Whenever I read news about religious leaders lea-duhs or charity heads earning and living like CEOs, I lose a little more faith in organised corporate religions and charities.

In a previous post I mentioned something about limiting the amount of money such organisations should be allowed to accumulate. In a subsequent discussion on a friend’s wall post on Facebook, it was pointed out that it would be better for the government gahmen to come up with legislation to spin off the money making corporate segments from the non-profit core and and subject them to corporate taxes.

In short, run like a corporate, and be taxed like a corporate. That’s definitely a far better idea than placing limits on how much money they can accumulate. So, for the likes of NKF, Renci, and even the New Creation Church, they should be subjected to such a legislation and be taxed accordingly. Draw comparison with the Romans trying to tax the Jewish Temple for all I cared.

On top of which, churches should publish their balance sheets, and list all their expenses. Members who dutifully tithe (contribute 10% of their income), must be advised on how their money is used, and decide on what they should do with the excess, if any. As for charities, when they do their fund raising, especially on TV, then they should advise people what is needed and what the shortfall is, so people who give can decide for themselves if it necessary to continue giving. It is my considered opinion that this would avoid charities or NPOs (Non Profit Organisations) hoarding a large amount of money. This is definitely a better idea compared to forcing them to donate their money to another charity. (No, I am not suggesting enforced distribution of money here, I am not a Communist!)

Of course it may drive these organisations to spend un-necessarily – such as replacing their computers or even metal cabinets more often – to justify their ‘need’ for more money. But look on the bright side, at least that spending would at least put money back in the economy instead of having just a few individuals benefiting from it.

Since I am on the topic of hoarding, it has appeared to me that councils like Town Councils and Community Development Councils (CDCs) is also hoarding a large amount of money. They have so much money to the point that some of the former can gamble invest and lose the money, and some of the latter can actually give 8-month performance bonus even in the current economic climate.

Let’s look at CDCs. From what I gather the CDC also receives grants from the gahmen on top of donations from public and corporates, and I suppose those grants come from the MCYS (Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports). Since a certain CDC has so much money to give away as performance bonuses, then the budget given to the MCYS to be allocated as grants to all CDCs should be reviewed. After all, when a $1.5 million is budgeted this year and only $1.2 million is used, then the budget next year should be cut. Is it not best practice to ensure that everyone fight for funds to be allocated, and not be given the idea they are entitled to it?

Since the MCYS is so tight on budget to the point that sum allocated for public assistance once become a matter of contention, then money allocated to a particular CDC should be cut and be allocated to public assistance or other CDCs. If MCYS is unable to justify why this money should be allocated to it, then the Cabinet or Parliament should allocate it to another ministry that would need it more. The Ministry of Health looks like it’s in dire need of money all the time, doesn’t it?

As for the Town Councils, the argument given has always been that the sinking funds (in reality, a reserve by another name) are needed for other activities, like repairs & maintenance, re-painting of the blocks, building of cover walkways etc. When questioned about how this sinking fund came about, the Town Councils clarified that conservancy charges collected from each unit is only good enough for the day-to-day operations (like paying the contractors that keeps your estate clean), and the sinking funds come from service charges or fines they collect. Since these miscellaneous ‘income’ is good enough to help the town council accumulate a surplus each year, then the question is this: If every unit under its charge is unable to pay their conservancy charges, how long will these surpluses last them for day to day operations and also the regular maintenance required?

Would it not be better that Town Councils consider what better things to do with all that hoard if that money can last them more than 2 years? Take lowering the conservancy charges for example, it not only to ease the burden of residents, but also goes towards easing the burden that the gahmen would bear in terms of GST rebates given regularly to cover part of the conservancy charges. In fact, it will allow the gahmen to allocate the money where it is needed more.

In short, the primary idea here is to encourage better allocation and discourage the hoarding of money, a scarce resource which is already badly distributed. On top of which, a side effect maybe that some of that money goes back into the our domestic economy, which is already insignificant as far as our GDP is concerned.

Recommended Reads:
Zack Whittaker: 10 things I hate about Twitter
Obiter Dicta: Barbarians at the Gate!