Where can I read / find articles about the above scandal and person involved? Thanks!

A Tan, it’s very easy to see what works to “prise open the public’s wallets and purses”. Just observe Ho Sun Yeow the rocker-cum-missionary for City Harvest Church. She once approached a friend of mine as soon as she heard he graduated and ready to be called to the bar. City Harvest Church selectively chooses the people they want to attend and support the church. They are one of the first churches here to use technology (web cams and live telecast) and music to “spread God’s love”. Donations are by monthly giro. Modern marketing!

Whatever one may think of his misdeeds, maybe rather than send him to jail, he could have been put to better use advising the Community Chest on what techniques to use to prise open the wallets and purses.

I believe that the Community Chest accepts the small charities. But the some charities prefer to have their own fund raising effort, as they think that they can raise more money compared to the funding by Community Chest.

I think that all charities should join the Community Chest or the second fund raising organisation. It ensures better accountability and reduce the cost of fund raising. It also reduce donor fatique.

I receive so many mailers from the non-Community Chest organisations. It is a big waste of money to send out the mailers, when the actual percentage who respond is probably less than 5%

Sunday Times had an article on the blight of “poor” charities.

I had thought that charities like these would be part of the Community Chest.

But it seems not. If so, why not? Does CC have mininum barriers to join?

Refer to your comment (#19)

If there is a centralised fund raising body for specific charities, more people are likely to donate. They help their favorite charity and know that the donations will be better used.

I read today that the Government of Taiwan has decided on the following measures to help the people to cope with high inflation:

1. Reduce income tax
2. Give a monthly allowance of SGD 233 to 450,000 people at the low income level. This is quite generous compared to the smaller handout from the Spore Government.

I am not familiar with Priest Kang’s case. The omission was not a selective action.

The current practice by charities to appoint their board members on the basis of their fund raising skills and/or social standing led to the problems we are now facing. These people, although with good intentions, may not have the time and energy to fully carry out their onerous tasks at the charities’ boardrooms.

If society or the state chooses to impose ever stricter liability on them for their failings, it would be even more difficult to find good and willing candidates in future.

Perhaps Board members should be pre-qualified and appointed on the same basis as company directors in listed companies and paid a reasonable annual salary. The acceptance of remuneration would impose on board members an irrefutable (and legal) obligation to spend more time on the job and carry out their duties more diligently.

Rather than “rewarding” big fund raisers by appointing them as board members, perhaps the charities could give them formal recognition by making them patrons of the particular charity.

I suspect that the reason why the govt is reluctant to have fundraising and the charity dollar managed by a centralised entity is because it sees altruism and philanthropy as being integral to social cohesiveness.

Indeed, PM Lee said as much recently.

If we have fundraising or a single entity handling the money, will that make the rest of us less charitable? After all, people may start to think that well, let the rich donate and let that single entity or organisation handle all of our charity needs.

I do agree with your point about students doing fundraising. I think it should be banned. Students are already inundated with so many things nowadays. Raising money for the schools, especially, should be banned.

After all, it is the govt which should be taking care of the schools and not kids. Also, isn’t that why we pay taxes in the first place?

I am dismayed that you somehow did not mention the priest Kang’s embezzlement.

Was it selectively omitted due to whatever reason?

Would you choose to clarify, please?

Regards
George Mac Master
Finland

The annual limit is for tax exemption. It should be set at an amount that is sufficient to meet the operating needs of the charity.

We should prevent the accumulation of excess funds, as it leads to the kind of problem that have been encountered in our charities.

“Set a limit to the annual amount that can be raised for each charity, including the total amount that can be accumulated in their reserves.”

this is downright …let me think of a polite term… questionable. put a cap to people’s generosity? if exceed limit then how? go to mcys coffers?