March 13th, 2010 1:54 am

teebh on March 12th, 2010 7:45 pm
“Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers,
who can cut through argument, debate and doubt,
to offer a solution everybody can understand.”
- Gen Colin Powell

To make things simple – this whole Suntec A&B campaign is likened to CHC moving into Expo.

Just that now we are using Suntec Convention as the premise.

The difference is we hold some ‘ownership’ shares which will translate to yearly “discounts”.

In short, we are moving from Expo to Suntec (at a discounted price) – that’s all. Hope this is simple and clear enough.

Nevermind about all the other figures and numbers structures :)
teebh on March 13th, 2010 2:08 am

Yes, the mandate to have the building in the marketplace, for the marketplace and to penetrate the marketplace is God’s original plan. The seed is the Word. It is sown into good soil.

Mark 4:20
But these are the ones sown on good ground, those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit: some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred.

The soil is the heart that receives the Word. The Word is received and stored in a good and resilient heart. The principle is that what is sown will grow. If it is put into the ground, it will come up. And it will come up in abundance. If the soil is good, that is, if the heart has been prepared, there is no limit to the harvest that can come up.

Proverbs 4:23 says, “Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it spring the issues of life.”

If the heart is guarded, a harvest of life, thirty, sixty and hundredfold, will come. The harvest is visible in the natural, but it comes from the heart, from the spirit. This means even the desert can bloom! It does not depend on natural circumstances but rather on the quality of the inner life, of the spirit, of the heart. God wants every believer here to experience such a harvest in every field, every area of life.

You are like a farmer who plans, cultivates, sows and harvests the fields of your life. This is what your life is all about. This is what the kingdom of God is all about.

Harvest, that is, breakthrough, revival, abundance, blessings, wonders and miracles, occurs in this way. A harvest does not suddenly fall from the sky. It grows out of the earth.

It does not come as a result of perfect circumstances in the natural but as a result of healthy spiritual conditions. These conditions include good seed, good soil, an expectation of harvest and an understanding that time is on our side.

This is what God has called you to. This is what He has for you! It’s God’s timing and plan.רַבִּי rabbī EU

Dear Heavenly Father, open our spiritual eyes and help us to understand the principles of sowing and reaping so that we can cultivate our hearts and plan for harvest in every area of our life. We have a good ground here right now. We will fulfill our pledge to build You a new house. When we sow on good ground, we are not just building buildings, we are building lives. We know that the miracle building in JW is already a testimony of the trust You have placed in the leaders and Your children. We desire to bring greater glory to Your kingdom. We want to be fruitful to bring greater transformation to the life of people around us. In Jesus’ name. Amen.
zounds on March 13th, 2010 3:26 am

i personally believe that pastor kong and the leaders have done their best for the church and for us, and i am grateful for them.

sometimes there isn’t even a need to say so much. its actually amazing this thread has gotten so long. there are always checks and balances that kick in. if something is wrong, it will show. if something was done right, it will also prove itself.
jinglebelle9 on March 13th, 2010 3:47 am

Yes, I am 101% excited to be part of the giving to the A&B!

I’m more than happy to give because I know and I know what’s most important in my giving is my heart towards God :) Unequal amounts, equal sacrifice.

I am convinced Pastor Kong, Sun and the church leadership are wise and trustworthy. It’s my personal trust and gratitude I have for the church I literally grew up in. I feel sad that people commenting in this forum demand shareholder rights. We are not a company or a business organisation :)

Time shall prove itself, and God shall lead His church. And meanwhile, I’m not going to miss out on the great work of God by being a mean-spirited critic :)

Always supporting you, Pastor Kong and Sun!! :)
JustMe on March 13th, 2010 9:15 am

@city111:

“On assumption that Suntec is profitable, there is a price to be paid which is why we need to know what is the actual stake. How much is substantial stake or what is NOT BIG ( as clarified by Suntec on our level of participation) is critical. Since the identity of the Seller ( who sold the shares to the Church ) and the consortium is l unknown, the NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT SEEMS TO BE IRRELEVANT.”

First off, there is no need to assume if the Convention Centre is profitable or not. That is public info. It IS profitable, with I believe a net profit in its last FY of less than $20mil. Nothing to brag about, for sure, but then when you consider it is going to receive a major tenant + news reports on plans to add more retail elements to the Convention side seems to add up that profits will show a steady increase in the coming years.

I believe you are confused over this term of a non-disclosure agreement. It is a standard legal document in many instances, and many key clauses are pretty common. In particular, that the receiving party (in this case CHC) does NOT divulge ANYTHING that cannot already be found from public domain. So long as it is information privy to CHC wrt to Suntec, that falls under the NDA. I do come across NDAs in my course of work, and this is the underlying clause. So CHC cannot simply ‘pick and choose’ what to reveal, but everything really has to be gone through what I think would be their legal counsel. As members of the church, surely you also want the church to be above board when it comes to such legalities.

“The dividends paid by Suntec will not goes to the Church but to the Consortium company who can only declares dividend to the Church another 15 months later unless interim dividend are declared whereby majority of shareholders’ approval are required .”

This does sound logical. But compared to Expo where our rental paid to them will never even come back to us in any form?

Just a note from my own view. With Suntec REIT being one of the listed owners, I do think a dividend payout will be due annually for the simple reason that the REIT would also need to “show” profits for their investments as they are accountable to all their shareholders. But of cos, this is my POV only…

That being said, if you consider the parties involved, all investors would want to have returns on their investments. Hence, they will make the decision that makes the best economic sense for themselves as well as the future plans of the Convention Centre. Surely if a year with no dividends declared, there would be a proper explanation not just to placate chc but also the rest of the shareholders?
teebh on March 13th, 2010 10:19 am

It’s really great that many of us are 101% excited to be a part of the giving to the Arise & Build campaign.

We love the Lord with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind and with all our strength. Meditate on His Word and know that He is our Jehovah Jireh – God our Provider, in all things that we need. He is a God of no lack, He is a God of more than enough. We shall remember the Lord for it is He who gives us the power to get wealth.

We challenge ourselves now to quicken the harvest and to fulfill our pledge in less than four months. I am inspired by the following devotional message which you may have read from the web (and I acknowledge and thank the author for his insight):

John 4:35
Do you not say, “There are still four months and then comes the harvest”? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest!

While Jesus was speaking to the woman at the well in Sychar, the disciples went to get some food. When they returned, they were, as usual, surprised. Jesus had broken all the social and religious rules by speaking to a Samaritan woman, and a loose one at that. The disciples had responded to their hunger pangs while Jesus had responded to the Spirit and remained at the well. His food was to do the will of the Father.

Jesus asks the disciples to lift their eyes and look at the harvest fields. “You say there are four more months until harvest time, but I say the harvest is ripe now.” What is Jesus really saying? He is saying that if we seek His kingdom first and are led by the Spirit, there will always be possibilities, harvests and breakthroughs around us. But if we allow circumstances and carnal needs to lead us, we will miss what God has planned for us.

The disciples focused on their needs and, thereby, focused on their problems. This is why they saw the harvest four months off, just as it was in the natural. But Jesus moves in the supernatural realm where it is always harvest time. In the world of the Spirit, there is no lack, no unsatisfied needs. Therefore, we must open our spiritual eyes. Then we will see what no one else can see.

We live among negative, pessimistic, problem-focused people who identify with all the needs and lack around them. Jesus reacted differently. He saw what the Father showed Him and this was a greater reality than what He saw with His physical eyes. Jesus wanted His disciples to see with their spiritual eyes. And He desires the same for you.

Dear Lord, I thank You for opening my spiritual eyes so that I can see all the possibilities around me. Help me to seize the opportunities for the kingdom of God. Help those people around me also to see with their spiritual eyes. In Jesus’ name. Amen.
GodWordisTruth on March 13th, 2010 5:33 pm

Let me first state my vested interest in this matter: I am a small-time investor in Suntec Reit. As an investor in Suntec Reit, I am elated that CHC see value in committing $310 Million to have a 80% share in a Fund that own SCC.

What is the implied value of ARA Harmony Fund ?100% =$387.50 Million

Did CHC get a good deal ?
http://www.ara-asia.com/home/business/ARAharmonyfund.html
“Suntec Singapore was acquired by the ARA Harmony Fund for S$235 million on 30 September 2009″ =>100%

How much more did CHC value SCC ? wow…….$152.5 Million MORE . A 64% rise in the valuation of SCC within a space of 5 months ?The math don’t make sense to me !

As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am sad, amazed and puzzled that churches in Singapore are now keeping themselves busy “investing” tithes and offerings collected in the name of God to co-investing in Shopping Malls, Convention Centres and Concert Performance Venues to generate cash-flow for their ministry.

Shalom
danieljx on March 13th, 2010 6:08 pm

hi GodWordisTruth

I would like to quote the following from the above article. I think you have either misread or made some personal assumptions in your calculations:

Tan Ye Peng, deputy senior pastor, explains to City News what co-ownership of Suntec Singapore means. “Last year, ARA Asset Management Limited announced that its ARA Harmony Fund had acquired the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre. Harmony Fund’s investors comprise Suntec REIT, which holds 20 percent, and a consortium that holds 80 percent. CHC has bought a significant stake into the consortium.”
City Harvest is looking to raise S$310 million, but this sum is not the value of the property, says Tan. “This amount consists of cost of shares; rental; renovation and equipment; professional building, management logistic and maintenance fees; refundable deposits and moving costs.”

No wonder your maths did not make sense.
petra74 on March 13th, 2010 6:53 pm

hi newcreation,

Thanks! Very thankful to God for great door opening in the marketplace… to be able to meet in such a location is really unthinkable.. Thanks for Ps Phil Pringle’s spoken word in one of the service in Jurong West shortly after our Jurong Building… he mentioned our next target is Suntec… lolz! Amazing!
danieljx on March 13th, 2010 7:36 pm

Hi newcreation

Thank you for rejoicing with us! Greater things are yet to come for our city as we stand together as the Body of Christ in this nation!
petra74 on March 13th, 2010 7:37 pm

hi Danieljx,

Ya we need to stand together… no matter wat.. the name of Jesus is preached and want to see this nation come to the Lord! =)
melvinchen on March 13th, 2010 7:39 pm

Dear newcreation,

Thanks for dropping by ! Praise God for everything – all for the greater Glory for the Kingdom of God. :)
observer on March 13th, 2010 8:38 pm

danieljx,

GodWordisTruth’s math may be flawed, but his underlying argument that CHC might not have gotten a good deal may still be valid, especially if we were to compare the deal completed in Feb 2010 with the one completed in Sep 2009.

In Sep 2009, ARA Harony Fund paid $235m and obtained full ownership and management control (for 78 years) of the entire Suntec Convention Centre. When Suntec Convention Centre does well, ARA Harmony Fund will be getting the full share of the total profit generated by Suntec Convention Centre.

In Feb 2010, CHC committed to pay $310m and obtained only a “minority participation in the ARA Harmony Fund (which translates into “co-ownership” in Suntec Convention Centre), with no management control over the property, and only the right to use certain areas of the property only on weekends, for a certain number of years, as well as the responsibility to renovate those areas. When Suntec Convention Centre does well, CHC will receive dividends from the ARA Harmony Fund, meaning that CHC will be getting a cut of the total profit from Suntec Convention Centre.

Therefore, if we were really objective about it, we have to conclude that by completing its transaction 5 months earlier, ARA Harmony Fund had gotten a far better deal than CHC.
observer on March 13th, 2010 9:09 pm

Just to add, I am not saying that CHC has gotten into a bad deal.

All I’m just saying that if we were to objectively compare between the Sep 2009 deal which made ARA Harmony Fund the sole owner of Suntec Convention Centre and the Feb 2010 deal which made CHC a “co-owner” of the same property, a reasonable person would likely conclude that the Sep 2009 deal is the better of the two.

That does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that CHC has gotten into a bad deal. Just because the first deal one is better than the second does not mean that the second is a bad deal.

Both can be good deals.
John on March 14th, 2010 12:50 am

teebh made an interesting observation.
_______________

Pastor Derek said:

1. “While we are tenants of Halls 601 to 603, this is not necessarily an arrangement that we would have made but for our investment into the holding company, without being at liberty to say more.”

2. “The present arrangements are the first step of many that the Church will need to take to secure centrally located premises for its congregations. Whether these steps revolve solely around Suntec Convention Centre or any other space it is not appropriate to disclose at this point.”

Also, I can now link to Pastor Tan’s comments quoted in CityNews on 7 Mar 2010:

3. “In the event that there are such key events on the same scale as the IMF-World Bank meetings, Tan says City Harvest will exercise flexibility and vacate the space for such clients. “We are now part-owners,” he explains. “It benefits us too.” Tan points out that although City Harvest will use the space for its services, the building is still a commercial entity, and technically not a “church building”. “The church will lease the space to use for our services,” explains Tan. “The difference is that we are also co-owners of this building.””

And connect to Pastor Kong’s point raised on 7 Mar 2010:

4. “Having our own property means we will no longer subject our congregations to the risk of not being able to rent a facility for use, or having to move from time to time to different venues.”
———————-

a) Pastor Derek: we are tenants…
b) Pastor Tan: we are now part owners…
c) Pastor Kong: Having our own property…

Interesting indeed.

I vote (a) as most honest, (b) stretching it since legally you need City Harvest’s name on the title deed (c) same category CHC is 30,000 strong
BayeeSingh on March 14th, 2010 2:28 am

Some people just got no spiritual life. He says, they say , we say, so and so says.

“If only My people will humble themselves and pray and seek My face – they’ll not have missed My rhema. They shall eat at my table and understand all that is in Me.”

Hallelujah.