City Harvest to co-own Suntec
Mega church City Harvest Church (CHC) moves to snap a downtown property. Church plays monopoly?
Church to co-own Suntec
Amid cheers from the congregation, City Harvest Church (CHC) yesterday announced that it will pay $310 million to become a co-owner of Suntec Singapore, a prime piece of downtown real estate.
Senior pastor Kong Hee broke the news first at CHC’s service at its Jurong West building, then later at another service at the Singapore Expo in Changi.
He said CHC had acquired a ‘substantial stake in a consortium company that owns 80 per cent of a joint venture fund that owns Suntec Singapore’.
The complex’s full name is Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre.
The $310 million includes the cost of acquiring shares in the consortium, rental costs, renovation costs and others.
Suntec Singapore was acquired by ARA Asset Management through the ARA Harmony Fund last year, with its investors comprising Suntec Reit – which holds 20 per cent – and a consortium company which holds 80 per cent. (Source: The Straits Times)
Good investment?
Possibly related:
We will never know if S$310m price tag was economically justified as the church leadership signed a non disclosure agreement with the seller and suntec. They can’t even tell the church members who will be contributing the donations. so much for transparency!
Mar 08
simon, I don’t really know how this investment works. It seemed like it may be funded by the the members of City Harvest Church indirectly. That makes them kinda like shareholders of a fund, doesn’t it. The members probably won’t be getting any return of investments more than the divine.
Mar 08
Chanced upon this blog….will like to comment about simon’s comment.
the whole church has already been contributing by freewill giving over the lsat 5 years and will continue to fund the project, internally via own member’s contributions….so its not true when you say ‘they can’t even tell the church members…” it doesn’t make sense. They themselves have been giving and know it themselves.
CHC is unlike other churches where they get some rich pple to sponsor…doesn’t work that way…everyone is funding it together. So obviously what’s there to ‘tell who’s contributing’ ?
So obviously also….the co-ownership of the place belongs to the church, not any individual or persons and nobody benefits personally from it.
the returns of investments and any dividends goes back to the church and subsidises its own activities and does not get distributed to any individual.
Mar 08
merlion, thanks for the input.
Mar 09
i wonder if City Harvest will get taxed for this investment…
Mar 14
Reproduced below is a reply by the executive pastor of the City Harvest Church in response to the queries raised by church members.
source: http://www.konghee.com/www/2010/03/chc-new-home-suntec-convention-centre/
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.
Mar 19
Merlion,
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
What I had meant to say was: There’s no transparency regarding how the $310million is being spent. So, there’s no way anyone of us, other than the Management Board, can tell if the investment and expenditure is good or not. My reply was in response to the last question of the thread starter “is this a good investment?”
Personally, I believe that transparency is important and the Board should never have agreed to the confidentiality clauses in the contract. As you had said, it is our money, the church’s money which the good Lord has given to us to be stewards. So, we should be accountable to one another in how that large sum of money is spent and invested.
My hope is that they will now (hopefully not at the prodding of the Comm of Charities) seek to be released from the confidentiality clauses and disclose to us members and seek the approval in an EGM.
Simon
Mar 23
Here’s my reply to Ps Derek:
Dear Ps Derek,
Thank you for taking the time to write your post.
I have little doubt that the leadership has sought to do what is right. However, good intentions are not sufficient according to the standard exhorted by Paul in administering the church’s resources,
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.”
Just like judges who are required to do what it right according to law, they are also required to be SEEN to do right as well. The latter is, as often said in legal parlace, more important than the former. For without the latter, the perception of judicial independence, the second leg of justice, begins to fail.
Perhaps, the chuch should consider adopting the following best practice: http://www.ecfa.org/PDF/BestPractices-Churches.pdf
Have a blessed week ahead
In Him,
Simon
Mar 23
Thanks for the interesting input. I haven’t really understood what kind of financial arrangement this is. I’m not a business person. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on non-profit organizations making investments. I’m not against such arrangements but I am curious on how the returns would be redistributed to the members or is it going to be used to finance more of the church’s investment endeavors.
Mar 23